48
‘Stop Killing Games’: Demands for game ownership must also include workers’ rights
(theconversation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
48 points (78.6% liked)
Games
20784 readers
464 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The original petition is already pretty nebulous and without specific demands. Leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state is such a broad claim you can as well extend it to other demands.
I will accept any amount of downvotes for this, but please come back in 5 years and tell me I have been wrong.
While I agree that the current state of SKG is painfully light on ideas for practical implementation, it is at least focused on a single issue.
A plan could be arrived at.
Trying to tack on tangentially-related stuff like workers’ rights is only going to get the whole thing bogged down in conflicting discussions.
The funny thing is: The campaign relies on politicians to define the final implementation of this. That will most likely fail spectacularly. Adding worker rights to it will most likely increase the chance of success, because at least that is something they have experts for...
That's still inherently more specific than 'that plus nebulous notions of workers rights'.
Also, that's not nebulous in terms of end user expectation, that's just nebulous in terms of technical implementation.
And it needs to be, because being specific could run into legal issues, such as if you require the server binaries to be available, you're now violating copyright. The law should specify the result, not the process to get there.
The law is specifying the end user result. Keep the game we bought available to play in the way we bought it.
Questions about server binaries and copyright are implementation details for companies to work out.
That's not specific "the way we bought it" could be argued to require servers to be kept running and no company will take actions to put themselves in a position to get sued.