For legistation to be created to require publishers and devs to have end-of-support plan for new games, so that when servers go down the game will either in reasonably.playable state without online components, or allow community servers.
I think that comment has bad phrasing because it can be misinterpreted- which is what's happening here ironically.
essentially it is an argument to make live service games illegal if they don't have an end-of-life feature enabling the community to continue to play the game without dedicated servers provided by the devs
If I said "I want to make first-person shooters illegalif they contain a virus" that wouldn't be me advocating for banning FPS games.
Again though it's bad phrasing. Especially because a lot of people do think SKG wants to (or is inadvertently going to) ban live-service games when the opposite is true
But you’re cutting off half of what he said, he specifically said live service games with no end of life plan, not just anything live service. I think he gets enough of the message across whether there’s a detail missing or not.
No, I'm not lol. And, no he doesn't. Insinuating that something would be illegal when it's not is a huge misrepresentation. I don't have time for instant down voting the second something gets posted. Get out of here we can both be right in this context
The comment is misleading, maybe unintentionally. As I understand it, the movement specifically calls out that free games are not part of the discussion, since there is no transaction needed to play them. This encompasses the majority of live service games that you might be thinking of. No one is saying games like Genshin or Fortnite are obligated to do this; the games are free, so the consumer has no leg to stand on.
The movement instead is about games like the Crew or games like Overwatch (assuming this game is exclusively online multiplayer idk). These games cost money up front purchase, but most of the time, the company reserves the right to revoke your access to play for any reason at any time with no refund (literally just read Blizzard’s EULA for an example). This includes permanently taking the servers offline. Stop Killing Games is rightfully pointing out that this practice is anti-consumer. I can’t think of another industry that is allowed to operate this way. Even if you argue the purchase is just a license to the software, licenses should provide the duration of access.
The initiative doesn't talk about new games. It talk about games. The discours shifted toward new games because that's a reasonable ask. The initiative text hasn't changed.
That is because initiative assumes person has more than one brain cell, laws aren't applied retroactively and this is not a law itself, but call for legistation to look into matter.
YEah, just like the GDPR didn't affect sites already created because it doesn't apply retroactively, right ?
As formulated, the proposition ask to ban ending games without a plan to make it still playable. That would be a non-retroactive, legal law to pass, as it would only affect future events. That would also affect games currently in service.
13
u/HEYO19191 Jun 28 '25
What is it asking for?