Why is that unreasonable?
If I buy a chair or a dvd, I can expect to last as long as I don’t break it or let it degrade too much.
The only things that seem to make this apply to software are planed hardware obsolescence, and needing to connect to the company’s server with no option to host your own.
audin@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Because a game is not a chair, nor is it a DVD.
Any piece of software requires periodic maintenance to keep it functional as operating systems, drivers etc. run away from it in compatibility. Demanding that any game developer spends money in perpetuity to keep a game “playable” is completely absurd which anyone understands if they just think about it for a second.
This becomes even worse when you take examples like you mentioned, where the entire software is built around the premise of connecting to centrally controlled servers.
What do you suggest should be done for example if World of Warcraft is permanently shut down, should Blizzard be forced to release the entire source code? Should they be forced to spend man hours to release something publicly that was never meant to be released? Should they be forced to document it?
When you buy a game that requires a connection to play, you’re not even buying a game, you’re buying a service. If you don’t want to agree to the terms that probably already outline this pretty clearly, don’t buy the game.
As nice as it would be to force companies to open source their code when they stop selling it, it will never happen because there are too many implications that are completely untenable, one of which is trademarks.
s12@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
It’s still a product though. Besides I believe DVDs can contain software data as well as video data. Many of the older game discs were probably DVDs of some kind/
I thought this too at first, but you could easily keep an outdated device offline to avoid the need to update it and keep it secure. Besides, compatibility layers exist (WINE, Proton, etc).
I don’t know much about that game, but I think the guy said that that game was subscription rather than purchase, so I reckon that specific game probably made it sufficiently clear that you weren’t buying it. For other games where that is infeasible; do the same. … or whatever they feasibly can.
Then they should make that clear.
I do strongly agree with that. Sadly though, many people just don’t know what they’re getting into. By the time they do, they’re already hooked on the series. It wouldn’t be as bad if the terms were clearer.
Releasing closed source server binaries, or even just not being allowed to go after people who make their own server when no official one is available would be a step forward though.
philluminati@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
I can go to Google and log in to free email. I can create word documents and spreadsheet in google docs. I can learn AI with Google projects. I can create unlimited private repos on GitHub, play lots of games on steam for free. I can download Winamp from oldversions.com for free. I can get a Linux distro for nothing off servers. I can use a freevpn, watch YouTube for free.
Literally handing over game servers to an authorised community to run or supporting games forever actually is possible in the modern day.