‘Digital ownership must be respected’: UK parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign, but government doesn’t budge | VGC
www.videogameschronicle.com
Politicians debate recent examples of games being “destroyed”…

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.

  • Hond@piefed.socialEnglish
    1·
    22 days ago

    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.

    • TWeaK@lemmy.todayEnglish
      1·
      22 days ago

      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.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      0·
      22 days ago

      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.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from communityEnglish
        0·
        22 days ago

        So if the developers of a game go bankrupt, or a single developer of an indie game dies, what do you suggest happens?

        • bluGill@fedia.io
          0·
          22 days ago

          The code should go into escrow when the first game is sold. This is standard practice in industry - you don’t buy something without assurance that if the company goes under you have options.

          • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from communityEnglish
            0·
            22 days ago

            This is standard practice in industry - you don’t buy something without assurance that if the company goes under you have options.

            Which industries is this standard in? I can’t think of any. If Samsung went bankrupt who is replacing your S25 Ultra?

            • scintilla@crust.piefed.socialEnglish
              0·
              22 days ago

              I think they mean in like B2B. Like if you buy of piece of software x thousand times with y years of support it’s standard practice to have a contract that covers what happens if the company goes under while you still have years of support.

              • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from communityEnglish
                0·
                21 days ago

                But the assurance you spoke about is consumer assurance? So you’re saying that your suggestion wouldn’t even apply to video games while suggesting it for video games?

                • bluGill@fedia.io
                  0·
                  20 days ago

                  There is no reason consumers cannot demand this even though they haven’t. There is no reason the law cannot demand it even though it hasn’t.

                  The important part is that the idea exists and is common enough in OTHER situations. When you ask for it there will be people who know what this means and there is a whole industry of “we escrow your code for you” that can handle the details. If you make a new law you have plenty of examples to look at and so are much less likely to accidentally create some unintended consequence that is worse than the current situation.

                  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from communityEnglish
                    01·
                    20 days ago

                    Which industries take companies source code and hold it hostage in case the company goes bankrupt? Which software?