UK government misinterpreted what the petition is about and didn't really answered to what was being asked
early general elections canceled all ongoing petitions at the time

This attempt has a new, reworded petition to, hopefully, make it simple and clear enough to avoid any additional problems.

There are two thresholds for UK petitions:

10 000 signatures: official government response
100 000 signatures: petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Here is a video from Ross Scott (the main organizer of the Stop Killing Games initiative) about this update.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] moody@lemmings.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The goal is not to prevent you from agreeing to bad terms, it's to prevent the companies from imposing those bad terms on people.

Would you rather buy a game that you know is going to die in a year, or the same game but that can be played for as long as you want?

Would you rather companies keep making games with a short expiration date, or games that people can keep playing if they so choose?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -4 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Would you rather buy a game that you know is going to die in a year, or the same game but that can be played for as long as you want?

I would rather I get to make that choice instead of it being imposed onto me. You can make your choice. I can make mine.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Currently, they don't even give you that choice. They're the ones making that decision. Sure, you can buy it, but you don't get to decide if you want to play their game longer than they want you to.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

What a joke. Who would ever choose having their shit taken away after a year?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Who would buy cigarettes? Who would buy a Cybertruck? Who would buy meat? Just because you wouldn't choose it doesn't mean it's a choice that must be banned.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

As it stands now, it's difficult for the consumer to make the informed choice that you can make with any of those. And the comparison is that you'd prefer cigarettes that didn't cause cancer, because they absolutely have the ability to make cigarettes that don't cause cancer in this metaphor, but they choose not to because they believe they stand to make more money the way things are.