310
2024 was the year gamers really started pushing back on the erosion of game ownership
(www.pcgamer.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
310 points (98.1% liked)
Games
16961 readers
275 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you are referring to blizzard and private servers 9 years ago, you might mean classic servers but blizzard still sends out legal cease and desists to private server owners. You still cannot host a private server on american soil without blizzard stopping you. If thats not what you meant then thats my bad though.
I also fully expect ubisoft to release "the crew remastered" at some point too, once its clear they can make a profit off doing so, just like blizzard did.
I mean they started shutting it down 9 years ago, it isn't new, so it isn't really news now
Point was, this is about making it so they don't have the option to do this anymore, with the legal system.
I dont think its fair that is imposed on creators of video games. Is there some clause where this only applies to the developers we all dont like? I think its too much to mandate, although making voices heard about this is important in influencing developers to choose to not kill their games. I think a law is too far.
They will just have to stick to advertised timelines, and allow people to use that software, as they please, after they stop supporting it. I do not see how this is unfair.
I dont see how turning off servers is preventing people from using it how they please. Those with the game files are free to do whatever they want with it.
they aren't just turning the servers off, while there is part of the suit due to advertised promise vs what happened, the second point is they literally pushed an update that made running the software on your own, private, server, impossible. The point is that the game companies are making it so you are not able to do what you want with it. This is just one suit that is fighting for structures that protect you owning what you buy. It is multifaceted, from right to repair, to right to use software you purchase in any personal way you like. there is a broad, multi-industry, movement to make all products a "service". Software was one of the first, and currently the largest, set of industries that do this. From single player video games needing to contact a company server just to start, to features of your car, house, and appliances requiring continuous payment schemes, where they can just deny access, even though you paid for them. It has gone on for along time, and now the mainstream population is being affected, and some are fighting back.
I am clearly on the side of you own what you pay for. They don't owe you servers, updates, etc. They owe you being able to do those things, for your own purposes (ie not commercial), and not disabling everything when they no longer feel like putting resources into it.