422

After 350,000 signatures in an EU consumer rights campaign, Ubisoft is adding offline modes to The Crew games - but not the now-dead original (www.gamesradar.com)

submitted 1 month ago by simple@lemm.ee to c/games@lemmy.world

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 month ago

I really hope that something gets done about games not being playable anymore. This is really important for the sake of our hobby and clearly not acceptable.

I could understand how multiplayer games would be harder to maintain 20 years after their release, but there is no excuse for solo games.

[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Who preserves historical artwork? Who makes sure it is available for all to enjoy?

I think governments and nonprofits (like museums) need to consider that archival of an interactive artwork means allowing it to continue being accessible and interactive. That'd be the real preservation.

Laws that say if you create something like this and it reaches some metric, then you are required to turn over all resources regarding it to open source public consumption once you are done actively maintaining it.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago

Art restoration is actually sort of similar to cracking games. (A difference being those games are still protected by copyright so it's technically illegal.)

[-] unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

Going by US laws (life + 70 years), all of Picasso's art is all still copyright protected in the US until 2043, so it's even less of a difference than you may realize.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

I don't know where the line is because with art restoration you're actually modifying a physical object. I guess a better comparison would be modifying an arcade cabinet or something.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

It's not the most robust analogy, but I actually really like your comparison to painting restoration; to do it well, one must understand the techniques and materials used in the original (even stuff below the visible surface).

Not a lawyer, but I think the original work is still copyrighted, and that restoration wouldn't (or certainly shouldn't) constitute a new artwork. Though now I'm wondering about that terrible Jesus painting restoration from a few years back — it's certainly different from the original, and whilst it might not seem reasonable to call it a new piece of "art", it's certainly inspired a great many people(to make memes)