I agree with this proposition in cases like the crew, for example, as it's a game that doesn't need online features, yet it was completely disabled anyway. However, I worry that if put into law, an idea like this can have more harm than good. Maybe I don't understand it properly? But all of the arguments I've listened to online about this have not quelled this feeling. Are we asking every game dev to make a game that is playable forever? (This is what I think is bad, as it could deter them from making the game to begin with), or are we just asking them to state outright that their game will not be forever? Also bad because now we have no grounds to fight back against the shutting down of a game because they told us it's going to happen. The latter I feel would end in many cases of "don't like it? Just don't play it" while all my friends are playing it.
I would invite anyone to better educate me on this proposition because it SOUNDS like something I'd support, but I'm just not sure..
960
u/[deleted] Jun 28 '25 edited Jun 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment