A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Cracking, unlicensed MAME, jailbreaking - these should be free-speech fundamentals that are instead prosecuted as crimes.
If that's your notion what laws and judicial systems are for, check out the ongoing Post Office scandal in the UK.
I find it unclear what the relationship is between free speech and the UK using flawed but licensed proprietary software to wrongly convict innocent people of fraud.
OK. Let me spell it out. The laws aren't there to protect the rights of the ordinary citizens. It's there to keep them under control. The rich and powerful are not only exempt from it, but the laws exist to protect their interests. That's why cracking and jail breaking are illegal.
I used the example of the UK post office because they didn't even need the evidence of theft to send hundreds of sub postmasters to jail. But even after it became clear that the post office management lied and extorted, those responsible still roam free.
Yeah, most laws have nothing to do with justice and are merely threats made by social elites to working people. I don't need that explained to me. I think you misunderstood my politics from my initial comment.
I think you misunderstood my politics from my initial comment.
It was more a reflection of my outrage at the injustice and inequality that plagues the world, than a judgement of your politics.
Setting legal precidents and regulating the industry are musts to curb this behavior. But we also have power as consumers. The ol' "vote with money" if you will. There are too many uninformed consumers for this to have a huge impact, but keeping our money away from bad publishers and giving it to good ones will help.
I want to apologize in advance for the aggressive tone in this comment. It's the only thing that comes out. I'm not angry at you, not at all - I'm angry at videogame publishers and at the current situation.
Has "vote with your wallet" ever worked? Literally ever? Maybe when the stars align. If the path to a better world requires everyone to be educated, and it's more convenient for the vast majority of everyone to just keep going with whatever shitty system is currently being used, then nothing will change.
You know what works? Government regulation. Remember the ozone layer? Have you noticed how it's not a problem anymore? That's not because everyone got together and agreed to "vote with their wallet" by never buying anything that depleted ozone, which requires a crazy amount of research with every purchase. No, it was solved by the government (or governments?) banning the sale of anything ozone-depleting and cracking down on it. That's what works.
Voting with your wallet is an illusion.
Importantly, "vote with your wallet" is also straight up enabling discussion where those who have the most dollars have the most votes is taken for granted.
This is not how we want to run a society. We can already see the results of it, and they're incredibly not good.
Exactly!
Plus, it's not really a matter of being able to withhold your money from a company, when you bought a game 20 years ago and don't want to see it disappear, or if you're trying to buy a game from 20 years ago that is no longer sold. People would literally throw money at companies if they just kept games available somehow. But "I won't buy the next game you release if you delete my digital purchases" isn't a viable method of protest. The money the company thinks they're "saving" by doing so far outweighs any losses from your non-purchases
Apology not needed.
I agree with you. The ozone layer is a great example of this being successful. And there are other examples of this kind of issue elsewhere. Like the we have to push for user repair rights or against planned obsolescence (which one could argue this is planned obsolescence, in thinking about it).
A small number of informed users won't disincentiveize companies from abusing the masses. Because most companies are garbage so of course they will if they can. And regulations are the solution. I'm not suggesting we ignore that. But those of us who are informed can still incentiveize those companies that do treat their customers well in the interim.
I concede to the point though. I said, in effect, that supporting businesses that treat us well will help. But I suppose it's more accurate to say that will, at best, stop things from getting worse.
Too few people care to vote with their wallet, they see shiny new game and buy it. If theres anything to be learned by all the shitty game launches and the early access trend its that gamers in general have poor impulse control and short memories
for everyone who thinks about what they buy, there are so many those who will just buy and scream how they will do what they want with their money. Relying on people to do intelligent decisions or even care about their own interests is fools errand.
I think that if any company wants to write off any intellectual property that they have the copyrights to, it should have to become public domain
So Ubisoft has just pulled the server plug on The Crew rendering the game useless for everyone who bought a copy? Obviously a ploy to get people onto the new entries but the only issue is that since it’s not an offline game, they have rendered a good inaccessible. This was probably in the TOS, but even so I think one could argue that is a terrible position to put a customer in who may have spent more money on DLC and likely spent a lot of time on progressing in the game.
Arguably, if Ubisoft is going to make profit off DLC, they should be forced to at the bare minimum either refund a fair amount of the purchase back to the users or allow the DLC to be used in a later release, along with giving pre-existing players a discount towards the newer entry. That’s how you treat your customers right.
Nah fuck that, that's not a deterrent and businesses will just see that as the cost of doing business. They should be forced to refund everyone for the entire game no questions asked. There was no disclaimer when purchasing this game that says "we may completely disable this game and render it useless, even single player, on short notice at any time." What are you supposed to do, buy the game, then read the terms of service and maybe interpret it as them having the ability to do that and then return the game? Absolute BS.
I don't think any reasonable consumer would purchase a game if they knew it could be made completely unplayable in the next 3 months. Which is exactly what happened here. It was still on sale in December and was shut down in March...
This puts undue hardship on the consumer to make sure they're not getting ripped off and there's not even a clear way to be able to do that. This is the exact situation regulations are for.