I mean I really like the idea, but they need to carve out more exceptions for persistent online worlds (mmorpgs), the MMORPG industry is already really struggling, if they are caught up in this, they just wont be made anymore because the squeeze isnt worth the juice.
But for sure, no game that for all intents and purposes is a solo player or has solo player campaigns, once purchased, should ever be revoked from the purchaser. Online checks should be written out if no longer supported.
But now I digress coz im slightly high, and it got me thinking.
Say I buy a game today - POE2 , it has an online check / online multiplayer / etc , but for all intents its has a solo player game aspect to it (offline/campaign)
Publisher decides they no longer want to support any online aspects of the game, under this law they would essentially have to patch out parts that are online, including security checks, multiplayer, and essentially would freeze it in time, and make it offline.
OK that sounds good so far... but then im left with this next question
How long is the obligation the provide that patch, my grandson finds my old PC in the attic in 2050... on it has POE2... it hasnt been patch since yesterday... should the publisher still provide that patch after 24 years ?
Or is there an expectation that games come pre coded to go "offline"
I just dont understand, how feasible any of this actually gets implemented.
Maybe we are trying over complicate this legislation. Maybe it should be written very simply, Any software sold for a fixed, one-time purchase must remain fully functional for the lifetime of ownership if its core features do not natively rely on a network, requiring publishers to either maintain or bypass online authentication checks indefinitely. For live-service features that inherently require server infrastructure, availability must be clearly defined in the terms of use, with mandatory consumer refunds triggered if access is cut short
You are the one overthinking it. As long as the official servers are still up there shouldn't be any difference, only when the developers stop support would they be obligated to do an end of service patch and/or release the server software for players to run either for just themselves or their community.
4
u/Most_Internal_9852 16h ago
I mean I really like the idea, but they need to carve out more exceptions for persistent online worlds (mmorpgs), the MMORPG industry is already really struggling, if they are caught up in this, they just wont be made anymore because the squeeze isnt worth the juice.
But for sure, no game that for all intents and purposes is a solo player or has solo player campaigns, once purchased, should ever be revoked from the purchaser. Online checks should be written out if no longer supported.
But now I digress coz im slightly high, and it got me thinking.
Say I buy a game today - POE2 , it has an online check / online multiplayer / etc , but for all intents its has a solo player game aspect to it (offline/campaign)
Publisher decides they no longer want to support any online aspects of the game, under this law they would essentially have to patch out parts that are online, including security checks, multiplayer, and essentially would freeze it in time, and make it offline.
OK that sounds good so far... but then im left with this next question
How long is the obligation the provide that patch, my grandson finds my old PC in the attic in 2050... on it has POE2... it hasnt been patch since yesterday... should the publisher still provide that patch after 24 years ?
Or is there an expectation that games come pre coded to go "offline"
I just dont understand, how feasible any of this actually gets implemented.
Maybe we are trying over complicate this legislation. Maybe it should be written very simply, Any software sold for a fixed, one-time purchase must remain fully functional for the lifetime of ownership if its core features do not natively rely on a network, requiring publishers to either maintain or bypass online authentication checks indefinitely. For live-service features that inherently require server infrastructure, availability must be clearly defined in the terms of use, with mandatory consumer refunds triggered if access is cut short