Volunteers from the Stop Killing Games movement looked at over 700 games requiring internet to see how many are playable after support ends. The results are...
“No shirt, no shoes, no service” is a health code, not a EULA.
Also, you are conflating social contracts with actual legally binding ones. If you had to sign a contract to eat at a resteraunt which gave them the right to photograph you and record all of your conversations while you ate then use all of it for marketing without compensating you or to sell the contents of your conversations and likeness to unknown 3rd parties without informing you of who they were sold to and what the intended use was, would you still eat there.
Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand and what abuses of rights are done in digital spaces.
There are many restaurants, especially the largest fast food chains, who do have you sign an agreement to allow them to do everything you said. And no I don’t eat at those places because I don’t like the practice personally. I don’t buy games if I don’t like the game company or their actions.
But this isn’t about data collection and privacy, its about trying to prevent a game from shutting down because it feels upsetting. I’m sorry but if you are upset about it don’t support the company.
I will agree we need laws around data privacy and collection of course, but thats a different topic.
I don’t really see it as an entirely separate topic. It is still an abuse of rights. In this case, it is an abuse of ownership. If I make a purchase of a good, I should own that good. If the company later decides that they no longer want to support the services which support that purchase, they should be required to provide the opportunity that all purchased goods remain valid and operational. If we take a different good as a stand in, cars, a manufacturer may eventually decide to stop supporting a vehicle, but they do have to sell the component rights to aftermarket manufacturers (or at least make good faith attempts) when they drop support so people who own those vehicles have the chance to maintain and use them. I see this as no different than that. Their dropping of support means that products purchased are removed from use or function without the owner’s consent.
And I know you are going to say “well the EULA says you don’t own it and you agreed to it” which is precicely the problem we are arguing. Purchase should mean ownership and forcing people to agree to whatever you want is wrong. Legislation is required because no company will protect the rights of customers, that is the duty of legal systems.
You don’t have to accept your job. Stop acting like choice doesnt exist, its an obnoxious way of enabling shitty decisions. You aren’t forced to agree to use slack, and you aren’t forced to play a game. You want to have your cake an eat it too.
Although I’d be shocked if someone who argues the things you are is actively supporting shitty game companies so surely you can see when you choose to do something vs not.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
“No shirt, no shoes, no service” is a health code, not a EULA.
Also, you are conflating social contracts with actual legally binding ones. If you had to sign a contract to eat at a resteraunt which gave them the right to photograph you and record all of your conversations while you ate then use all of it for marketing without compensating you or to sell the contents of your conversations and likeness to unknown 3rd parties without informing you of who they were sold to and what the intended use was, would you still eat there.
Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand and what abuses of rights are done in digital spaces.
There are many restaurants, especially the largest fast food chains, who do have you sign an agreement to allow them to do everything you said. And no I don’t eat at those places because I don’t like the practice personally. I don’t buy games if I don’t like the game company or their actions.
But this isn’t about data collection and privacy, its about trying to prevent a game from shutting down because it feels upsetting. I’m sorry but if you are upset about it don’t support the company.
I will agree we need laws around data privacy and collection of course, but thats a different topic.
I don’t really see it as an entirely separate topic. It is still an abuse of rights. In this case, it is an abuse of ownership. If I make a purchase of a good, I should own that good. If the company later decides that they no longer want to support the services which support that purchase, they should be required to provide the opportunity that all purchased goods remain valid and operational. If we take a different good as a stand in, cars, a manufacturer may eventually decide to stop supporting a vehicle, but they do have to sell the component rights to aftermarket manufacturers (or at least make good faith attempts) when they drop support so people who own those vehicles have the chance to maintain and use them. I see this as no different than that. Their dropping of support means that products purchased are removed from use or function without the owner’s consent.
And I know you are going to say “well the EULA says you don’t own it and you agreed to it” which is precicely the problem we are arguing. Purchase should mean ownership and forcing people to agree to whatever you want is wrong. Legislation is required because no company will protect the rights of customers, that is the duty of legal systems.
Noones forced to agree to anything, thats why its legal. Dont support shitty companies its that simple.
But people are forced by circumstances to agree. I have to use Slack for my job. I cannot keep my job if I do not agree, thus, I am forced to agree.
This is what I mean by the current definitions are no longer sufficient to cover the modern world.
You don’t have to accept your job. Stop acting like choice doesnt exist, its an obnoxious way of enabling shitty decisions. You aren’t forced to agree to use slack, and you aren’t forced to play a game. You want to have your cake an eat it too.
Although I’d be shocked if someone who argues the things you are is actively supporting shitty game companies so surely you can see when you choose to do something vs not.