Comment on Giant FAQ on The European Initiative to Stop Destroying Games!

• ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  First off, thanks for a response that isn’t filled with hate! It’s been rare when I’ve made posts about this topic. I appreciate it!

  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.”

  Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I’d appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer. They’ve got The Crew but what other games? If it’s really just The Crew then the issue is with Ubisoft, not the gaming industry. A big list would make it clear this is an industry wide issue that needs to be addressed.

  I’m also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers. Cigarettes literally kill consumers, but total bans on them are rare. Instead, consumers are given a very clear message when buying cigarettes. It’s up to the consumer to decide if they’re alright with it. Are service games worse than cigarettes?

  Now a practice doesn’t need to kill people before a law bans it. Recently there have been laws enacted so that if a company sells a subscription online they must allow for cancellation of that subscription online. Frequently, companies would require people to call a customer service line to cancel a subscription, but that could be a huge hassle to do! It’s clear that companies do this only to try and screw over customers and there’s no reason it should exist as a practice, so banning it makes sense. Are live service games the same? They definitely could be, but I also think there are legitimate reasons to sell games as a service. Instead of banning it completely, why not just ensure service games come with a clear label like cigarettes. A note that access to the game is not permanent and the company can revoke it in the future. If someone doesn’t like that, they don’t need to play it.

  Ive seen two arguments against “why not just let consumers decide for themselves?” The idea that consumers don’t have a choice. All companies will eventually sell their games in this way and consumers won’t be able to avoid it even if they wanted to. I would agree if the gaming industry was a monopoly and gamers really didn’t have any choice, but that’s not the case at all. Gaming is probably one of the most competitive industries in the modern world thanks to how easy it is for anyone to make a game and sell it worldwide. Gamers have enough choice that I don’t see the “monopoly” argument as persuasive as it is in something like the right to repair movement.

  The other argument seems to be “games are art and must be protected” but that leaves the realm of consumer protection and enters philosophy. There aren’t laws mandating the protection of other forms of art so I’m doubtful any government would enact such a law. Also, personally have to disagree. I’m in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever. Focus on enjoying your life, as temporary as it is, instead of being down that it is temporary. I think games can be enjoyed in the same way. Of course, if a company is purposefully making it temporary to try and make a few extra bucks, that’s shitty and should be called out, but we’ve gone back to consumer protection instead of philosophy.

  source

  • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I’d appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer.

    Before Ross started this campaign, he’d been steadily creating a video series dedicated to cataloging games that are killed for the past 8 years, called Dead Game News. Here’s a link to a playlist of the series, and you can see the titles of the games he covers in the various episodes that have been killed. The Crew is certainly not alone, it was chosen to be a centerpiece of the campaign because it had so many people who owned it, having a fairly high profile shutdown, and being a super clear-cut example of a publisher actively disabling a game that clearly didn’t need to be.

    I’m also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers.

    Instead of banning it completely,

    I want to point out that outright banning live service games has never been suggested or wanted in this campaign. The proposed solution is to make it a legal requirement to have an end-of-life plan for live service games that are not subscription based. This would effectively mean the publisher/developer would need to account for the need to make the game playable after they decide to end support from the beginning of development, and make choices that would make that possible (choosing software and licenses that won’t conflict with an End-of-Life). Alternatively, they could either make it not require a central server at all, or make it subscription based.

    While the game is supported, they would still be able to run it however they please, their profit model would not be banned, the only thing that changes is what happens when the game is no longer profitable enough to support.

    I’m in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, but many people have the philosophy of preserving our history, so as to learn from it, and for future generations to experience. I personally am very grateful that I can read the thoughts of someone who lived a thousand years before me in a book, thanks to fanatical archivists who preserved it. It’s the closest any of us can come to experiencing a time machine, the very concept can fill one with awe. Nothing will last forever, but I and many others derive meaning and value from keeping history alive for future generations to learn from, to enjoy, to ponder. Us preserving things in our corner does not disturb someone else from living with impermanence, it is only there for those who wish to partake.

    source
  • Whitebrow@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There’s a few listed here:

    delistedgames.com/extinct-list/

    But the problem is usually much larger where a game requires you to login to play even the single player component but is unable to do so with entire services going down, such as gamespy or others, more on that here:

    tvtropes.org/pmwiki/…/DefunctOnlineVideoGames

    The list grows ever larger and even some online game news publications have their own lists, small example below:

    kotaku.com/dead-games-2023-delisted-servers-offli…

    There’s quite a few others, but I do agree with the point that there should be an aggregate for all of these, that could be presented as a universal list that hopefully stops growing in the coming years.

    source

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Thanks for the lists! Delistedgames seems to focus more on games that aren’t sold anymore rather than shutdown. For example, they list Grand Theft Auto IV as a delisted game because they only sell Grand Theft Auto IV: Complete Edition now.

      Weird that TVTropes seems to have a better list of games that not only aren’t sold anymore but don’t work even if you bought them. It’s an interesting list. I feel bad for all the people who played Family Guy Online for the 8 months it existed in 2012!

      The Kotaku list is nice too but they do note that some of the games are still playable single player. It’s only the online multiplayer that’s not going to work since the servers are shutting down. I’m not sure how I feel about that one. Is it still killing a game if single player modes still work?

      source