You don’t own anything you purchase on Steam

Games sold on Steam are not required to use Steam’s DRM. There are lots of DRM free games on Steam. Steam is only required to be installed to purchase/download them but not to run them. After download, the game files can be copied and ran on any computer without any verification.

…on what?

There was a study done where police K9 units where told they’d be testing the accuracy of the dog’s ability to find drugs. In actuality, they were testing the handlers. Handlers were told drugs were hidden in a certain location, but there wasn’t actually drugs there. Despite that, all their dogs alerted several times to the location the handlers were told about.

I mean…you can. All lawsuits start with an application at a courthouse and that application can say whatever the plaintiff wants.

Here’s youtube lawyer LegalEagle reviewing some crazy ones. Like a man who sued David Copperfield for stealing magical powers granted to him by God. Lawsuits can say literally anything in their initial application.

It’s a patent lawsuit which might have a better chance than a copyright lawsuit but Nintendo didn’t disclose which patent(s) and Pocketpair also doesn’t know yet either.

You’re right though that any patent Pocketpair is infringing upon would also have likely been infringed by dozens of other games. Nintendo is just upset Pocketpair made millions with a game that appealed to Pokemon fans and want to ensure nobody else does it again.

puts probes of voltmeter into outlet

I’m in.

The manipulative tactics listed in the article:

• Consumers cannot see the real cost of digital items, leading to overspending: the lack of price transparency of premium in-game currencies and the need to buy extra currency in bundles pushes consumers to spend more. In-game purchases should always be displayed in real money (e.g.: Euro), or at least they should display the equivalence in real-world currency.
• Companies’ claims that gamers prefer in-game premium currencies are wrong: Many consumers find this unnecessary step misleading and prefer buying items directly with real money.
• Consumers are often denied their rights when using premium in-game currencies, tied to unfair terms favouring game developers.
• Children are even more vulnerable to these manipulative tactics. Data shows that children in Europe are spending on average €39 per month on in-game purchases. While they are among the ones playing the most, they have limited financial literacy and are easily swayed by virtual currencies.

What is the benefit of forcing developers to provide access to old games that require online functionality indefinitely, instead of just hard limiting them to say 10 years wich is essentially indefinite in terms of non-live service games.

In a choice between “you can play online until 2035” and “you can play online forever”, the answer is pretty obvious. All things being equal, the indefinite option is better. I think the problem is that all things are not equal, and making it a legal requirement that all games with online features come with a guarantee those features work indefinitely is incredibly vague and can lead to situations that outright hurt developers.

If the devs need to provide a server binary for players to host a server, how do they ensure these servers only allow players who have purchased the game to play? If they can’t ensure it, then the law is forcing companies to allow pirate servers to exist

How do they ensure people running these community servers aren’t charging money for people to play? If they can’t ensure it, then the law is allowing people to use a company’s IP to generate money without a licence.

If the original version had an in-game shop where you can unlock things with real life money but the offline version doesn’t have a shop, thus making parts of the game forever unobtainable, did they follow the law? If not, then devs would have to give out paid features for free.

Unless these kinds of details are accounted for, this vague idea is doomed to fail because no government is going to force a company to give up their copyright/IP for free. I know a lot of people have also said “fuck these giant corporations” but this also affects indie developers as well. Copyright protects small creators as much as it does large ones.

Idk if he even codes

He was a hacker for the US government and has won 3 competitions at DEFCON. Before that he was a programmer for Blizzard and Amazon Games.

They’re doing this because they’ve lost so much money investors are angry and the executives want to win people back. They aren’t worried about law changes, they’re worried about their stock price and reputation.

In the 12 years since European Citizens Initiatives have existed, there have been few successful campaigns even fewer actual law changes. If I were a greedy company, I wouldn’t be worried about this in the slightest.

If ECIs are to become a useful tool for civil society, campaigners would benefit from a better understanding of how to craft their demands in a way that is likely to lead the Commission to actually propose a legislative initiative. There have now been 133 ECI attempts, millions of signatures collected, a significant amount of money spent, and little to show for it.

Once again. No government intervention required. Companies listen to consumers.

A gacha game asking money for something useless? That’s the entire model!

Players that buy stuff in these games usually see it as a donation to devs making a good game. If nobody bought any of the useless stuff the game would shutdown. That’s how I treat the $10 a month I spend on Reverse 1999. Or they’re a gambling addict and can’t stop themselves from spinning the wheel.

Don’t disrespect Hatoful Boyfriend!

This is so important to you that the government must be petitioned to act but you don’t have a single example? Did you purchase Concord? Have you ever purchased a game that no longer works? Why do you think you have the right to tell the devs what they should be doing if you didn’t buy their game?

Can you give an example? Every time I ask for examples I get a list of games like Concord. A bunch of failed launches nobody has heard of.

Literally how would this change anything? Nobody played the game because it’s bad. Everyone who bought it got a refund. Why would you want a law forcing them to give people a game they don’t want?

Personally, I really liked Papers, Please. You play as a customs agent checking people’s paperwork as they seek entry into your country. The idea of the game is very simple but it’s surprisingly good at telling a story and putting you in situations that are morally difficult.

Lol @ the Gearbox CEO defending the DLC

My favorite artists, performers, and entertainers have all made things I didn’t like so much. It’s cool. When artists have a miss, that’s when they need fans the most to root them on so they are motivated to keep creating. I don’t know if I will ever make anything again that you like, but wouldn’t it be better for you to have that chance to decide than for artists to never create again after a marketplace miss?

This isn’t his game. He bought a game other people created and then made a shitty DLC, probably in an effort to cash in on the name and success of the original. That’s not what artists do, that’s what out of touch CEOs do.

My brother has been playing for years and has a few paid accounts. Here’s how he explained it to me. All paid accounts had their prices locked in until you cancelled them. His first, and main, account had a price of $5 a month because he first bought it 15 years ago.

There are also “ironman” modes that exist in the main game. It’s an option at character creation that will restrict your account from trading with other players forcing you to obtain all items on your own instead of just buying them from the trade board. Since you need to make a new character, this is also another payment. My brother has two ironman accounts.

There are “leagues” which are new temporary servers where the rules are different and XP gain is incredibly fast. You’re given tasks to complete before the “league” ends and are awarded cosmetic items based on how much you complete. This requires its own paid account to play. My brother has one of these too.

In total he spent about $20 a month on the game for his various accounts. This change to the subscription will set every single one of his subscriptions to $14 a month raising his monthly payment to something like $56 a month which is ridiculous. He plans on ending all of his subscriptions since there is now no incentive to stay subscribed (the price is no longer locked in). So my brother, a long time and devoted customer, will play the game less and give less money because Jagex is hoping most people like him won’t go through the hassle of unsubscribing.

He, and lots of other long time players, are hoping that Jagex does what other MMOs do and allow multiple accounts for one subscription price.

I haven’t played the DLC but I have played with the Chef mod and from the reviews it seems like a random modder made a better Chef than Gearbox.