I dont think its fair that is imposed on creators of video games. Is there some clause where this only applies to the developers we all dont like? I think its too much to mandate, although making voices heard about this is important in influencing developers to choose to not kill their games. I think a law is too far.
They will just have to stick to advertised timelines, and allow people to use that software, as they please, after they stop supporting it. I do not see how this is unfair.
I dont see how turning off servers is preventing people from using it how they please. Those with the game files are free to do whatever they want with it.
they aren’t just turning the servers off, while there is part of the suit due to advertised promise vs what happened, the second point is they literally pushed an update that made running the software on your own, private, server, impossible. The point is that the game companies are making it so you are not able to do what you want with it. This is just one suit that is fighting for structures that protect you owning what you buy. It is multifaceted, from right to repair, to right to use software you purchase in any personal way you like. there is a broad, multi-industry, movement to make all products a “service”. Software was one of the first, and currently the largest, set of industries that do this. From single player video games needing to contact a company server just to start, to features of your car, house, and appliances requiring continuous payment schemes, where they can just deny access, even though you paid for them. It has gone on for along time, and now the mainstream population is being affected, and some are fighting back.
I am clearly on the side of you own what you pay for. They don’t owe you servers, updates, etc. They owe you being able to do those things, for your own purposes (ie not commercial), and not disabling everything when they no longer feel like putting resources into it.
I dont think its fair that is imposed on creators of video games. Is there some clause where this only applies to the developers we all dont like? I think its too much to mandate, although making voices heard about this is important in influencing developers to choose to not kill their games. I think a law is too far.
They will just have to stick to advertised timelines, and allow people to use that software, as they please, after they stop supporting it. I do not see how this is unfair.
I dont see how turning off servers is preventing people from using it how they please. Those with the game files are free to do whatever they want with it.
they aren’t just turning the servers off, while there is part of the suit due to advertised promise vs what happened, the second point is they literally pushed an update that made running the software on your own, private, server, impossible. The point is that the game companies are making it so you are not able to do what you want with it. This is just one suit that is fighting for structures that protect you owning what you buy. It is multifaceted, from right to repair, to right to use software you purchase in any personal way you like. there is a broad, multi-industry, movement to make all products a “service”. Software was one of the first, and currently the largest, set of industries that do this. From single player video games needing to contact a company server just to start, to features of your car, house, and appliances requiring continuous payment schemes, where they can just deny access, even though you paid for them. It has gone on for along time, and now the mainstream population is being affected, and some are fighting back.
I am clearly on the side of you own what you pay for. They don’t owe you servers, updates, etc. They owe you being able to do those things, for your own purposes (ie not commercial), and not disabling everything when they no longer feel like putting resources into it.