this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025

73 points (98.7% liked)

Games

20209 readers

1041 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:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

Video Games Europe release a statement on Stop Killing Games (www.gamingonlinux.com)

submitted 1 day ago by cm0002@lemmy.cafe to c/games@sh.itjust.works

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 day ago

If lobbyists are fighting it you know it's scaring them! Fuck your overreach of control, I bought a game not a service.

[–] Toes@ani.social 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's a big problem from a money making perspective. We're basically asking the game companies to compete with themselves.

The patient gamer in me sees a future where blue archive is completely free 2 play with no paywalls. :D

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

You mean like how the blockbuster movie industry is in a crisis because most people prefer watching VHS of movies from the 1980s rather than watching the latest Marvel movie?

That doesn't happen, that's not how any cultural medium works. Enthusiasts keeping old stuff running are a minority. Also they are likely to consume a lot, give them a new take on what they like and they'll gladly try it... If it's good enough.

Of course, that's the real problem. Some companies dream of wiping out everything that came before so their newest enshittified predatory crap doesn't suffer from the comparison.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

You mean like how the blockbuster movie industry is in a crisis because most people prefer watching VHS of movies from the 1980s rather than watching the latest Marvel movie?

Hey, do you know what Tubi is? It's basically a streaming service for people who prefer watching VHS Movies from the 1980's

[–] scintilla@kbin.earth 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I uhh have some news for you about the movie industry...

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 7 points 23 hours ago

The availability of old stuff is not and has never been their problem. Not any more than for books or music or whatever. Lost media happens, but by accident and/or lack of interest, not by design.

Beyond some video game companies I can't think of any that would dare claim that old works should expire.

[+] PunnyName@lemmy.world -8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

1: You've never owned a video game in your life, unless you were the owner of the copyright, you possessed a licensed copy (including physical copies). That has to change before any other real concrete changes can occur.

2: Online video games are a totally different beast over single player games. Besides direct competition with themselves, there has to be a sustained effort to maintain those servers, while also staying beholden to the copyright holders.

Look at Project 1999 EverQuest (a "classic" server for a 26+ year game). It almost never reaches 2000 concurrent players, and that requires permission from Daybreak to run as intended. The Hero's Journey is a different EQ project that is in litigation with Daybreak right now. Project Quarm has been reticent about keeping its servers running during the THJ legal proceedings.

As much as we might want to keep games alive for posterity, we have to figure out a process for online games, and that seems like it's gonna be a massive uphill battle.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Do you own the software and firmware in your car?

The navigation system might use Google Maps and requires an internet connection to function. The manufacturer may decide to no longer want to pay for Google's license and therefore disables all software - including software running the ignition, engine management, the speedometer, the center console - on the car with a momentary notice. The car becomes undrivable as a result.

Should this be legal? You didn't own the software after all.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world -1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

And thus is the issue.

No, you don't own the software in your car. The companies who disabled your car do, and by acquiring that car, you are subject to their whims. Because by signing that contract when buying that car, I bet you didn't amend it to make you owner of that software.

Instead of continuing to maintain a car-centric culture with software that we don't own or control, we could incorporate more walking and biking infrastructure, and better more reliable public transit options.

Don't settle for one thing just because that's what you know and has been in existence most of your life. Find and build better options.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You didn't answer my question. Should it be legal?

Swap out "car" with "any electronic device of your choice". Should Intel/AMD be legally allowed to remove the CPU firmware on a whim making your processor a worthless pile of sand? Should your phone be allowed to be bricked by software updates because the manufacturer wants you to purchase a new model? Should fucking Casio be allowed to remotely disable your F-91 W digital watch because it contains firmware you do not own?

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

It is legal, therefore that's the hurdle we need to get over. If you don't want it to be legal, fight to make it illegal, or don't use/buy the product.

But people pre-order video games at record numbers despite everyone with a brain saying that they shouldn't, so they're SOL either way.

Trying to side-step copyright isn't going to get you what you want. You're fighting an uphill battle with fewer resources.

[–] TroublesomeTalker@feddit.uk 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

And yet almost every single one had a "Buy" button on the purchase page, not a "licence" and I sure as shit didn't sign a damn thing. I act like I own them, and will continue to do so. Half the EULAs contains some illegal bullshit anyway and the "also is any of this invalidates local laws, just ignore that bit" clause is relatively a lot newer than a lot of classic games which I probably do own because of this. With the greatest respect, laws are - effectively - requests when the entire population willfully ignores them.
Absolutely true. And this is where I have difficulty with this initiative. I am a heavy collector and patient gamer, I get to stuff years after release. As such I have always avoided heavily on-line stuff so I can use my own schedule, and that's the sticking point here for me. In the current environment where it's easy to see network requirements, and even refund games after testing it seems like this could be handled by vote with your wallet for the most part. However, I take a very different view of the current bait-and-switch of taking games without a hard online requirement and changing the terms in some way after release, and this alone is enough to make me support the movement. Adding launchers, additional account requirements, micro transactions post release should be heavily controlled. If you don't state at release you will be adding MTX - or even DLC honestly - you shouldn't be able too in my mind. It's a different product.

I think the other thing that so many are either too young to remember, or perhaps not technical enough now, but in the 90s, you ran your own game servers, and it was awesome. It was hard back then, someone seemed an ISDN or leased line to handle the traffic and access to a decent PC or server - requirements that are now in reach of everyone with a joke connection, a multi core machine and a docker install. There's no reason this couldn't be handled that way again with the companies monetising "content packs" for the servers and letting communities flourish. But they like the control.

It's going to be interesting seeing the outcome here!

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

You are buying a license. That's the legal action you are taking. Even when you buy a physical copy, that's not ownership of the game. You can't duplicate and sell the copies. You can't duplicate and give them away. Both are copyright infringement.

Sure you can sell an older physical copy second hand, because there's no one there to stop you, which is why companies have moved to largely digital: the communications infrastructure makes it easier (like you said). But also it allowed companies to keep a tighter hold on their property.

I agree that if they wish to end support for a game, it should have a countdown timer to then be in the "public domain" so to speak.

But that's the uphill battle I spoke of, because you'd need to rewrite a precedent that currently allows for 90+ years of copyright.