I think the most realistic alternative is to just have an ‘earliest end-of-life date’ plainly visible at the time of purchase. Keeping these games online forever isn’t feasible, but shutting down something people paid for with the expectation of continuous service isn’t good either. Just make it clear how long the developers WILL support the game for, at the very minimum, and let people make their decision based on that.
Comment on Giant FAQ on The European Initiative to Stop Destroying Games!
atro_city@fedia.io 5 weeks ago
Ross is right, if you don't propose an alternative and don't actually try to do anything to bring that alternative to the public, why don't you just fuck off?
ngwoo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
helenslunch@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
The “buy” button (or any similar verbiage) needs to go away (unless the provider intends for it to be available forever) and replaced with “rent for x years”.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
“Stop Killing Games: Sign the petition or fuck off!”
At least you’re honest about not wanting a conversation and just wanting signatures.
proton_lynx@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Wtf are you talking about? He specifically says that he wants to have a conversation with people that will give constructive criticism, not someone that’s just complaining and not giving any solutions or alternatives to solve the problem.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Alternatives would be boycotts directed at the worst offenders and a law that ensures service games are clearly labeled so consumers can make an informed choice instead of banned outright. I’m going to get downvoted and told to fuck off because I’m wrong regardless of what I say unless it’s “I 100% support this”.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 weeks ago
Boycotts are fickle things, sometimes gathering a following big enough to make a corporation cave, but many other times, not getting any steam at all.
And even if a boycott is successful against one company, it doesn’t mean they won’t try the same thing again, or try their usual ‘do something extreme, then walk it back to where you originally wanted it’ two-step, which is generally very effective at getting what they want. They know how to manipulate the public to their desires, they have whole divisions dedicated to that (though sometimes even they get caught unawares). If we went this route, the issue is that this tactic is done frequently enough that people would likely get boycott fatigue. “Ugh, another campaign? Another publisher screwing us? I just can’t anymore.”
At least against corporations, actual consumer protection law is a much more reliable long-term solution to an enemy that will try every tactic to avoid real, effective change in favor of the consumer.
proton_lynx@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Unfortunately, boycotts and labels are not enough. I wish we didn’t have to involve the government in this, believe me. There are dozens of different dark patterns and malicious compliance that companies apply to trick customers into buying things. You might be someone informed enough that would not fall for those tricks, but there a lot of people that would benefit from a law that prevents companies from doing that in the first place (children, people with mental disorders like gambling addiction, etc).
atro_city@fedia.io 5 weeks ago
I see your reading comprehension is atrocious.