As the title suggests, over the last couple of days there’s been an influx of doomer comments over the SKG petition. While it’s fine to disagree, I’m finding it suspicious that there weren’t comments like this posted a week or 2 ago
As the title suggests, over the last couple of days there’s been an influx of doomer comments over the SKG petition. While it’s fine to disagree, I’m finding it suspicious that there weren’t comments like this posted a week or 2 ago
First off, that studio will not be forced to go back and fix their game. Western democratic governments, including the EU, works on the basis that ex post facto laws are invalid. The game is already dead and abandoned from your telling, so there would be no expectation to revive it.
The true solution for studios making new games in the future is to implement exit strategies for multiplayer implementation early on in development. And for single player games, much of that exit strategy is to not require login servers after the game is abandoned.
And to address your specific example, there is one option that is extremely cheap and easy to implement that will certainly pass requirements: release the sorce code. If a EA game is truly so bungled that it’s better off abandoned, studios and publishers will always have the option to fully abandon it.
You’re forgetting this is the EU, it’s significantly less susceptible to industry lobbying than the US. If it wasn’t the GDPR wouldn’t exist and Apple would still be using their proprietary chargers on all new iPhones.
Have you not read the petition? I doubt it could be anymore concise in its language while still being possible to pass. You can’t specify exact implementations for games post-abandonment because any single solution will not work for every game.
That is a claim befitting an egotistical fool. But at least now you can’t complain that nobody has addressed your concerns, as you claimed in your first comment.
That’s it… 3 sentences is not concise. You want to base multi-national law off of 3 sentences. Maybe you should think that through a bit more. If the time can’t be spent to actualy write out constructive goals or at least milestones (which is supposed to help dictate multi-national law) then maybe it should wait shouldn’t it until you can.
The VGE (the lobbying group you’re talking about) helped to write the consumer protection, digital content licensing, and age ratings for the EU. They already helped create your laws so that’s not really true is it.
Sorry, it still stands.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concise
Aka, “short”.
The petition absolutely is ‘concise’. You just have no idea what that word means.
Using fancy words in an argument only works if you actually know what those words mean.
Not only that, a long petition containing lots of details has its own drawbacks. For one, fewer people will read it and/or understand it, which will make it easier for detractors to confuse the general public with misinformation.
Concise is synonymous with “to the point”. In other words, you don’t have to have lots of words, but they do have to be on target which your 3 sentences are not. So, no, it was correct word use on my part. The fact that you can’t argue the VGE’s involvement or anything other than a word’s definition really doesn’t make you look like you have a strong case here lol. Again, it seems like you have strong feelings, but that doesn’t win court cases. Sorry, not sorry.
So you’re just ignoring all the other points I made earlier? On top of refusing to acknowledge that you don’t know what words you’re using?
No. The word you are looking for is “succinct”. You’re doubling down harder than PirateGames at this point, and with you including some egotistical snark at the end of every comment and claiming that you can’t possibly be wrong just further demonstrates that you’re a walking example of Dunning-Krüger syndrome with entitlement issues.
Get over yourself. Instead of petulantly whining about a petition on the internet, go and do something actually productive with your life.
So, I see the ad hominem attacks, but no actual argument of facts. Oh, and the “other points” you made earlier seem to be just you making up what the petition will do. Remember, you have 3 sentences to work from and things like releasing source code doesn’t seem to be in those, does it? So, where did you get the source code mention you had? Is there a website with expanded bulletpoints I missed? No? Just something you felt should happen? You do that whole thinking with your feelings a lot, huh?
Well, ad hominem I’m afraid is where you lose the argument in totality. Once you start down that path, nothing you say can be taken as a fact. You argue with facts/logic, not with emotion. Good luck with that petition.