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

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Not sure what you mean. Companies dont tell you beforehand that they are going to shut games down. They usually dont even know they will, so I dont see how your example holds up here. Maybe you could explain.

This is about companies shutting down games after some time making them unplayable, even for people who already purchased them. Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped "supporting" it.

There is simply no way to justify it. Its a symptom of greed, they dont want you to own a product that doesnt generate them revenue anymore.

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped “supporting” it.

Didn’t Sonos do that with old speakers? I don’t think that it went down well.

[+] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Companies dont tell you beforehand that they are going to shut games down. They usually dont even know they will, so I dont see how your example holds up here. Maybe you could explain.

But what if they did? Some places have already put laws requiring sellers to inform purchasers if they are selling a licence instead of ownership. If the terms were clear at the point of sale, and I agree to the terms, what's the issue? You're allowed to think it's a bad deal, but why does that mean I'm not allowed to accept it?

Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped "supporting" it.

Right. If they explained that at point of sale they would be doing that, and I was alright with it, what's the problem? I understand you wouldn't accept that deal. That's fine. You wouldn't buy that TV. I don't see why I must be prevented from buying it too.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Sure you could require them to inform the user. It would still require a change in law. I would personally stand against it because what you propose is the bare minimum needed to maintain legal status while maximising corporate comfort and minimizing user experience. It would be a law purely made to help companies exploit users.

Companies shouldnt be allowed to take completely absurd counterproductive (in the greater sense) measures just for the 0.01$ higher profit. If companies would behave like people in maintaining a healthy relationship with the law, this wouldnt be a problem. Fact is, many companies do everything in their power to get as close to the fine line separating immoral from illegal as possible to maximize profit (also more often than not straight illegal but hard to prove).

You know about squatters rights? Its the same phenomenon, except imagine 10% of the population doing it. Im pretty sure the law would change in a heartbeat. Companies have no moral compass, no shame or sense of dignity, thats why they need especially strict and explicit laws keeping them in check.

Also, to your last point: You would not be prevented from buying it. You would simply buy it under user friendly conditions. Noone would stop you from just not playing the game after a year if thats what youre concerned about. I dont see why it would have to be shut down for that.