221–230 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say this shows how corrupted elites are. If the "democratic" entity spends all the time with lobbyists, and not the initiative which started the discussion, this speaks volumes.
what can you do? they have billions and we have signatures.
PirateSoftware predicted this would happen and got death threats, swatted, multiple videos hating on him. Like he is the villain. Lobby groups, politics and copyright law are the issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
False dilemma. Riot could release the server binaries when they end League of Legends service, and no one would get thrown on the street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing. You're aware that they are taxed products that people buy with their wages, right?
Yes, but you'd generate the same value by simply collecting them.
I mean, we only spend money when we believe that what we buy with it is more valuable than the money we've spent, so there is some underlying activity or follow up to spending the money that naturally follows otherwise, the buyer would perceive no benefit and would not buy again
So how are you equating collection and enjoyment of your purchase as the same?
video games would normally distract people who would otherwise remain politically inactive
when these establishments attempt to insert their propaganda and control mechanisms into these industries, it infuriates millions of people who just want to be left alone
As is stated in the article, but is not clear just from the headline, this was not an unexpected outcome from the initiative. The Commission did not seek discussions with SKG, and spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups. SKG was prepared for this, and their intention has been to join up with the group putting together the new Digital Fairness Act, since the objective there is very simi…
> spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups. The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens. To ask the fox to guard the hen house is killing democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.
> > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment > > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but…
"We released MyGame 3 a month ago, sales aren't looking great, announce EoL for MyGame 1 we released 6 years ago to get those bums off it." (or the more charitable version where money's tight and the AWS costs aren't helping)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say this shows how corrupted elites are. If the "democratic" entity spends all the time with lobbyists, and not the initiative which started the discussion, this speaks volumes.
what can you do? they have billions and we have signatures.
We also have votes, but unfortunately getting people to consider this sort of issue while casting their ballot¹ is rather difficult. Getting people to vote for the bigger picture for their benefit and that of us all doesn't work well as they are far more likely to vote on a single issue that has been in the news recently and whoever they vote for will u-turn on once in control anyway…
--------
[1] or even getting them to care at all, in the case of European elections [not that this is directly relevant here because of spit brexit].
As is stated in the article, but is not clear just from the headline, this was not an unexpected outcome from the initiative. The Commission did not seek discussions with SKG, and spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups. SKG was prepared for this, and their intention has been to join up with the group putting together the new Digital Fairness Act, since the objective there is very simi…
This is how the European Union works.
Nice job regurgitating point-for-point all of the talking points that the publishers spoon-fed you.