Not a fan of this, just like the dozen other center-left tech movements going back 3 decades. It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
How is that possible when customers don't KNOW when there is going to be an end-of-date to the software that they don't know about?
That is one of the things SKG is asking for: that companies to give customers upfront information about end-of-date access. How is that a bad thing?
The information is out there. Customers are perfectly capable of acting on said information. The most successful digital PC games storefront provides clear disclaimers about anti-features. But the issue of a bulk of customers being entitled to their instant gratification remains. Mindless consumers are the primary preventable cause of modern societal issues, and these movements sidestep that.
It's more popular to support a petition than it is to directly tell kids and adults to stop enjoying Billie Eilish (or whoever is current gen Britney Spears) and Call of Duty; mindless consumerism is all connected.
I don't mind truth in advertising legislation. It would put only a dent in the overarching issue. The petition is much more expansive and exciting than that.
Is it? Can you point to me where live-service games have an end-of-service date? Because for as far as I have seen, i have not seen that being publicly available anywhere. Or am I missing something?
Live-service games have a readily apparent end-of-service baked in. There's no existing or practical basis for an agreed upon end-of-service date, unless it's in a contract. That's not even shoved under the rug the way single-player games and/or dlc with online DRM will eventually have issues, of which I admit the concerns have substantial validity. When I said the information is out there, I meant that customers are already provided the means to either make informed decisions, or recognize a supplier as shady.
But actually coercing companies to provide an end-of-life date for live-service games leads us to Sowell's three questions; compared to what, at what cost, and what hard evidence do you have? Enough customers are satisfied with existing models for this "elastic good" [1] for the model to continue, while others seek out more reputable companies and their live-service offerings, or forsake this section of the industry all together. This has little to do with the petition's goal of preserving media. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere? I have no problem with consumer protection laws merely informing customers that a product or service has an end-of-life.
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date. The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
(I hate the morally loaded and subjectively ambiguously interpretative nature of this term, but it's commonly used to denote human wants instead of human needs)
. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere?
Second sentence on the main website once you click on the URL:
"Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers. An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends."
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date.
How? Here's an example. I bought Riff Racer years ago. I didn't know that it had an end-of-date. The developers never said it was going to have an end-of-life. No where prior to its shut down was it indicated the game would no longer function without the developer's servers. The community had to step in with modded files to make it work. In that scenario, HOW was I supposed to reasonably identify this game would stop working and HOW was I supposed to know that this indie title was "hostile software"?
The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
You cannot disprove a negative.
I'm a consumer. I buy video games. I avoid most AAA titles, but even indie titles have abrupt end-of-life cycles that we as consumers are not privy to. The Riff Racer was just one example -- there are countless others.
As I asked before, HOW are customers supposed to know some product is "hostile software" without any indication that there is an end-of-life planned, like in the Riff Racer example?
How is that possible when customers don't KNOW when there is going to be an end-of-date to the software that they don't know about?
That is one of the things SKG is asking for: that companies to give customers upfront information about end-of-date access. How is that a bad thing?
The information is out there. Customers are perfectly capable of acting on said information. The most successful digital PC games storefront provides clear disclaimers about anti-features. But the issue of a bulk of customers being entitled to their instant gratification remains. Mindless consumers are the primary preventable cause of modern societal issues, and these movements sidestep that.
It's more popular to support a petition than it is to directly tell kids and adults to stop enjoying Billie Eilish (or whoever is current gen Britney Spears) and Call of Duty; mindless consumerism is all connected.
I don't mind truth in advertising legislation. It would put only a dent in the overarching issue. The petition is much more expansive and exciting than that.
Is it? Can you point to me where live-service games have an end-of-service date? Because for as far as I have seen, i have not seen that being publicly available anywhere. Or am I missing something?
Live-service games have a readily apparent end-of-service baked in. There's no existing or practical basis for an agreed upon end-of-service date, unless it's in a contract. That's not even shoved under the rug the way single-player games and/or dlc with online DRM will eventually have issues, of which I admit the concerns have substantial validity. When I said the information is out there, I meant that customers are already provided the means to either make informed decisions, or recognize a supplier as shady.
But actually coercing companies to provide an end-of-life date for live-service games leads us to Sowell's three questions; compared to what, at what cost, and what hard evidence do you have? Enough customers are satisfied with existing models for this "elastic good" [1] for the model to continue, while others seek out more reputable companies and their live-service offerings, or forsake this section of the industry all together. This has little to do with the petition's goal of preserving media. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere? I have no problem with consumer protection laws merely informing customers that a product or service has an end-of-life.
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date. The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
(I hate the morally loaded and subjectively ambiguously interpretative nature of this term, but it's commonly used to denote human wants instead of human needs)
Second sentence on the main website once you click on the URL:
"Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers. An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends."
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
How? Here's an example. I bought Riff Racer years ago. I didn't know that it had an end-of-date. The developers never said it was going to have an end-of-life. No where prior to its shut down was it indicated the game would no longer function without the developer's servers. The community had to step in with modded files to make it work. In that scenario, HOW was I supposed to reasonably identify this game would stop working and HOW was I supposed to know that this indie title was "hostile software"?
You cannot disprove a negative.
I'm a consumer. I buy video games. I avoid most AAA titles, but even indie titles have abrupt end-of-life cycles that we as consumers are not privy to. The Riff Racer was just one example -- there are countless others.
As I asked before, HOW are customers supposed to know some product is "hostile software" without any indication that there is an end-of-life planned, like in the Riff Racer example?