Lets stop companies from killing games. (HOW YOU CAN HELP)

[Dwolfin]

https://youtu.be/w70Xc9CStoE
In the link below, is a step by step guide in your country for how you can make a seeable dent through the law
https://stopkillinggames.com

We consumers and lovers of games can give them hell, we can own our games.
If you own The Crew, you can contact Ubisoft now, tell them to fix the game.
We can make the difference in demanding that the games we own work. As it is our right as those who bought it. This is one step to a greater cause, if you own The Crew you can file complaints, you do have a voice.

[AD]

引用自 Dwolfin：

引用自 AD：

And perhaps it's time we evaluate of that's a reasonable thing or not. Most people don't think "I'm being leased a game", they think "I buy a game", which means this is all deceptive. No one reads the fine print. Either we need to make so it's explicit that games themselves aren't bought, or we need to make so we buy the actual games.

the answer is we need to make so we buy the actual games, this was how it was with physical media. Anyone who is arguing against it or accepting it how it is has already bent over and laid down.

Yeah, I agree, I'm just saying if someone is fine with not buying the games, they should at least want it to be explicit that that's whats going on. Otherwise it's a deceptive tactic that misleads consumers (which of course is probably on purpose).

[Dwolfin]

引用自 AD：

引用自 Dwolfin：

the answer is we need to make so we buy the actual games, this was how it was with physical media. Anyone who is arguing against it or accepting it how it is has already bent over and laid down.

Yeah, I agree, I'm just saying if someone is fine with not buying the games, they should at least want it to be explicit that that's whats going on. Otherwise it's a deceptive tactic that misleads consumers (which I strongly suspect is on purpose).

its absolutely on purpose, and now the digital media has taken over within the last 20 years companies see that as an absolute win for their absolute nonsense of "gamers should get comfortable with not owning their games." no.

Whats furthermore depressing is how some console downloads are beginning to even work, where certain games you buy the disc of wont even work anymore without updating them or doing certain things required to get them to run. Rare cases but ones that do exist.

[AD]

引用自 Dwolfin：

引用自 AD：

Yeah, I agree, I'm just saying if someone is fine with not buying the games, they should at least want it to be explicit that that's whats going on. Otherwise it's a deceptive tactic that misleads consumers (which I strongly suspect is on purpose).

its absolutely on purpose, and now the digital media has taken over within the last 20 years companies see that as an absolute win for their absolute nonsense of "gamers should get comfortable with not owning their games." no.

Whats furthermore depressing is how some console downloads are beginning to even work, where certain games you buy the disc of wont even work anymore without updating them or doing certain things required to get them to run. Rare cases but ones that do exist.

To be fair, iirc, that statement about being comfortable not owning games was about the viability of streaming games and not gaming in general... but I absolutely believe they would love it if gamers were comfortable with not owning games in general.

I do agree with you, btw, I'm just pedantic.

[Original Cast Recording]

引用自 Salty Crystal：

I feel like gamer's are just entitled, you bought the licence to use their software, You have no rights for anything, they have right to take away those games from you and all you can do is cry about it.

EULAs often have a clause regarding potential remedy in the event the software doesn't function properly, often asserting the company would (in such an event) owe the consumer no more than the purchase price. That means the companies themselves are admitting that a purchase comes with an expectation of the product's usefulness. You don't really think they're properly entitled to withdraw the license after, say, 2 days, simply because the software came with a EULA, do you?

[Dwolfin]

引用自 NoMoreUnderscores()：

引用自 Salty Crystal：

I feel like gamer's are just entitled, you bought the licence to use their software, You have no rights for anything, they have right to take away those games from you and all you can do is cry about it.

EULAs often have a clause regarding potential remedy in the event the software doesn't function properly, often asserting the company would (in such an event) owe the consumer no more than the purchase price. That means the companies themselves are admitting that a purchase comes with an expectation of the product's usefulness. You don't really think they're properly entitled to withdraw the license after, say, 2 days, simply because the software came with a EULA, do you?

and if not 2 days then apparently they can when ever they choose.

[Original Cast Recording]

引用自 Dwolfin：

引用自 NoMoreUnderscores()：

EULAs often have a clause regarding potential remedy in the event the software doesn't function properly, often asserting the company would (in such an event) owe the consumer no more than the purchase price. That means the companies themselves are admitting that a purchase comes with an expectation of the product's usefulness. You don't really think they're properly entitled to withdraw the license after, say, 2 days, simply because the software came with a EULA, do you?

and if not 2 days then apparently they can when ever they choose.

They could literally just sell the licenses with explicit time limits, allowing consumers to make informed decisions.

[Dwolfin]

引用自 NoMoreUnderscores()：

引用自 Dwolfin：

and if not 2 days then apparently they can when ever they choose.

They could literally just sell the licenses with explicit time limits, allowing consumers to make informed decisions.

they could but then a ♥♥♥♥ ton of peopple wouldnt buy it to begin with which is why they need to hide this ♥♥♥♥.

[Hobbit XIII]

引用自 Dwolfin：

引用自 NoMoreUnderscores()：

They could literally just sell the licenses with explicit time limits, allowing consumers to make informed decisions.

they could but then a ♥♥♥♥ ton of peopple wouldnt buy it to begin with which is why they need to hide this ♥♥♥♥.

This is a brilliant idea, companies sell a game that you have to keep paying monthly for to be able to play.

[Dwolfin]

引用自 Hobbit XIII：

引用自 Dwolfin：

they could but then a ♥♥♥♥ ton of peopple wouldnt buy it to begin with which is why they need to hide this ♥♥♥♥.

This is a brilliant idea, companies sell a game that you have to keep paying monthly for to be able to play.

Damn thats a new one.

[Original Cast Recording]

引用自 Hobbit XIII：

引用自 Dwolfin：

they could but then a ♥♥♥♥ ton of peopple wouldnt buy it to begin with which is why they need to hide this ♥♥♥♥.

This is a brilliant idea, companies sell a game that you have to keep paying monthly for to be able to play.

People have been talking about that already, rentals or pay-to-play. Consumer-friendly rulings on existing service games could push some companies towards that.

If, say, France rules existing games already purchased have to continue to be at least playable, then at least some future games will surely come in different formats and presentations. This could be a positive thing for regular consumers, but perhaps not satisfactory to "preservationists."

And, y'know, people will say that in the long run, you'll end up paying more for games by the month just to have them get shut down anyway, so what's the point. The point would be, you could actually know what you're paying for. I doubt every game from every developer would go that route, but who knows.

[Dwolfin]

引用自 NoMoreUnderscores()：

引用自 Hobbit XIII：

This is a brilliant idea, companies sell a game that you have to keep paying monthly for to be able to play.

People have been talking about that already, rentals or pay-to-play. Consumer-friendly rulings on existing service games could push some companies towards that.

If, say, France rules existing games already purchased have to continue to be at least playable, then at least some future games will surely come in different formats and presentations. This could be a positive thing for regular consumers, but perhaps not satisfactory to "preservationists."

And, y'know, people will say that in the long run, you'll end up paying more for games by the month just to have them get shut down anyway, so what's the point. The point would be, you could actually know what you're paying for. I doubt every game from every developer would go that route, but who knows.

well as long as no one goes out of there way to stop preservation itll be ok, but its incredibly stupid that its techincally illegal to say get the iso of a game off the internet that a company isnt getting money from anymore and can no long be bought because its no longer being sold.

Luckily despite this, no one actually enforces this techincal law.

Except for Nintendo apparently, Nintendo does apparently.

[GGcake]

We can not give up just because we fear a future where games might require monthly subscriptions to play, a trend that already exist in many games through battle passes and microtransactions.
And so, you should stand with those who are advocating for you, and not the companies who are doing everything in their power to harm you.

[Dwolfin]

引用自 GGcake：

We can not give up just because we fear a future where games might require monthly subscriptions to play, a trend that already exist in many games through battle passes and microtransactions.
And so, you should stand with those who are advocating for you, and not the companies who are doing everything in their power to harm you.

Yes, not lay down and allow companies to take

[Crazy Tiger]

If only gamers were a homogeneous group. But they aren't.

[DoomsDay]

the game is a server game, a few buck to use their server to run this game indefinitely, is a bit too much to ask for.
does the game not include enough in game payment? to keep the server well oiled ?
to shut down server and the game completely, isnt right.