Q: Won’t this consumer action result in the end of “live service” games?
A: No, the market demand and profitability of these games means the video games industry has an ongoing interest in selling these. Since our proposals do not interfere with existing business models, these types of games can remain just as profitable, ensuring their survival. The only difference is future ones will need to be designed with an “end of life” build once support finally ends. This is not difficult to have if done from the design phase onward, and any costs to it are far outweighed by potential sales in Australia and / or the EU.
And even considering that, SKG is not writing a law. In the EU, if they go through with this, the law would be written by a group of politicians, lawyers and experts in the industry (including lobbyists from publishers) based on the proposal
Yeah he either doesn’t understand the process and hasnt decided to work out what’s happening, or he’s intentionally deceptive. Either way, I think it’s very stereotypical American thinking to presume everything is binary and no nuanced conversations can happen. “You asserted a thing, but didn’t specify x while doing so, therefore you’re against x”. It’s letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Another thing is that law can and should be left open to interpretation in many cases. That’s not always the best thing, see financial law etc, but you can’t set up a framework for every scenario. However, you can define a list of obvious things and if someone does something against the spirit of the law, it can be amended and/or someone can prosecute to further define. Laws can be changed and judges make rulings that set precedent.
Idk, I’m coming into this late but it’s arguing in bad faith so im frustrated.
From the SDK FAQ:
And even considering that, SKG is not writing a law. In the EU, if they go through with this, the law would be written by a group of politicians, lawyers and experts in the industry (including lobbyists from publishers) based on the proposal
Yeah he either doesn’t understand the process and hasnt decided to work out what’s happening, or he’s intentionally deceptive. Either way, I think it’s very stereotypical American thinking to presume everything is binary and no nuanced conversations can happen. “You asserted a thing, but didn’t specify x while doing so, therefore you’re against x”. It’s letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Another thing is that law can and should be left open to interpretation in many cases. That’s not always the best thing, see financial law etc, but you can’t set up a framework for every scenario. However, you can define a list of obvious things and if someone does something against the spirit of the law, it can be amended and/or someone can prosecute to further define. Laws can be changed and judges make rulings that set precedent.
Idk, I’m coming into this late but it’s arguing in bad faith so im frustrated.