I have no idea what this actually means, but…
Based?
It shouldn’t be narrowly focused on just video games. Should simply be anything digital.
Babysteps? Maybe if it is about video games, the old people won’t know enough about it and pass it, which would make it easier to expand to any digital software.
Scoped in a way to get press and hopefully positive attention before voting starts in a week or so.
Agreed, but if passed it would set a significant precedent that would surely have to flow onto all/other digital media.
I’d like to see this effort include the responsible sunsetting of games.
If publishers no longer wish to host the game, and noinfer wish to collect money for it, they should relinquish the server code and let communities prop up games when the games services are decommissioned.
Server code should come with the game from day 1, like it used to back in the '90s.
Knockout City handled their closure wonderfully releasing a final version that would let players run their own servers. Removed some licensed cosmetics to make it possible.
The Crew 2 after backlash from Crew 1 released an offline mode.
Those two games are great examples of the bare minimum that leaves people happy without needing to support a game indefinitely.
Let it die (F2P) had to shut down its servers, and afterwards released a single player offline version you had to pay for.
It’s certainly better than nothing and at least lets people continue to enjoy the game.
There’s f2p games like The Finals where if it shut down I’d be happy if I could still play against bots and roam around the map breaking stuff and shooting stuff in the practice room for aim training.
This is stupid-
You never had ownership of the game, just the physical disc that contains it. First-sale doctrine is clear about this and the perpetual non-exclusive license that allows you to play it.
His law doesn’t change that. It’s not going to allow buyers of a game to have a stake in the IP rights.
This stupid argument of owning physical media has always been a misunderstood argument. Pirate, emulate, and decompile when game companies make enjoying a game miserable.
Trying to start legal fights, that have already been settled, or launching literal political campaigns, like stop killing games, isn’t targeting the core issue of buying a game being easier than pirating it.
First sale doctrine allows you to resell, rent, or giveaway things that you bought without having any claim over the IP. So for products where first sale doctrine applies you can buy it now, and then a few years down the line still use it or sell it to someone else. You can’t do the same with digital games, and that’s the issue at hand, that first sale doctrine is not being follow here, you can’t resell digital games, rent or even give them away.
If only he wasn’t one of the biggest AIPAC stooges in Washington.
If a bad person supports a good cause, that doesn’t make the cause bad.
I agree, it’s more about pointing out that it doesn’t make the bad person good, especially when they’re pushing the bill at a time where it has no chance of passing.
More people are pirating everyday. There will be cracks to all games.
He’s jumping on the bandwagon for votes this election. Won’t do a thing with this after he gets in
Fuck off with this defeatist bullshit.
You don’t make things better by not trying
Not to mention, even if he’s a disingenious opportunist, he’s still bringing awareness to an issue you care about. Use that. You don’t owe him anything in return.
Exactly what purpose does this comment serve? You hoping to get a suicide out of it?
