I think this movement is based on feelings. It feels bad that a game died, so we should fix it. Unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that, and overly broad rules are goint to cause unintended consequences for small developers.
The art argument is nonsense, although the other extreme is too. Artists need protections so they can earn a living, but the protections currently last far too long.
Either way, nothing is stopping a company creating a game similar to any number of often referenced “dead” games, and there is nothing wrong with letting something run its course and die off, to allow room for new creativity.
I’m not aware of really any small developers pulling stunts like Ubisoft is doing. And there’s always the option to limit new laws to bigger publishers, like the EU is doing with the DMA.
The art argument is not nonsense, not sure where you get the idea. Games like Assassin’s Creed 2 have influenced many people in their design choices for their own games.
And of course there’s something wrong when a company takes away access to singleplayer games you bought, just because they use always-online DRM and don’t want to pay for the servers. These games don’t take away space from new games, it’s a ridiculous idea that them dying off is improving the situation for new games. It’s also ridiculous to think “hey, someone can just develop a game like the old one!”.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Of course things are so simple. I like the “everyone’s art” argument as well.
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
You wouldn’t mind elaborating on “of course things are so simple”? It feels like an awfully vague answer…
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I think this movement is based on feelings. It feels bad that a game died, so we should fix it. Unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that, and overly broad rules are goint to cause unintended consequences for small developers.
The art argument is nonsense, although the other extreme is too. Artists need protections so they can earn a living, but the protections currently last far too long.
Either way, nothing is stopping a company creating a game similar to any number of often referenced “dead” games, and there is nothing wrong with letting something run its course and die off, to allow room for new creativity.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I’m not aware of really any small developers pulling stunts like Ubisoft is doing. And there’s always the option to limit new laws to bigger publishers, like the EU is doing with the DMA.
The art argument is not nonsense, not sure where you get the idea. Games like Assassin’s Creed 2 have influenced many people in their design choices for their own games.
And of course there’s something wrong when a company takes away access to singleplayer games you bought, just because they use always-online DRM and don’t want to pay for the servers. These games don’t take away space from new games, it’s a ridiculous idea that them dying off is improving the situation for new games. It’s also ridiculous to think “hey, someone can just develop a game like the old one!”.