PhireSide
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
- Messages
- 18,287
- Reaction score
- 11,723
Was this where they spoke about it on the WAN Show?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
Stop Destroying Videogames
- Thread starter Fulcrum29
- Start date
-
- Tags
- stop killing games
Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
Yes,
It is the ideal example that I would present to the EU Commission. The example would have to be more elaborate and complex (not in a bad way). You would have to establish a custodial consortium. There would need to be a steward program. IP holders would have to be cooperative. Having such a structure in place doesn't even mean that ecosystems would necessarily have to be decoupled. Then you need to examine interoperability.
The problem with IP disputes will continue to exist within a preservation structure. How they would ventilate this, I don’t know, but continuity is possible. The consumer bought a license to access a version that has to be maintained up to a conditional point. Yes, that is within EU law.
Yes, games can have perpetuity, and by saying that, I mean being accessible and in a playable state.
Stewards and custodians can't be burdened. Sustainability, and how to go about it, will need to be examined, too. To a large extent, many online stores like Epic Games, Steam, and GOG, and the indie ones like Itch and Zoom, are already set up as custodians. They are dependent on making sales. Bridging ecosystems, or rather making them interoperable, would mean that entities like Nintendo and PlayStation would need to relax their exclusivity, but again, it is their IP rights. IP rights shouldn't be eroded, but there has to be leeway to allow preservation.
There is a lot more to add.
All I am saying is that when any "Stop Killing Games" initiative makes an approach, it has to be sober and with the right mindset.
Fulcrum I think what he means is that the game becomes the property of the user and he can do with it what he wants, but it's not property transfer as say transfer of intellectual property. That copy of the game belongs to the consumer but not the actual patents and copyrights belonging to the companies involved with the game.
For example when you buy your Toyota Fortunner that car will come with engine management and other kinds of software built in. The car now belongs to you at the moment of purchase. And you can do what you want with it. You could trash it. You could lease it out. You could give it away or resell it. You could take it apart.
But of course you can't reverse engineer it and make a copy and sell that or copy their patents and such. The same here. What this guy means is that it's the same as with the car, a game is the same to the end consumer. It belongs to you. Of course you can't make copies and resell them or take parts of it and create your own game.
But nobody should have the right to terminate your use of that game. Including on digital platforms. If you bought the game on some digital platform the game will have to have the ability to function without that platform. GOG does this well. And Steam said they'd work to allow for the downloaded games to continue to work should their platform die and their servers go offline.
In this case the situation is not even retroactive. Game publishers would have to allow these games to continue, broken or not. And maybe DRM free versions to be made available for download should the platform die. And if servers are required, some sort of code or information to allow third parties to run such servers with their own hardware and money should be permitted. Game publishers will have to get used to a new reality and will have to decide whether they wish to continue to publish games or not. If they decide it no longer makes sense for them to publish games, other game publishers and devs would step in. Europe is a huge market. Not a single publisher will abandon it and they'll just adapt to the new reality, should the European Commission force this on them. I support this fully. If you want to sell a game for Windows 11, that's fine but if it includes activation code to a server to check if the game is allowed to run, once that server goes offline the company will be obliged to provide a workaround, eg a patch to allow these games to run. They will have to factor this in when deciding to publish such a game or write it.
The alternative is that the company offers refunds to people upon such a time they decide to pull the plug. If you bought the game and now the game is no longer going to function and the company no longer wishes to provide some assistance for third parties to keep it going or is actively taking down attempts to do so the ideally the law would force the company to offer refunds or store credit, before terminating the game.
Last edited:
In this case the game would have been abandoned maybe but prior to abandonment the publisher would have to release some sort of code or at least some information to allow third parties to write their own server software for this game. In fact they likely will be asked to only do one thing. NOT MESS with people who wish to figure out a way to allow this network mode to work now that the servers are dead or the company no longer has the resources to keep on providing network drivers etc.
Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
Video games need to be looked at within current data governance laws. Your Toyota Fortuner example is not data; at best, it can be examined as a license within a game that is licensed.
My view remains that a video game license should be respected as property, and that the property is ownership that should be protected as a right. Next, you should look at guarantees that ensure the license owner has reasonable access to a playable video game.
It is unreasonable to expect a video game to be supported in perpetuity by its IP owners; however, the IP owners could entrust their IP, or parts that allow playability, to stewards. Stewards themselves could be another organization or community that ensures that the data is managed and behaves accordingly with the IP owner’s rules. This will also be extended to modding. When you examine accessiblity, you could also argue balancing, OS support, etc.
It is also unreasonable to expect a licensee that owns multiple video game licenses to store a copy. This is where data custodians are important, who store playable versions, but also implement and maintain the data on rules as established by the IP owners. You will still install your game via a license as provided by the custodian.
Everyone is respected.
The challenge, however, is that this can’t be imposed at a loss. Ideally, the sales cycle should continue, and everyone should share the proceeds; hence, licensing will have perpetuity. Monetization could also still be applied and directed by both the IP owners and their stewards.
This is largely applicable to live-service titles. Non-live service titles need protection too, so my suggestion is broad in general.
GOG, themselves, get to do what they do via distribution rights. They have terms, too, to quote:
They, however, add this:
so their agreement wins, but it does so within their distribution terms I will touch on, but to continue,
They say this agreement might not be disclosed to the public, though they share it publicly.
Terms and conditions
Last update: January 24th, 2023.Dear Partner! These GOG Distribution Terms apply to the distribution of Publisher Games via the GOG Platforms and form part of the Digital Distribution Agreement entered into between the Publisher and GOG. For ease we have provided short explanations of some
sites.google.com
There is a provision:
Just note that you will have 60 days to download that GOG content (or its installer). GOG is also smart not to distribute any live service titles.
Steam, however, said things, but they haven't made any promises. They do, however, allow anyone who has bought a license to download the game attached to the license that has been discontinued. They don't place that onus on you. This, however, may include live-service titles that aren't playable anymore. I can still install this game, but I can't play it:
Ring of Elysium on Steam
Escape an astonishing disaster in Ring of Elysium, a battle royale shooter developed by Aurora Studio.
Then there are IP disputes, and it is well covered by the video, that covers another topic, posted in this thread,
Nintendo Could Always Brick Your Console and America's to Blame
Another great video from Moon Channel. Wanted to post this in the Switch 2/Stop Killing Games thread, but I do what I want to do. A pretty deep dive (for an average Joe like me) into a pretty depressing topic: IP Law. There is mention of SKG's (futile) attempt to change things, but by the look...
mybroadband.co.za
DRM as a mechanism that is installed is expected to be decoupled once a game is retired by the IP owner. DRM, as in digital rights management, as with law, will continue. However, it is not simple when a game's logic resides server-side. Again, stewards and custodians can reasonably solve this problem in cooperation with the IP owners.
This is very much unreasonable. You can't expect to pay $60 to play a live-service title today and expect to get that money returned 10-years later when the game is retired. I have a good idea that live-service titles may be moved to a subscription-only model. Subscription services are also already covered in EU law. EU law does grant minimum protection. This is also why a game such as Anthem is only being sunset now, even though it hasn't been serviced since, possibly, pre-pandemic times. It is, however, in a playable state, though not a good one, but you can access it and play it. Again, stewards and custodians can solve this problem.
Last edited:
Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
The game hasn't been abandoned. Only its online servers have been disconnected. You still need to buy it on Steam or GOG. What it is, however, is an existing example that can be applied. There are other examples, too.
There is also not a true thing known as abandonware. Abandonware came into existence when the IP owners suspended sales, mainly due to IP disputes. The thing is, legal persons still own that property. It is only that, especially when a company is dissolved or acquired, ownership is spread to the degree that no one will exercise their ownership over the IP. It is not abandoned, but neglected.
Again, here custodianship could allow that continuity via regulation. You would want multiple custodians, as well as stewards, but it is important that everyone's rights are equally protected.
All this said. Whatever happens to game ownership will, to a degree, apply to other digital data properties too. It will not only be the game lobby groups who are pushing back.
Many are harvesting clout at the moment. I am observing it all.
Ubi made a good response that they will review their EULA, and that is a positive step and should be accepted as such. You, the consumer, want that cooperation.
They don't have to.
That's fine.
But there is no need to introduce the concept of intellectual property here. We're talking about single copies of the purchased game, or even licenses if you wish, but these would attain the status of goods such as CDs, DVDs, cars or toasters.
They could but they don't have to.
They can retain the right to their IP without any such stewardship. It's not necessary. The end user would still be limited from making copies of the game or renaming it and copying and reselling as his own. That would work with existing IP laws. So it would be possible that no new copies of the game would be available and only old copies remained, but those copies should be respected.
Maybe but it would not be necessary. As long as the game is not copied directly or renamed i.e. sold as another game for profit, existing laws could cover that. It's like a music CD you find, you can't make copies of that and resell or re-record the same song and sell that.
I don't know here. If the owner of the game does not back up his investment and it's lost, it's lost.
If the IP owner no longer wants to sell the game, he is free to stop selling it. However existing copies should be respected and should have a right to be resold at a 1:1 basis.
This is largely applicable to live-service titles. Non-live service titles need protection too, so my suggestion is broad in general.
GOG, themselves, get to do what they do via distribution rights. They have terms, too, to quote:
They, however, add this:
so there agreement wins, but it does so within their distribution terms I will touch on, but to continue,
They say this agreement might not be disclosed to the public, though they share it publicly.
Terms and conditions
Last update: January 24th, 2023.Dear Partner! These GOG Distribution Terms apply to the distribution of Publisher Games via the GOG Platforms and form part of the Digital Distribution Agreement entered into between the Publisher and GOG. For ease we have provided short explanations of some
There is a provision:
DRM as a mechanism that is installed is expected to be decoupled once a game is retired by the IP owner. DRM, as in digital rights management, as with law, will continue. However, it is not simple when a game's logic resides server-side. Again, stewards and custodians can reasonably solve this problem in cooperation with the IP owners.
Essentially once you have the GOG sourced install file, the game is yours to use as you please (you're still not allowed to resell it endlessly or make copies for resell or copy the game or its idea and create your own game and resell that). However it is possible that future operating system upgrades will prevent its operation. However GOG took care of that as many WIndows 95 or DOS based games are able to function under Windows 11. The IP holder would be forbidden from interfering in third parties providing wrappers which would allow this GOG executable (legally purchased) from running under Windows 20.
When it comes to DRM which requires some sort of external entity to activate, that should be decoupled. If the DRM is of the old type eg on page 10 what is the 7th word in the manual? That sort of DRM could continue. If the game is sold with a manual it would be up to the end user to maintain that manual or make a backup.
No I do think it's potentially reasonable because you should have a right to your property in perpetuity without any artificial barriers put in place. Because either you make provision for playing within reason or you refund the money. I think the industry should be regulated this way. The refund would only occur in the case where you no longer wish to assist so the game can continue on (eg refuse to decouple the server based DRM) or you simply wish to pull the game as is. There is no reason why this can't be so. At the end this would require publishers to make some effort to either allow for support in the future by third parties OR they would have to offer refunds. Look it would be quite a seismic shift but if consumers demanded it of their politicians we may see a swing towards that in Europe.
That's why there is a petition like this and hopefully enough people agitate for change which makes games akin to other entities such as toasters or music CDs.
It's a brave new world. At the end of the day 99% of the publishers would fold and would adapt and within a few years everyone would have forgotten about how terrible new requirements are and would have moved on.
I spoke of only one scenario. The case of abandoned software where the publisher still have IP rights but refuses to license for sale or whatnot. Those who have copies of the game could transfer their ownership to others and delete their copies and third parties could allow for these games to continue to operate on a commercial or non profit basis.
True. There is no such thing.
There is no need for this custodianship. In fact we should strive to make games as much as possible as close to other sorts of media products or any other product. Once the copy is sold, the IP owner loses all control over it, and it should be legal under law to allow modding of it to allow it to continue to operate once it has been 'abandoned' i.e. the IP holder no longer cares to work with it. That does not mean third parties 'create' and sell new copies of the game or give away new copies, it means existing copies can change owners and can continue to operate as long as third parties offer support (or their own users provide support). The game IP still belongs to the original owner, hence as an owner of say Mean Streets on floppy disks I have a right to play one copy of it at a time of any PC and the right to sell it on to someone else. I am however prevented from making copies of the game and selling that or cloning the game to some newer platform and selling it as a new product.
EULAS need to be reviewed and games have to become as much as possible like any other product. You bought a copy of a game, you have a right to resell it and then you may not continue to play it anymore, and you may play it on any operating system you wish, as long as obviously, that is practically possible. Ubisoft should be barred by law from interfering and blocking you from doing so and may have to provide some basic support - and this may not even be necessary - to allow you to run this old game on a future OS.
The industry has to head this way. Consumers need to organise and force the lawmakers to push this through.
What could help is to balance out how many game publishers there are in the EU and outside the EU. The Commission could possibly be more likely to act on the side of consumers if liability would lie more with outside of EU companies than fellow EU companies.
I really think games and any other software, should be treated as consumer goods. Again with the exclusion of copying and stealing IP. It's the same with Toyota. You can't reverse engineer it, put that tech into your own cars and sell them.
Fulcrum, the publishers would only be required to do something that manufacturers were required to do for a long time: provide service manuals. If your game requires EA servers, provide some info as to how to emulate them (for lack of a better term - provide info that would make this feasible for third parties to provide the wrapper or create their own servers) which would allow for some level of game play. In the same way service manuals with circuit diagrams were sold often with products or were available which would allow enthusiasts, tikerers or professionals to repair the equipment and maybe even fit aftermarket parts once the original parts were no longer sold. If you were told what sort of resistor was required, you could jerry-rig one. But if you didn't know, it would require lots of trial and error.
Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
I have no idea why people are against having stewards and custodians. All they do is ensure that a product continues to exist and is usable. As said, the community themselves can be stewards.
Now I am going to quote an EU ruling:
Regulation - 2023/1670 - EN - EUR-Lex
eur-lex.europa.eu
Annexure II:
Ecodesign requirements
A. MOBILE PHONES OTHER THAN SMARTPHONES
1. RESOURCE EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
1.1. Design for repair and reuse
...
(2) Access to repair and maintenance information
| (a) | From 20 June 2025 or from one month after the date of placement on the market, whichever is later, manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall, at least until 7 years after the date of end of placement on the market, provide access to repair and maintenance information to professional repairers for parts covered by points 1(a) and (c) in the following conditions, unless that information is made publicly available at the free access website of the manufacturer, importer or authorised representative:
|
Etc. I am not going to quote it all. There is zero percentage chance that IP owners will make their IP, patents, copyright, etc. publically available. They could, however, by law, make it available to parties, as in stewards, that is assessed, and approved, to take their properties under care, and allow it with continuity.
You as a licensee is also a custodian, the problem you have is that you may not share the digital property you have a license to. This can be bestowed upon custodians. You lose your copy, and you have a license, you can submit it to a custodian to be reissued with a copy. It keeps the system legally sound within a preserved encompassing digital ecosystem.
All I am suggesting is to legitimize an preservation cycle. For that you need roleplayers.
EA isn't going to share with you how their game logic is computed. Those who insist on open-sourcing it isn't going to get that.
Going back to above quoted law. Stewards have to be supported by the current IP owners. Rules would have to persist, otherwise you open the doors to substitution, piracy, etc.
Anyway, all I have to say on this. Everyone has a right to suggestion and opinion, but current laws, and similar products (services included) needs to be taken under consideration. There are existing EU regulations that can be used as a basis to build this upon.
I have no idea why people are against having stewards and custodians. All they do is ensure that a product continues to exist and is usable. As said, the community themselves can be stewards.
Now I am going to quote an EU ruling:
Regulation - 2023/1670 - EN - EUR-Lex
Annexure II:
Ecodesign requirements
A. MOBILE PHONES OTHER THAN SMARTPHONES
1. RESOURCE EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
1.1. Design for repair and reuse
...
(2) Access to repair and maintenance information
(a) From 20 June 2025 or from one month after the date of placement on the market, whichever is later, manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall, at least until 7 years after the date of end of placement on the market, provide access to repair and maintenance information to professional repairers for parts covered by points 1(a) and (c) in the following conditions, unless that information is made publicly available at the free access website of the manufacturer, importer or authorised representative:
(a) The manufacturer’s, importer’s or authorised representative’s website shall indicate the process for professional repairers to register for access to information; to accept such a request, the manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may only require the professional repairer to demonstrate that:
(i) the professional repairer has the technical competence to repair mobile phones other than smartphones and complies with the applicable regulations for repairers of electrical equipment in the Member States where it operates. Reference to an official registration system as professional repairer, where such system exists in the Member States concerned, shall be accepted as proof of compliance with this point;
(ii) the professional repairer is covered by insurance covering liabilities resulting from its activity regardless of whether this is required by the Member State;
(b) Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall accept or refuse the registration within 5 working days from the date of request. In the case of refusal, a clear justification will be provided to the requestee outlining the reasons behind such decision, which shall be revoked, if the same professional repairer requests to be registered with updated information, which complies with the conditions for being granted access;
(c) Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may charge reasonable and proportionate fees for access to the repair and maintenance information or for receiving regular updates of such information. The registration as such shall be provided for free. A fee shall be considered reasonable in particular if it does not discourage access by failing to take into account the extent to which the professional repairer uses the information;
(d) Once registered, a professional repairer shall have access, within 1 working day after requesting it, to the requested repair and maintenance information. The information may be provided for an equivalent model or model of the same family, if relevant;
Etc. I am not going to quote it all. There is zero percentage chance that IP owners will make their IP, patents, copyright, etc. publically available. They could, however, by law, make it available to parties, as in stewards, that is assessed, and approved, to take their properties under care, and allow it with continuity.
Then maybe they will have to be forced to do this. In the past, devices would come with circuit diagrams or repair manuals or such could be sourced or purchased. Hence such is also possible for games. If it's not yet in law, this can be worked on, laws can be changed to favour consumers in Europe. In the 60s you could buy a transistor radio and get a diagram and repair the device yourself. It wasn't illegal. Such things were common.
There is definitely not a zero chance, if law makes them do it, they will have to do it. Or they will have to not release the game in Europe, but then someone else will release it.
I don't know what's so hard to understand here, it is possible that this movement will change licensing laws. Licenses have to be treated like goods. End of story. In the same way you can't reverse engineer a car and sell that as your own-- it's already protected-- in the same way
Once enough people have the BS pulled from their eyes and start to demand games are goods, then laws will change.
Maybe. But also such may not be necessary. One can FORCE publishers with laws. If enough European consumers have their way they can change things. For example in the past European consumers protested the launch of the SOPA law and similar European equivalents (ACTA). Time for consumers to act.
The custodian thing may introduce more obfuscation and perhaps more cost and unnecessary over-regulation. Or maybe it wouldn't. I'm not saying that's not a great idea that you have, maybe it's brilliant but I think as consumers we need to stop caring so much about the punblishers' and their rights. At present the laws favour them. In terms of software/games the laws favour them and not us, while in terms of goods, the laws favour us. It should be that the people are ALWAYS favoured. The small guy needs to be protected against exploitative and dishonest practices. For example you're still clicking the BUY button when you buy digital games, music, movies etc. Once purchased, you should enjoy a license in perpetuity and that license should be transferable. Maybe that means less profit, if so, let it be. Game studios make huge profits. Why? Maybe they can reduce their profits a bit by being more fair. Or maybe all digital goods must be "sold" as a rental model. You get the license for 5 years only and they have to provide 5 years and after that they can pull the plug at any time.
They don't have to share game logic. The game logic is in the executable files, they're already sharing that with you. They would have to facilitate online play or at least allow for third parties to allow that to continue or at least NOT BLOCK THEM.
No you don't. In the same way that selling Toyota cars does not facilitate the piracy of Toyotas car management software, or allow people to steal Toyota's IP and make cars as good as Toyota's without spending billions on R&D, the same can occur with games. I don't know why you treat software differently here. I know you've been conditioned to do this but this can be changed, it only requires enough consumers in Europe to push and some parties will legislate this through.
Built as basis but it's also possible that this is a revolution of sorts. Look at it like this, the industry has pushed too much. Maybe the camel's back is starting to break. Abusive behaviour has been under the radar since software and games have been available on a mass scale but maybe not people will demand that software be treated as goods. Hopefully once people wake up, consumers (gamers) will continue to push on this until the industry is forced by law and stiff penalties to favour the consumer. If some studios close down, (doubtful), then let it be so. New studios will emerge which will provide games on a more consumer friendly basis. You know, the way things were in the past, when you could buy your game on diskettes, CD-ROM, cartridge or compact cassette. I would love nothing better to see Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and many others fined for abusive behaviour and here I mean in the billions. Fine them until it hurts them so much they have to change. The money gained from fines can be used in the European arms industry.
Why don't you want to treat software as a good?
Last edited:
Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
Maybe because I want to treat the license as a asset?
Herr der Verboten
Honorary Master
@Fulcrum29
Some of this feels like drummbed up drama and a lot of slactivism; I would imagine that instead of having your bread jammed on both sides, that is clicking a button in "protest" while playing the publishers titles, instead just stop supporting them as a whole.
From their point of view the money is still in coming so why bother with slactivism-button-clicks?
One would think that when the money stops, the motivation will be there vs "sociallike pressure" to enforce change.
However, we all know that we can't collectively stop paying for a product until change is met, just look at anything local that needed change.
This is my honest take on it, and until it changes from noise into something worthwhile, I'll enjoy having a good chuckle at all sides.
Some of this feels like drummbed up drama and a lot of slactivism; I would imagine that instead of having your bread jammed on both sides, that is clicking a button in "protest" while playing the publishers titles, instead just stop supporting them as a whole.
From their point of view the money is still in coming so why bother with slactivism-button-clicks?
One would think that when the money stops, the motivation will be there vs "sociallike pressure" to enforce change.
However, we all know that we can't collectively stop paying for a product until change is met, just look at anything local that needed change.
This is my honest take on it, and until it changes from noise into something worthwhile, I'll enjoy having a good chuckle at all sides.
Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
It is important for end-of-life discussion to be ventilated. It is just that there is a strong leaning for IP owners to open-source their software after the fact. Now you have people who are piggybacking off this movement for exploiting business software, in particular that of SaaS. Repair rights groups will seek maximum benefits, as a positive outcome would support their mission. I am just of the opinion, that those who are pro of preservation should not attempt to bite off more than they can chew.
Even before the end-of-life, I am off the opinion that multiplayer games must foundationally have LAN functionality. When I bring stuff like this up in forums where this is discussed at heart I do get brigaded. I don't know why. People often respond to LAN by saying everyone has internet access. However, when I ask what happens if the internet goes down, I get a garbage response. The amount of times I have had a debate, and I get to argue with AI many a time is astounding.
If you have LAN, in broader context, you have an component that allows for an local instance. That is at its crux a dedicated server, and it can be exposed to the larger web. Many games, especially on Steam, allow you to download a dedicated server directly from your library.
My interest in game preservation dates far back, and it started from a modding community. I am happy for Ross Scott to get the momentum going. It is important to recognize that this issue involves more than just consumers; all stakeholders must contribute. This must be developed based on existing precedent. I have listened to the developers and publishers who support Stop Killing Games, and the feedback is mixed. By and large, the aim is for the consumer to take self-custody of a game's copy that they have purchased. My opinion, however is, if the consumer loses their copy, who is replacing it for them? It is a straightforward question with legal implications that needs addressing.
I am not even at the point of touching on gaming ecosystems. This is far from touching on digital rights management as an software itself that also needs to be ventilated. This is why I propose a system of stewardship and custodianship. They will not implement a regulation that leads to continuous losses for publishers and developers, there has to be a model of profiteering. This largely extends to the sustainability of a live service after its end of life. The solution, however, needs to covering gaming, or rather game ownership, in broad, and it needs to be inclusive.
My other gripe with the movement is that some of its proponents are polticising it. A interesting point that I have come accross is that the right, or Conservatists, aren't pro of of preservation. Then it just dwindles down the capitalist route. People are awfully misled, and I do blame politicans and lobbyists for it.
Anyhow, this is as much as I am willing to further touch on this. I hope Stop Killing Games succeeds with the EU Commission and leads to the best outcome for all. I am just a South African looking in from the outside. At least the noise is not going by unnoticed. I just want it to be free from other misaligned agendas.
Herr der Verboten
Honorary Master
Remember when Id made their games "always" source to public?
I wonder how this can work for The Red Engine (CPR); instead of killing it, rather make it free for personal use and paid for when you go commercially with options to fork / contribute.
Nowadays people are mentally incapacitated and/or path of least resistance? Not like the latter changed, but why would I want to think if there is a tool for it, why would I want to use lan when there is an internet for it. Both equally stupid in their own, however, direct/lan is always preferred instead of having to do a round trip when you and your partner in the same house wants to play the same game.
And so we have arrived at Today:
"hello there stranger!"
"take your seat and sniff on these mainstream mass produced money spinners"
Fulcrum29
Honorary Master
A complaint submitted anonymously. Somebody really doesn't want you to own the video games that you have bought.
LOL. When you sign you have to enter either your national ID number or an electronic version thereof (if available). They can then verify your names match the ID number or they verify it electronically as the petition is signed digitally. I suppose it could be possible for someone to acquire on the dark net a set of 1000s or 100s of 1000s of stolen ID numbers and complete names/surnames and enter that, but at what cost and what effort. If that's the bar then any petition is liable to be faked. Which is absurd.
. Boy, I wish that were the case. Then for every, not working as described == REFUND.