151–160 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its silly to me that soo many people buy into such schemes
The principle of “Buyer Beware” should not be the foundational legal basis for conducting commerce in a civilized society.
The goal is a good one, but it's too specific. It should not be allowed for a developer or device manufacturer to kill or nerf any product remotely, once it was bought and paid for. This problem is sneaking into other non-game software, and even physical devices! If you buy a thing you shouldn't need to tether that thing to the manufacturer, and it shouldn't be possible to make it useless when they decide to turn dow…
It should not be allowed for a developer or device manufacturer to kill or nerf any product remotely, once it was bought and paid for. This is silly. No developer should be obligated to support an online game forever. Imagine a highly complex online game that requires a few people and tens of thousands a month in cloud costs to keep it running. Now imagine that this game is 25 years old and only has 100 players total…
for existing services built in stupid ways, this may be impractical. After such a law is passed, services won't be built in stupid ways in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im a professional gamedev. There is pretty much no indie on earth who actually depends on cloud systems to work, because that stuff is expensive and indies dont have money. Thats a megacorp thing particularly from AAA publishers. Indies are either singleplayer (this is 0 problem) or they have local servers. That article is paid for by the lobbysts and completely incorrect and wrong.
Two of my favorite games of all, Chivalry 2 and Hell Let Loose, are indie studio games and this law would make more expensive to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should not be allowed for a developer or device manufacturer to kill or nerf any product remotely, once it was bought and paid for. This is silly. No developer should be obligated to support an online game forever. Imagine a highly complex online game that requires a few people and tens of thousands a month in cloud costs to keep it running. Now imagine that this game is 25 years old and only has 100 players total…
yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. for existing services built in stupid ways, this may be impractical. After such a law is passed, services won't be built in stupid ways in the first place.
Only works for games where you don't have saved states in the game. For example, counter strike.
For a game like World of Warcraft, how do you suppose to make this work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my personal opinion, the actual problem there relating to "that's our IP" is the length of copyright. 20 years max will provide plenty of reward for creators. Some work on making copyright protect creators first, preferencing them over later owners, would also be good. We also need works to be free to use, legislated so, after copyright expires. That would be to prevent, for example, Trade Marks being leveraged ag…
An example here is that Quake was released in 1996 and the source code released in 1999. Quake 2: 1997->2001, Quake 3 Arena: 1999->2005. I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that these releases were negative to ID or the game series.
I'd like to see an example of just one game that failed commercially due to a company releasing the source code to an older game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. for existing services built in stupid ways, this may be impractical. After such a law is passed, services won't be built in stupid ways in the first place.
> yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. Only works for games where you don't have saved states in the game. For example, counter strike. For a game like World of Warcraft, how do you suppose to make this work?
Similarly, counter strike was famous for having a thriving community of private servers before they released cs:go
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. Only works for games where you don't have saved states in the game. For example, counter strike. For a game like World of Warcraft, how do you suppose to make this work?
are you aware that people do regularly run private servers of world of warcraft? It might pose problems for their monetisation model, but nobody says they have to release the server code on launch day, just that it should be released eventually, before they shut everything down. Though note that games like TF2 are famous for pioneering loot boxes etc yet have large cultures of private server hosts. Similarly, counter…
I get what problem you're trying to solve. But it's honestly a much more difficult problem than you think it is. It's not as simple as just allow others to run servers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies are hypocrites about this. On the one hand they say “we need to shut this down because we’re losing money on it.” On the other hand, asking them to release aspects of the game to self-host the infrastructure: “but that’s our IP and it’s valuable to us.” You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Sitting pretty on unprofitable IP in the hopes that it might someday make you money again is a net loss to socie…
Our society was designed from the foundations to benefit the owning class, and this is a prime, easily observed example of that. You're completely correct and it doesn't matter, because the point of IP law is to allow people who know nothing to sit on assets they own and make money for doing no work. If someone wants to argue this position, I would challenge them to explain why anything around IP law exists as it doe…
Early on, you also had to prove your patrnt with a physical thing. Couldnt write the patent to deceive. And for making plain language, you got protection for 17 years.
Now, theres shit like 'business process patents', genetic patents, and other horrible. And patents are now writtten to confuse and hide, unlike plain language.
Copyrights were basically bought by Disney. Theyve been grossly perverted due to money interests.
Im mostly OK with trademarks. It comes from Heraldry and family coat of arms. Trademarked colors are quite bullshit however.
Here's an idea, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's not new: instead of forcing all game devs to ensure longevity, just make clear criteria for what constitutes that longevity, and developers that meet them (or promise to meet them when they shut down) can slap a nice bright logo onto their game. Something like the rating system, except it's a line that's only there for games that claim they are "yours forever". S…
Is it just because some gamers are very irate or is this actually a bad idea? If so, how?