Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever touched grass? You could also argue that posting in an online message board is linked with right wing extremism because there are right wing extremists posting stuff online.
Ask women how it goes if they pop into voice chat in a multiplayer game. Ask an AAVE speaker how people react to them while gaming. Are you really going to tell me that the average gamer is just as bad as the average internet user? It’s kind of hilarious to be having this conversation with “ептсука”, certainly a fitting name for someone who would defend gamers as nice people.
Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures
341–346 of 346 posts
Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also want to add that proposing people to buy an IP from a company (or pay it to keep supporting it) is very disingenuous and even borderline trolling. That's not how it works even remotely. Companies do not "negotiate" with consumers about it. So even bringing this up shows the amount of dismissiveness and bad faith that SKG "deniers" bring to the discussion. Utterly baffling...
Is it really disingenuous to point out "haha, well obviously you guys simply aren't willing to put up enough cash to make this attractive for the rightsholders"? I think it is simply the truth of the matter. The financial incentives don't line up, the rightsholders are not keeping you from playing games just because they're evil. But I think you missed why I brought this up, I did so only because you specifically cla…
Regarding my comment, I already replied right there that I'm willing to pay more money for the games if it means they are preserved. You again misunderstand (probably on purpose) what it's all about...
Gaming industry is not poor (although they like to tell you that). They rack billions on exploitative mechanics like lootboxes, gachas and live services, but don't want to keep their games alive even though it would cost them a fraction of what they earn to do so. This confirms that this is not about money, at least not in the way you are trying to portrait it. Also remember that gaming companies love to evade taxes. Yeah, they are (totally not evil) entities who act with pure goodwill towards their consumers...
Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask women how it goes if they pop into voice chat in a multiplayer game. Ask an AAVE speaker how people react to them while gaming. Are you really going to tell me that the average gamer is just as bad as the average internet user? It’s kind of hilarious to be having this conversation with “ептсука”, certainly a fitting name for someone who would defend gamers as nice people.
Gamers are more than just people playing DOTA and Counter Strike and COD and Destiny.
This inherently affects how outsiders will view gamers, which is why GSK branding themselves as such is a mistake.
Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures
#344As someone who does care about it, I stopped buying these games myself and went 100% local indie and retro games.
Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would result in fewer online games that stop working altogether when the publisher wants to stop it. All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this. It's really not that complicated. Not "free", of course, but it's not exactly expensive either if you plan to do that from the moment you write your first line of code.
Game developer here. If it were “just” that easy I’d love to support this. > All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this You’re making a huge assumption here both about the scope of the law, and about how straightforward this is to do. I’ve worked in games where we could drop a server binary over the fence an that would b…
This spawned a very large thread, so I wasn’t sure where to respond, but it is shocking to me how most of the supporters of this in the comments make a fundamental error: they presuppose that people are going to write the game to begin with, no matter what the change in incentives is.
It would be like me making a law that said “every time you purchase a game, you must pay at least $100 for it,” and then proceed to explain how the quality of all games will go up, and that it will help the small Indy developers because now they get to multiply their guaranteed; existing player base by $100!
All of the arguments are: “well yes, this ight change the way you have to architect the game, and yes this might involve dictating what specific technologies and vendors you can or can’t use, and yes, this might increase costs, but…” and then go on to say why that is completely reasonable.
If someone made an equivalent law for websites: “any website you publish and sell access to must be made available, in perpetuity, to anyone who has ever used it” you would not get the open source utopia people seem to think, where everything is just as great, AND every individual and company on the planet took the extra time to ensure that they are compliant, regardless of the change in incentives.
I understand wanting to prevent someone from “artificially bricking” an app, but this vaguely-worded law isn’t it.
Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey! That's exactly what lobbyists against regulations would say!
Your mindset is why we got rid out of nuclear energy. Nuclear lobby bad, consumer lobby good. Consumer lobby didn't care that what they wanted was impossible (risk free free, carbon free, cheap energy) and angrily demanded by law things the industry couldn't provide, and got nothing as a result. It might very well be the case for this gaming law as well, that the result would have been less games in Europe as game pr…