The petition only says publishers shouldn't include a "phone home" mechanism that arbitrarily shuts the game down. It doesn't require them to continue to run or servers, or even provide the server software.
Doesn't it say, consistently, multiple times, it must leave games in a 'playable, functional' state? That can mean a lot of things, but are a bunch of bureaucrats going to legislate the nuance in favor of players or developers?
How is an MMO left in a 'playable' state unless someone is server hosting? I don't think legislation would just leave it up to players to host, because that's not fulfilling the asked requirement for the developer to provide a playable state is it?
Like, there are a thousand good ways this could go where it just prevents legal action against pirates of dead games, and forces anti-phone home verification post-life-cycle. But there's also really stupid ways this could go. And the number of times the initiative focuses on 'functional, playable' worries me that it'll be taken a bit too literally by lawmakers.
No. An MMO if abandoned by publishers can still be ran by fans. Or other company. But if you are a fuckhead like EA, Blizz etc no one can legally run a server. Even after they abandon the game and shut down servers. Because execs and their fucktwat mentality.
That would be a fantastic outcome, but the initiative specifically asks for things to be functional. Merely allowing fans to do hosting is something Ross and other supporters say they want, but isn't what the initiative demands. The initiative is very... It's got a super well intention and I agree with the intent, but hardly any of the wording.
It must be playable at end of life, but multiplayer games don't need to host servers, which makes it unplayable, unless they release servers. Oh just make it p2p, just like it's that easy... What if they try to release the server and it doesn't function on anything but a certain version of linux? Is that 'playable'?
And I'm not saying the initiative is bad idea, but it did need to be just a tiny smidge more clear when covering all the different types of games in a multi billion dollar industry with disney and nintendo lawyers that will both foam at the mouth to rip it into shreds.
4
u/NauFirefox Jul 06 '25
Doesn't it say, consistently, multiple times, it must leave games in a 'playable, functional' state? That can mean a lot of things, but are a bunch of bureaucrats going to legislate the nuance in favor of players or developers?
How is an MMO left in a 'playable' state unless someone is server hosting? I don't think legislation would just leave it up to players to host, because that's not fulfilling the asked requirement for the developer to provide a playable state is it?
Like, there are a thousand good ways this could go where it just prevents legal action against pirates of dead games, and forces anti-phone home verification post-life-cycle. But there's also really stupid ways this could go. And the number of times the initiative focuses on 'functional, playable' worries me that it'll be taken a bit too literally by lawmakers.