slowly mapping along

love love love bluesky search not searching the whole of what you typed

Responded to this on Twitter here: x.com/111112oo/sta...

service game discourse is another example of this, sure they're demanded by braindead executives, grind workers into mulch and everyone who worked on it gets fired the nanosecond it launches without being fortnite, but a guy who called me gay also noticed they were bad, so they're good now actually

As in the day they have to close or whatever services they may run the game on stop. Their hand will be forced then.

Fair worry. In the California bill this is the criteria: "...core features of a digital game, consistent with the reasonable expectations of a purchaser based on how the digital game was advertised..." Do you think that applies? Also, companies can't expect to be able to run and thus hide forever.

Context here?

These things needed to be accounted for from the beginning, you can't use a lack of a plan to excuse abusive terms.

Downloading is a service though. The idea is related to SKG, sure, but It's never been an actual demand of SKG, unless you can prove me wrong otherwise.

Where did he do that? If he did that would be weird as he keeps repeating with SKG that obviously companies cannot provide service forever.

How long your game lasts is a very important piece of info that will affect customer choice, and shouldn't be hidden, especially when next to games that will last forever! And just because it is in the TOS doesn't make it fair or even legal.

The problem here is largely the full game being destroyed, SKG have said they are fine with not all features remaining. The exact legal line here should come up to the law and such.

If it closes in a way that fully takes away what the customer bought to own at an undisclosed date, yes. I don't see how that is vauge.

The 3DS eshop closure is unrelated, because customers still own their core purchased products from it, unless they delete or lose it.

Put the same products in a purchase with a properly defined time of use (rental/subscription), and it becomes much more fair. (Even though the ebook has no need to act like that, it is another story)

Compare a book you paid for being ripped out of your hands at a random date with an ebook being deleted at a random date because of DRM. Both are functionally the same in terms of the deals given to the customer, the first feels worse and would be harder to pull off in real life.

Our laws haven't caught up with this practice because it is only with the internet that this practice has become possible to get away with, being a new slate to set new expectations, not possible in the physical world.

-These terms are usually hidden deep within a TOS which you will not see on the product before purchase other than maybe a tiny link to that giant legal wall.
-The date that the product will stop working is not disclosed. If we could see the future it would be known but we don't.

Ross has talked about various possible solutions in his videos.

The server kit should not be an extra payment. Because it's extortion if you take the game away at a random undisclosed date and then go "pay us money to keep it".
The server and client and 2 different parts of a key, but only one half is being sold.

It is Us vs Them when it comes to consumers vs predatory and undisclosed terms in the purchase of goods and services.

They are "bad eggs" if they sold people a game that they will take away at a random undisclosed date. Basically any game likely to be affected by SKG.

This looks to be valid. I don't know where copyright is relevant here. SKG says they are open to any solution and have suggested things like
-Releasing server software
-Offline Modes
-Subscription models (covers consumer rights at least but not preservation)

What haven't they planned? They have a stated end goal, are open to any solution, and have suggested potential methods.

What would be a method not at gunpoint? Is any law regulating companies putting them at gunpoint and bad?

If it affects them then they are bad eggs, at least how any law regarding this should go. Is any Monster Hunter game even online only? Should be exempt if not.

A potential Rivals type game being effected in that case would be Marvel's fault, for only allowing predatory terms.

Ok yes that is going too far. But you did mention Ross in this and the replies in general?

water is in ingredients

How is caring about consumer rights "entitled"? It's entitled in the case that we should be entitled to consumer rights.

ai reply

I have encountered SO MANY gamedevs on bluesky like this.

Stop Killing Games yall

petite bourgeoisie gamedevs love to insist that them obscuring the terms of an exchange for goods and services is actually a good deal for you!
(I was reply blocked after this)