. 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?
"with no stated expiration date" I still don't see where a EOL date is mandated. Again, I have no trouble with updated truth-in-advertising laws that require disclosures of drm and online dependencies. This petition was critiqued by more than just GrifterPirateSoftware for not just simplyfing, but oversimplifying and conflating distinct phenomenon to the point of practical impotence.
Riff Racer is a failure both on Steam's end, and on the community for not identifying badly designed online dependencies and blasting the devs for it. If deficient disclaimers are common enough on Steam, then Valve's feet need to be held to the fire until they stop being as piss-poor as other app stores. We don't need US federal government or globohomo EU for this.
Where's the negative? I'm capable of only purchasing from GOG, downloading from abandonware sites, staying tuned in to enthusiast communities that care about this stuff, etc. I'm not gonna be 100% successful, nor would legislation be 100% successful.
Customers are supposed to identify hostile software by granting importance to experts that research and publicize said issues. That and only buying from storefronts that offer refunds or credit if a seller isn't being forthcoming. As I've said plenty of times in the past, "customer is always right" (as interpreted by consumers) should have never replaced caveat emptor in the capacity it has.
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?
"with no stated expiration date" I still don't see where a EOL date is mandated. Again, I have no trouble with updated truth-in-advertising laws that require disclosures of drm and online dependencies. This petition was critiqued by more than just GrifterPirateSoftware for not just simplyfing, but oversimplifying and conflating distinct phenomenon to the point of practical impotence.
Riff Racer is a failure both on Steam's end, and on the community for not identifying badly designed online dependencies and blasting the devs for it. If deficient disclaimers are common enough on Steam, then Valve's feet need to be held to the fire until they stop being as piss-poor as other app stores. We don't need US federal government or globohomo EU for this.
Where's the negative? I'm capable of only purchasing from GOG, downloading from abandonware sites, staying tuned in to enthusiast communities that care about this stuff, etc. I'm not gonna be 100% successful, nor would legislation be 100% successful.
Customers are supposed to identify hostile software by granting importance to experts that research and publicize said issues. That and only buying from storefronts that offer refunds or credit if a seller isn't being forthcoming. As I've said plenty of times in the past, "customer is always right" (as interpreted by consumers) should have never replaced caveat emptor in the capacity it has.