The European Commission released their full position now on the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, and it's not the response many will have been hoping for.
Do you understand the difference between the law as it currently is and wanting to change the law to be something else? Because you’re arguing that the law is what it is and everyone else is arguing that the laws should be changed because what currently is is fucking ass.
Currently we don’t access to whatever infra software companies run to keep the games working. One of the possible solutions to what SKG wants is that when you buy the game you also essentially get the server software as well so that if the company decides to pull the plug you just go “cool. I’ll get my own hardware and run it myself”.
And would you defend the same shit when it came to physical goods? Let’s say a car came with a software solution that makes the car ring home to make sure you’re allowed to turn your car on. Your argument in essence is that this is fine because you own the car and the fact that you can’t turn on the car once the car manufacturer shuts down their service is completely fine. Would you be happy with a car that the manufacturer can permanently disable whenever they want? This goes back your previous IP argument as well. The old car model is competing with the new car model so to keep your arguments consistent you should be in favor of having your car be permanently disabled because a new model came out.
In case you want an actual example of something similar, do you think the people who got outraged by BMW introducing a subscription service for heated seats were stupid? After all there are no laws that prevent BMW from doing this so people should just suck it up. Or are you’re going to argue people should push back if they think it’s a stupid idea. In that case what the fuck do you think we’re doing right now?
You currently don’t have access to infrastructure software because you didn’t buy that. You bought a game that uses it.
Given your BMW mention, if you buy a car, do you own the road it operates on? No.
Well, maybe that’s separate right? BMW doesn’t own that road, so what about the factory it was made? Do you own that? No.
I do online banking. I own that too. If they shut down for some reason, I should have access to their codebase? No.
I have an Amazon account. Do I own AWS infrastructure code? I mean I paid for that, right? No.
It’s not that laws can’t be changed, nobody made that argument.
It’s about feasibility. Is it feasible for me and justified for me to own AWS infra because I paid for an Amazon account? No.
In this analogy, can the car you paid for still be driven? Because the problem SKG wants to address is that the games people paid for cannot be played, and I don’t think your analogy makes any sense with regards to that.
You currently don’t have access to infrastructure software because you didn’t buy that. You bought a game that uses it.
Well, depending on the game I do. Some games come with server binaries that let me run my own server and regardless of what the developer or publisher does in the future I can still play those games. And once again, that could be the solution to the SKG movement wants solved. Maybe all games should come with the infrastructure software.
Given your BMW mention, if you buy a car, do you own the road it operates on? No. Well, maybe that’s separate right? BMW doesn’t own that road, so what about the factory it was made? Do you own that? No. I have an Amazon account. Do I own AWS infrastructure code? I mean I paid for that, right? No.
It’s not that laws can’t be changed, nobody made that argument. It’s about feasibility. Is it feasible for me and justified for me to own AWS infra because I paid for an Amazon account? No.
Ookay, I’m not even going to bother trying to decipher whatever the fuck this is. Either try again or don’t bother me with this again.
Analogies should have a point. What point is in your meth-induced analogies? I don’t have a problem with analogies, I have a problem that you think I should somehow understand what your brain-broken thought process vomited out.
Ad hominen attacks are insta-win for the other side. You have no valid argument so you just try to attack the person instead of the idea. That ends the debate. I just won.
AS far as I’m concerned you have not addressed a single thing I’ve said (except the some games do, which again you did not explain at all so I don’t think that counts either) so my arguments stand as they are. Just because you’re incapable of having a real discussion doesn’t mean you’ve won. And the fact that you think there’s anything to win shows you’re nothing more than a debate pervert. You make up your own rules and then claim you’ve won so go parade your win and let the adults speak.
Just because you’re incapable of having a real discussion
let the adults speak
Is that the best your “brain-broken thought process” could vomit out?
Yeah, you lost the argument because you didn’t use facts or logic, you just went with having strong feelings about this. In the adult world, people don’t care about how this makes you feel. Groups like the EU care about facts. Probably why the SKG just got it’s ass handed to it.
PS - Blocking you as you are a dumb cunt (<- Oh look! Ad hominen!)
Do you understand the difference between the law as it currently is and wanting to change the law to be something else? Because you’re arguing that the law is what it is and everyone else is arguing that the laws should be changed because what currently is is fucking ass.
Currently we don’t access to whatever infra software companies run to keep the games working. One of the possible solutions to what SKG wants is that when you buy the game you also essentially get the server software as well so that if the company decides to pull the plug you just go “cool. I’ll get my own hardware and run it myself”.
And would you defend the same shit when it came to physical goods? Let’s say a car came with a software solution that makes the car ring home to make sure you’re allowed to turn your car on. Your argument in essence is that this is fine because you own the car and the fact that you can’t turn on the car once the car manufacturer shuts down their service is completely fine. Would you be happy with a car that the manufacturer can permanently disable whenever they want? This goes back your previous IP argument as well. The old car model is competing with the new car model so to keep your arguments consistent you should be in favor of having your car be permanently disabled because a new model came out.
In case you want an actual example of something similar, do you think the people who got outraged by BMW introducing a subscription service for heated seats were stupid? After all there are no laws that prevent BMW from doing this so people should just suck it up. Or are you’re going to argue people should push back if they think it’s a stupid idea. In that case what the fuck do you think we’re doing right now?
You currently don’t have access to infrastructure software because you didn’t buy that. You bought a game that uses it.
Given your BMW mention, if you buy a car, do you own the road it operates on? No. Well, maybe that’s separate right? BMW doesn’t own that road, so what about the factory it was made? Do you own that? No. I do online banking. I own that too. If they shut down for some reason, I should have access to their codebase? No. I have an Amazon account. Do I own AWS infrastructure code? I mean I paid for that, right? No.
It’s not that laws can’t be changed, nobody made that argument. It’s about feasibility. Is it feasible for me and justified for me to own AWS infra because I paid for an Amazon account? No.
In this analogy, can the car you paid for still be driven? Because the problem SKG wants to address is that the games people paid for cannot be played, and I don’t think your analogy makes any sense with regards to that.
This is regarding MMOs as already stated. Your comment is irrelevant.
Well, depending on the game I do. Some games come with server binaries that let me run my own server and regardless of what the developer or publisher does in the future I can still play those games. And once again, that could be the solution to the SKG movement wants solved. Maybe all games should come with the infrastructure software.
Ookay, I’m not even going to bother trying to decipher whatever the fuck this is. Either try again or don’t bother me with this again.
I’m sorry you don’t work with analogies. And you chose to post, I didn’t request your feelings as input, but whatever.
The first quote still stands. “SOME GamEs i DO!!” is just ignoring the server infrastructure point, so go cry elsewhere.
Analogies should have a point. What point is in your meth-induced analogies? I don’t have a problem with analogies, I have a problem that you think I should somehow understand what your brain-broken thought process vomited out.
Ad hominen attacks are insta-win for the other side. You have no valid argument so you just try to attack the person instead of the idea. That ends the debate. I just won.
AS far as I’m concerned you have not addressed a single thing I’ve said (except the some games do, which again you did not explain at all so I don’t think that counts either) so my arguments stand as they are. Just because you’re incapable of having a real discussion doesn’t mean you’ve won. And the fact that you think there’s anything to win shows you’re nothing more than a debate pervert. You make up your own rules and then claim you’ve won so go parade your win and let the adults speak.
Is that the best your “brain-broken thought process” could vomit out? Yeah, you lost the argument because you didn’t use facts or logic, you just went with having strong feelings about this. In the adult world, people don’t care about how this makes you feel. Groups like the EU care about facts. Probably why the SKG just got it’s ass handed to it.
PS - Blocking you as you are a dumb cunt (<- Oh look! Ad hominen!)
Lol. thanks for making my life better.