Maybe instead of being the condescending dickhead you and yours project onto Pirate Software, you could instead point out specifics since you’re advocating for it. I’m confident you can’t though since I’m sure you haven’t read shit, just listened to people slobber all over it.
Maybe we wouldn’t have to be such condescending dickheads if you cared to not make up stuff.
the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.
That’s the core idea. Publishers should just make sure that after they milked their product it can somehow be run without their interference.
That doesn’t require sources. In fact, this doesn’t even state any method that is preferred. Could they release sources? Sure. They could also release server binaries. They could also patch out the connection to their servers and only leave people with local multiplayer mode or something. They could do whatever. The initiative doesn’t care.
The practice of licensing a product indefinitely but then just disabling it remotely is hostile to consumers. If they really, really want to keep their business model, they should sell licenses that are limited to a certain timeframe right from the start. Selling perpetual licenses and then disabling them without leaving consumers with any means to still access what they paid for shouldn’t be legal and probably isn’t.
Also this right here:
The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.
Nobody wants your ip. Just don’t break stuff you sold.
Right. There is no clear solution to the problem, only a demand for a solution.
“They could release sources/server binaries”
At what point? When is a game legally considered dead and a company legally obligated to provide that? What happens if they just shut down prior to fulfilling it?
“They could patch out their servers and leave local multiplayer or something”
Or something? This is what PS drilled into this initiative for. You don’t actually grasp what you’re asking for or understand what legal measures even exist to enforce them. You have a deep desire to go back to the early 2000s where your data wasn’t really hosted on servers, it was just arena shooter and LAN parties.
Games today are not able to curtail to these absurd demands. Not because they refuse to but because the complexity of what they offer is not easily designed to be replaced.
You don’t like the current model but fail to provide an alternative that can replace it. That’s the critique. It’s beyond childish to look at a problem, offer nothing, then get pissed when someone tells you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t like that I only own a license to play a game either, but what’s the alternative? If you own the game, they can’t release a patch to fix bugs or it would be a violation of the law for modifying your property. That’s bad.
Maybe instead of being the condescending dickhead you and yours project onto Pirate Software, you could instead point out specifics since you’re advocating for it. I’m confident you can’t though since I’m sure you haven’t read shit, just listened to people slobber all over it.
Maybe we wouldn’t have to be such condescending dickheads if you cared to not make up stuff.
That’s the core idea. Publishers should just make sure that after they milked their product it can somehow be run without their interference.
That doesn’t require sources. In fact, this doesn’t even state any method that is preferred. Could they release sources? Sure. They could also release server binaries. They could also patch out the connection to their servers and only leave people with local multiplayer mode or something. They could do whatever. The initiative doesn’t care.
The practice of licensing a product indefinitely but then just disabling it remotely is hostile to consumers. If they really, really want to keep their business model, they should sell licenses that are limited to a certain timeframe right from the start. Selling perpetual licenses and then disabling them without leaving consumers with any means to still access what they paid for shouldn’t be legal and probably isn’t.
Also this right here:
Nobody wants your ip. Just don’t break stuff you sold.
“The initiative doesn’t care”
Right. There is no clear solution to the problem, only a demand for a solution.
“They could release sources/server binaries”
At what point? When is a game legally considered dead and a company legally obligated to provide that? What happens if they just shut down prior to fulfilling it?
“They could patch out their servers and leave local multiplayer or something”
Or something? This is what PS drilled into this initiative for. You don’t actually grasp what you’re asking for or understand what legal measures even exist to enforce them. You have a deep desire to go back to the early 2000s where your data wasn’t really hosted on servers, it was just arena shooter and LAN parties.
Games today are not able to curtail to these absurd demands. Not because they refuse to but because the complexity of what they offer is not easily designed to be replaced.
You don’t like the current model but fail to provide an alternative that can replace it. That’s the critique. It’s beyond childish to look at a problem, offer nothing, then get pissed when someone tells you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t like that I only own a license to play a game either, but what’s the alternative? If you own the game, they can’t release a patch to fix bugs or it would be a violation of the law for modifying your property. That’s bad.