173
EU Citizen's initiative to pass legislation to stop game publishers disabling games we paid for
(www.stopkillinggames.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 02 Aug 2024
173 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30500 readers
137 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
An interesting question is whether this would be constitutional in the US, if ever attempted here. Generally, forcing developers to code something has been considered "compelled speech", though this defense gets deployed to varying degrees of effectiveness (i.e. refusing to code proper authentication doesn't exempt you from liability in a breach just because requiring that auth would compel you to code it).
Frankly I have no faith we'll ever see game makes forced into being consumer-friendly, and I've just begun to refuse to purchase any "Live Service" games precisely because I don't want to be investing hours of my time into something that can be taken away at-will.
Good question. Presumably games like this will have a server that is proprietary, and the compulsion may simply be to make the server source or executables available, rather than creating anything new
I'm European so I don't quite understand.
Say person A paid person B to say X and had a valid contract. If B didn't say X can person A sue person B to compel performance of contract or just money back/damages?
At least for new games wouldn't it just be an implied part of the purchasing contract, meaning money back at least.
Well first, my question more relates to the US Constitution's 1st Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech from government/public interference, which is why a law could not compel someone to code something, but also, even in contract disputes between private parties, you will only be able to compel Specific Performance (doing an action) if you can show that monetary or other compensatory damages would be unable to properly compensate for the breach, and Specific Performance can never cover "personal obligations" such as continued employment.
If you had already written the code, but refused to turn it over, that might be possible to compel, but if it wasn't yet written I don't believe the courts would ever compel you to write that code as a form of compensation for contract breach.
If you're talking about being forced to code as in "make the game work on it's own without the server", I'm thinking a "working state" includes "here's what you need to run the server privately", no more coding should be necessary.
Idk if you were thinking they'd be legally compelled to convert server based multiplayer games into peer-to-peer, but that's not how I see it.
It should also not be legally possible to prosecute restoration work to make unsupported games run on private servers.