‘Digital ownership must be respected’: UK parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign, but government doesn’t budge | VGC
www.videogameschronicle.com
Politicians debate recent examples of games being “destroyed”…

Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.

  • notarobot@lemmy.zipEnglish
    1·
    5 hours ago

    Seems to be a misunderstanding. We are in agreement. I mentioned it because it seems that was something that was debated. Not because I’m against the initiative

    She continued: “At the same time, the Government also recognises the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades.”

    • Goodeye8@piefed.socialEnglish
      2·
      5 hours ago

      I have to agree that killing online only games makes sense because they can’t be forced to run the server forever, not they can be forced to release the source code. But offline / solo / bots should keep working.

      We are not in agreement. It doesn’t make sense even for online games.

      The politicians statement is not what SKG is about. SKG is not trying to preserve every version of a game. It would be cool if that was also on the table, but that’s not the purpose of the initiative. SKG is concerned with keeping the game playable AFTER the publisher/developer has decided it’s not longer worth maintaining. At that point the online video game is no longer a dynamic service because it’s no longer updated nor maintained. And that means it absolutely could be viewed as a static product. The point she is making is completely irrelevant to the initiative and shouldn’t even be a point of discussion.