this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
235 points (99.2% liked)
Games
16740 readers
1107 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Title of PCGamer's article is misleading, they want a court order to do it. Proof of death is not enough.
They have to do that anyway. Court orders overrule a company's policies in most (all?) legal systems.
The fuck do they mean they will try?
"Oh no there's no way we could possibly break out of these invisible shackles we put on ourselves"
The whole thing is vaguely and noncomittally worded, it promises basically nothing.
Take this bit for example:
In other words: talk to the individual publishers of each game and get their permission :P At which point GOG's involvement is almost irrelevant, if you have the publisher's consent then they might as well give you a copy.
It's legal speech for "we want to however if we straight out say we're going to do it no studio is going to want to release games on our platform"
No, it is legal speech for "we think you want that and we think you are dumb enough to believe we can actually deliver that so lets give it a try to pretend we are doing that".
Being as it's GOG that's saying that, I don't agree with that statement, if it was any other company out there I would fully agree with it, but that statement goes against the core values of what they've built gog of from the point of creation.
They know that if they did try to push something like that without a court order that no studio is going to want to release, because let's be real they're already struggling finding Studios to want to release on them without any form of DRM,
About time they publicly released that on death we're going to transfer every license over to another person by request without a requirement to go through the game studios itself, almost every Studio on their platform is going to withdraw their licensing to Gog to distribute the game, because that is less money in the company's hand because they want each generation to buy their games, because less people buying the games means less money in their pocket.
With this method they can state "hey we're following the legal system we have a court order saying to hand over the keys, our hands are tied" which from a business point of view is a lot more understandable then "We are going to allow giving away your game to free on death to the next person in line"
But my point is that you are not going to get that court order so they suggest a scenario that is totally unrealistic. No court is going to order a game store to transfer an account.
there has been a few cases (with steam) of having a court issue an order on death to transfer the library, but yea it does not happen as common as it should