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.

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] addie@feddit.uk 8 points 1 day ago

Identity is a many-layered thing, and I'd never describe myself as British unless very specifically prompted to do so, but I can at least sign that. 5,071 let's go!

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 47 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can't wait for PirateGames to shit on this one too and be a great big Blizzard shill again.

[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Dude you don't get it, the AAA devs will literally go bankrupt if they have to waste a fraction of their profits to do the bare minimum!!! Why won't anyone think of the children?????

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

That's the funny thing about all of this it wouldn't cost the company a single penny. All they'd have to do is open source their code that's it.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

That too would have costs associated with it. Nothing is free when you do it at work, but it's reasonable to impose those kinds of costs to ensure the products they make meet a base standard.

[–] LambdaRX@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you haven't, You can also vote on european one, it has 40% of required signatures.

[–] Aielman15@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I wish some big-name YT/Twitch personality helped raise awareness for the petition. It's ending in a few months and if nothing changes, I don't see it reaching the required signatures in time.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Does Ross/Accursed Farms, the person who started this movement, not count?

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago

It's good, he's the originator, but the reach in Europe is not that great and there have only been a few multilingual channels that have picked it up.

[+] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's not going to get the signatures because the average person does not care about this. I play a lot of games and even I don't care. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. Why does there need to be regulation to stop me from buying it too?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 23 hours ago

Even if you just looked at the screenshot it's pretty clear that's not what the petition is about. Could you go away and do literally one seconds worth of research, and then come back and explain why you made such a brainless comment.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Interesting how condifently you are talking about the subject even though your comment makes it obvious you have no idea what the petition is about.

[+] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -10 points 1 day ago (6 children)

The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them.

If a company says they're going to disable a video game a year after I purchase it and I won't be able to retain or repair it and I agree to those terms, can I still buy it?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 7 points 22 hours ago

No company ever sells games with the disclaimer that they might stop supporting those games at some arbitrary point in the future they sell the games with the understanding that you are purchasing a product that you will own after you give the company the required amount of money.

They are not selling you a limited term license, they are selling you a product. They should not be allowed to then change their minds after the fact without compensating the customer.

[–] 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.

[–] 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.

[–] CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

Yes. Such a transaction would be legally classified as a service: You pay publisher a one-time fee for access to the right to play their game over a known period of time.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Depends on the territory. The argument is that the practice as it stands now is against current consumer laws in places like the UK. Functionally, even if they were forced to provide this disclaimer, it would still lead to the current state of things being less lucrative and would discourage the practice anyway, which I would still call some kind of a win.

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

I just want Blur to be revived. I know modded online servers exist for PC, but it would great to have it on consoles and play 4P splitscreen

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

One of the big problems about the original petition was that it had a focus on gaming. But this is a problem in the entire software industry, and as much as gaming is probably the more serious concern for the majority of people, it is considered by the government to be somewhat unimportant. Corporate software though has a more mature image, and so is more likely to be considered.

Any software that is sold by a company should be open sourced if the company chooses to end support. Either because the company goes out of business or because they just decide it's no longer profitable to continue updating the software, and yes, this does include older versions of iOS.

A rising tide and all that.

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

These petitions are limited in scope for a reason - this is a small initiative and the goal is to focus on one part of the market which started the whole thing (the initiative, not the software killing issue), as well as to limit the number of big companies that could be affected (the potential opposition).

Sure, ideally this would expand on all software but you have to start somewhere, especially when you're just a bunch of randos with little knowledge about law and no funds to turn it into a serious lobbying movement - one that could both get the political attention and was able to defend its stance from corporations.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

It failed because it was USA, you might have better luck in EU

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

I don't think there were much if any attempts to make a petition in the US. If I recall correctly, Ross spoke with a lawyer who told him the chances for a positive outcome are close to null which is why he decided to focus on other markets - mainly: Australia, Brazil, Canada, EU, France and UK.

The failed petition mentioned was in UK, just like this one, but was canceled due to early elections. EU petition is still going, with a little bit over 6 months left, while Australian and Canadian ones closed last year. There was also a push to contact the local consumer protection agencies in Australia, France and Germany since they seem to have the tools to look into the issue as well.

[–] Nilz@sopuli.xyz 3 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I know UK left the EU, but I wasn't aware they had joined USA.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

There's actually some truth to that, believe it or not

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 17 hours ago

God, what an awful thought