Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.
in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.
Piss off. This just means they won’t be able to rely on companies to control what people get to say.
Vindication for bored ape NFT owners everywhere
What do you mean?
You see…a few years ago anyone with two pennies to rub together but not as many braincells went fucking bananas for these ai images of cartoon monkeys. Some people got really possessive and started claiming that they owned the usage rights and were threatening people taking screenshots with legal action.
Most of the responses of the ministers(?) covered in the article seem to be pretty solid.
But then:
Responding to the arguments, the government’s representative, minister for sport, tourism, civil society and youth, Stephanie Peacock MP, acknowledged consumer sentiment behind Stop Killing Games, but suggested there were no plans to amend UK law around the issue.
“The Government recognises the strength of feeling behind the campaign that led to the debate,” she said. “The petition attracted nearly 190,000 signatures. Similar campaigns, including a European Citizens’ Initiative, reached over a million signatures. There has been significant interest across the world.”
She continued: “At the same time, the Government also recognises the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades.”
Peacock claimed that because modern video games were complex to develop and maintain, implementing plans for games after support had ended could be “extremely challenging” for companies and risk creating “harmful unintended consequences” for players.
Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.
On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”
“Licensing video games is not, as some have suggested, a new and unfair business practice,” she claimed.
Yeah, full on corpo spin. Fuck her.
Handing online servers over to consumers…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is Stop Killing Games specifically against this? This sounds like some Pirate Software bullshit. My understanding is we want the tools to host our own servers if the parent company decides to take theirs offline.
SKG doesn’t specify how companies need to solve the problem, only that games need to continue to function after the company stops supporting them.
For some games (e.g. Assassin’s Creed), that could be as simple as disabling the online aspect and having a graceful fallback. For others, that could mean letting people self-host it. Or they can provide documentation for the server API and let the community build their own server. Or they can move it to a P2P connection.
Game companies have options. All SKG says is that if I’ve purchased something, I should be able to keep using it after support ends.
On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”
This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works, now or back in the 1980s. You can’t agree to terms without seeing them first, and even then such agreements aren’t necessarily legally binding. For someone who is supposed to write laws, she should be removed from office for showing such gross incompetence.
I’m pretty sure (not absolutely) this has appeared in court and even click-wrap licenses, where one clicks to agree to a license with a higher word count than King Lear are not valid due to the end user high administrative burden (reading 20K+ words in the middle of a software install).
There was a period in the 1980s where end users automatically were assumed to agree to licensing, but also licenses were extremely lenient and allowed unlimited use by the licensee without any data access rights by the providing company. 21st century licenses are much more complicated and encroach a lot more on end-user privacy.
If you don’t want to give the sever away (including the ability to use it) then don’t shut it down or otherwise make the game unplayable.
Or release API documentation for the server and help the community create a replacement. Companies have options here.
“digital ownership must be respected”
gets into bed with Meta and OpenAI
They’ve been owned!
Always have been
More proof that the current “Labour” government is in the pockets of rich companies and not on the side of consumers.
If only that wasn’t true if the other big parties as well.
Member when “no taxation without representation” was a thing people believed in?
Us Americans fought a war over that nonsense, and it’s looking like we might need to again.
Common UK, figure it out.
Losing a monopoly on specific game servers certainly can have a commercial risk. Are you entitled to that at all, let alone when you stop hosting them?
Legal risk of what? Others will have that responsibility, unless you’ve done something you don’t want others to see?
Safety - Yes someone might have less moderation than you - that’s up to the users to decide if it’s okay. We still have the right to change our car’s break pad - the thing that stops a large mass moving fast from hitting children.
Digital ownership? Games producers want to own players’ fingers now? I guess that’s slightly better than cutting their ears off.
I don’t dig it. I don’t dig it at all.
You know, I have purchased around 200 games. I have no idea how many of those can be mine because they’re linked to a store, maintained (usually) by a corporation hellbent on optimised profits, subject to mandatory updates so I have no choice but to play the way they want me to, and I don’t have the space to store them all. I don’t feel like any of them are really owned by me (and I know this is true but I reject that notion), not until they’re transferred to an offline machine.
I think everybody agrees that “digital ownership must be respected”. But if you check, you don’t own the games. You own licences. You may keep the licence after servers shut down. It is total BS, but we allowed it.
I have to agree that killing online only games makes sense because they can’t be forced to run the server forever, not they can be forced to release the source code. But offline / solo / bots should keep working.
This has already been addressed by SKG. Nobody is demanding the source code. Developers have multiple ways to solve this and SKG deliberately leaves that part open so developers could choose whatever works best for them.
Whoever told you developers would have to release the source code is lying and is against the initiative.
Here are a few options, this isn’t exhaustive:
- release source code
- release server binaries, like Minecraft and others do
- release server API docs and help the community build their own
- disable the online bits
- move the online bits to P2P to not need a server
- embed the server in the client to allow people to host
There are lots of options here.
Ah, here we go again with the shit takes by people who have not read what Stop Killing Games is about. Classic. And here I thought we cut through the bullshit pushes by that PirateSoftware guy.
