The EU petition for Stop Killing Games is now open!

I have spent about many hours in the Crew solo and I got it free on uplay. So I do not feel robbed when I lost access.

I have problem with this on two levels.

First is that according that you really dont need any "crew" to enjoy game. Connecting to server is man-made problem and offline regime existed or would be very easily implemented.
Second is that we are losing something forever.

The Crew is perhaps not example of the highest value, but generaly I would like to have good games to be preserved.
Ubisoft is not some indie studio, it could save the crew without much effort, but they decided to not to do so.
Ross Scott, the guy behind the movement, explains, in the YT video I shared, that the Crew is just the prime example of this practice (game as service, you buy not knowing when support will end, etc) that they can convert into a legal action. A very recent example of this practice is Babylon Fall, the game lasted very little time active from what I gathered.
 
Since the goal is to stop game development companies from ending access to player's game libraries for any reason (good, bad, for greed, or arbitrarily) and preserve what older and/or games that are still available, I think that this is an effort worth pursuing. I'm in.
 
Urgh yeah Ubisoft have been terrible with this.. at the same time their CEO was saying 'online is the future of gaming' they were turning off so many of their old game servers breaking many of them. Thankfully they recently (quietly) patched the infamously heavily online (Conflux urgh) made Heroes of Might & Magic 6 to work offline after a big fan outcry.. but sure enough they did a pretty half hearted job of it and so much stuff is broken now. Fans (saving the day again) have modded some of it to work better but it's still a mess.
 
Ironic that the “game dungeon” seeks to set games free.
 
Since we're a few a months behind on this I've been watching his update videos.. sure enough there's been some setbacks and plenty of roadblocks, but there's also been some success.. eg in my country Australia there's a law firm representing him (as they were already going after the games industry on other issues and interestingly a game company has come forward to help pay their legal fees), and he got a petition signed by over 10 thousand Aussies (not including me as I'm too late to the party) to the Aus government who will probably sit on it for a few months lol but will be interesting to see where all that goes. He's also made some inroads in UK, Germany, France and even Brazil.. however I think they're still kinda going nowhere for now. He has however managed to get approved a petition for the entire EU however for them to action it it requires 1 million properly correctly filled out signers and they have 1 year to do it. Tough ask so if you're in Europe you should check it out.




 
I was trying to dl Settlers 3, a roughly 1000 year old game (but still better than 4 or what came after it) and its greedy company has leased the selling rights to Gog (and Magog).
I think there should be an expiration date for rights (some decades), after which the game simply is in the public domain, unless something extreme is going on (the company still releasing expansions etc).
 
I was trying to dl Settlers 3, a roughly 1000 year old game (but still better than 4 or what came after it) and its greedy company has leased the selling rights to Gog (and Magog).
I think there should be an expiration date for rights (some decades), after which the game simply is in the public domain, unless something extreme is going on (the company still releasing expansions etc).

I think the same legislature that applies to literature and audiovisual production applies here, which means first games should legally default to public domain by the late 21st century, exact timeframe depending on the country of origin.
 
That's not good, though. Books and such aren't competing in that similar a market; by now hundreds of games are released each week (including by smaller companies and indie). New books, even now, require backing of the very few big houses to even be on your radar.
Copyright for game titles should be at around 30 years, not 70 or something crazy like that.
 
That's not good, though. Books and such aren't competing in that similar a market; by now hundreds of games are released each week (including by smaller companies and indie). New books, even now, require backing of the very few big houses to even be on your radar.
Copyright for game titles should be at around 30 years, not 70 or something crazy like that.
Nintendo wants to know your location:)
 
It seems to me that this is a part of the whole right to repair thing. Tractors have been going this way perhaps longer than games, and cars are going that way. Fisker customers are very worried, and what will it do to a Tesla's resale value if and / when Musk drives that company off a cliff? I bet all those people would really like a law making companies open source server software they are no longer willing/able to host.
 
I've read about the right to repair issues. One interesting aspect for tractors and vehicles is the hardware / spare parts involved, as well as the vendor-supplied control software. For games, one also needs to consider the underlying libraries, engines, and development tools used to produce the game. It may not be clear how to handle those. For example, company A pays a fee to company B to license their engine for a game. If company A decides to stop hosting the game on their servers (or their slice of the cloud), who pays the fee for the engine? Does the fee still apply for *running* the software, or when *selling* the software, or when *developing* the software? Not clear at all to me.
 
FTC urged to be on our side (slightly, sort of)

Consumer and digital rights activists are calling on the US Federal Trade Commission to stop device-makers using software to reduce product functionality, bricking unloved kit, or adding surprise fees post-purchase.

In an eight-page letter [PDF] to the Commission (FTC), the activists mentioned the Google/Levis collaboration on a denim jacket that contained sensors enabling it to control an Android device through a special app. When the app was discontinued in 2023, the jacket lost that functionality. The letter also mentions the "Car Thing," an automotive infotainment device created by Spotify, which bricked the device fewer than two years after launch and didn't offer a refund.

Another example highlighted is the $1,695 Snoo connected bassinet, manufactured by an outfit named Happiest Baby. Kids outgrow bassinets, yet Happiest Baby this year notified customers that if they ever sold or gave away their bassinets, the device’s next owner would have to pay a new $19.99 monthly subscription fee to keep certain features. Activists argue that reduces the resale value of the devices.

Signatories to the letter include individuals from Consumer Reports, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, teardown artists iFixit, and the Software Freedom Conservancy. Environmental groups and computer repair shops also signed the letter.

The signatories urged the FTC to create "clear guidance" that would prevent device manufacturers from using software that locks out features and functions in products that are already owned by customers.

The practice of using software to block features and functions is referred to by the signatories as "software tethering."

"Consumers need a clear standard for what to expect when purchasing a connected device," stated Justin Brookman, director of technology policy at Consumer Reports and a former policy director of the FTC's Office of Technology, Research, and Investigation. "Too often, consumers are left with devices that stop functioning because companies decide to end support without little to no warning. This leaves people stranded with devices they once relied on, unable to access features or updates."

"Consumers increasingly face a death by a thousand cuts as connected products they purchase lose their software support or advertised features that may have prompted the original purchase," the letter states. "They may see the device turned into a brick or their favorite features locked behind a subscription. Such software tethers also prevent consumers from reselling their purchases, as some software features may not transfer, or manufacturers may shut down devices, causing a second-hand buyer harm."

Brookman told The Register that he believes this is the first such policy request to the FTC that asks the agency to help consumers with this dilemma.

"I'm not aware of a previous effort from public interest groups to get the FTC to take action on this issue - it's still a relatively new issue with no clear established norms," he wrote in an email. "But it has certainly become an issue" that comes up more and more with device makers as they change their rules about product updates and usage.

"The FTC has done some limited actions on the topic … but not enough to set clear practices for industry to follow."

Consumer tech companies aren’t alone in this sort of thing. Cisco regularly advises its customers to dump old kit that has security problems and has passed its end-of-support date.
 
This reminds me that some BEV are being bricked or losing functionalities because of lack of software support...it has happened in China more than once as the fierce competition between automakers has made, is making and will continue to make casualties among brands.
 
Top Bottom