UK Gamers, This Government Petition Concerns You.

[deMangler]

There is a UK government petition to clarify when, legally, a developer can no longer support a game.
Of course games can become unplayable for all sorts of reasons, hardware and OS obsolescence for example are not the developers fault. There are lots of cases where this may apply though. Specifically it is important to make sure that consumers are clearly informed that a game that requires on-line connectivity to function can become unplayable at any time with no refund.

A PCGamer article clarifying this is here:

UK government responds to Stop Killing Games petition, and it's not good: 'There is no requirement in UK law' that forces companies to support old software

It's not the end of the line, but it has to be discouraging.

www.pcgamer.com

The petition for the government to consider this is here.

Petition: Require videogame publishers to keep games they have sold in a working state

Require publishers to leave videogames (and related game assets / features) they have sold to customers in a reasonably working state when support ends, so that no further intervention whatsoever is necessary for the game to function, as a statutory consumer right.

petition.parliament.uk

 

[Mole HD]

All of that stuff is a basic application of common sense from any gamer's perspective, nannying it with a government petition is completely pointless

 

[Ed02350]

If anything the petition led to legitimizing practices like Ubisoft. now all they have to do is add a paragraph in the EULA saying the live service game you've bought wouldn't be available forever. There's so much they could exploit here.

 

[deMangler]

The point is at the moment software providers do not (in the UK) have to state clearly that the product you have bought can be rendered unusable at any time. For example an online DRM no longer functioning. This is out of step with other UK consumer law and most people in the UK would incorrectly assume they have this consumer protection.
The UK has a strong tradition of consumer rights so this is an exception to the way consumer law currently works in the UK. So needs to be addressed.
Nothing is going to change the practices of companies to do what they think is going to make them the most money, even when it clearly negatively affects revenue (think Denuvo for example) because committees and disconnected top-down management isn't going anywhere soon. This is not about changing this. I am not into a nanny state, this is about informed free market functioning and current UK law.
This is about raising awareness of a democratic process within a community that it affects.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The point is at the moment software providers do not (in the UK) have to state clearly that the product you have bought can be rendered unusable at any time. For example an online DRM no longer functioning. This is out of step with other UK consumer law and most people in the UK would incorrectly assume they have this consumer protection.
The UK has a strong tradition of consumer rights so this is an exception to the way consumer law currently works in the UK. So needs to be addressed.
Nothing is going to change the practices of companies to do what they think is going to make them the most money, even when it clearly negatively affects revenue (think Denuvo for example) because committees and disconnected top-down management isn't going anywhere soon. This is not about changing this. I am not into a nanny state, this is about informed free market functioning and current UK law.
This is about raising awareness of a democratic process within a community that it affects.

DRM gets usually deactivated a couple months after relase, that's pretty much a non-issue. It's done its duty by then. And having online games close shop is pretty much buyers risk. You can't force someone to continue what doesn't run profitable and how would you prove that it was still profitable in the first place?

 

[deMangler]

DRM gets usually deactivated a couple months after relase, that's pretty much a non-issue. It's done its duty by then. And having online games close shop is pretty much buyers risk. You can't force someone to continue what doesn't run profitable and how would you prove that it was still profitable in the first place?

Indeed.
It is very difficult to calculate opportunity costs in any industry, and in any case publishers/developers should be free to act in ways they feel are best for them. There is no forcing any approach to publishing or development.
There is a tradition in law and general practice in the UK that if you buy something (rather than licence or subscribe to something) then you own it and that usability is not negotiable once purchase is complete. There are statutory rights that cover this. It is more an issue of informing consumers if their purchase is not covered by this.
A seperate issue is whether this is an ethical or profitable practice when selling software. I wouldn't want to get into a discussion about that here (shudder).
There seems to be some evidence that when millions are spent on a product, for example, then DRM can sometimes protect revenue. It depends. The balance of evidence is that for smaller studios they are better off not including DRM, but the truth of the matter will be case by case.

 

[Mole HD]

Besides all that pure common sense we're mostly all born with (that social media has tried repeatedly to relieve us of) consumer related nonsense...the absolute last thing I want as a gamer is any and all government interference/intervention or participation in my primary hobby...it's as helpful as putting a health and safety sticker on a pair of dancing shoes.

All that'll come out of this type of interference is the death of multiplayer gaming through potentially punitive costs being dumped onto developers

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Besides all that pure common sense we're mostly all born with (that social media has tried repeatedly to relieve us of) consumer related nonsense...the absolute last thing I want as a gamer is any and all government interference/intervention or participation in my primary hobby...it's as helpful or useful as putting a health and safety sticker on a pair of dancing shoes

You'll eat what you get Mole, even if it is the High Commissioner for Fun in Gaming: Herr Klaus Schmidt from Germany.

 

[Mole HD]

You'll eat what you get Mole, even if it is the High Commissioner for Fun in Gaming: Herr Klaus Schmidt from Germany.

I've already suffered that type of gaming intervention with the denial of displaying historical markings on German WW2 aircraft in the retail version of IL2 BoS...thanks to the likes of Herr Schmidt and his publicly sensitive political predecessors

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I've already suffered that type of gaming intervention with the denial of displaying historical markings on German WW2 aircraft in the retail version of IL2 BoS...thanks to the likes of Herr Schmidt and his publicly sensitive political predecessors

I think much of this was just "vorauseilender Gehorsam" (premptive compliance?). The ban on insignia was never meant to censor historical depictions.

 

[Mole HD]

I think much of this was just "vorauseilender Gehorsam" (premptive compliance?). The ban on insignia was never meant to censor historical depictions.

The developers were actively threatened with a sales ban in Germany...and other prominent European countries... if the historical tail insignia (the swastika) were not removed totally from the game before it was marketed. Even to this day, you have to add the historically correct markings yourself via custom paint jobs if you so wish to display them for your own use in a single player context...even so, some multiplayer servers will not allow you to fly with the historically correct German aircraft insignia if you want to play on them

Taken purely from the viewpoint of a historical flight simulator that sold primarlily on it's authenticity and attention to detail...it was unnecessarily draconian regardless of any personal views on political correctness...

 

[metatheurgist]

This reminds of the debate we're having down under about becoming a cashless society. Almost everyone's convinced it's happening, some businesses are even trying it on even though it's illegal to not accept legal tender. And yet every other month some part of our telecoms sector falls over hard enough to deny people access to their accounts.

I wonder if game companies will be required to keep the internet running if something eventually falls over.

 

[deMangler]

This reminds of the debate we're having down under about becoming a cashless society. Almost everyone's convinced it's happening, some businesses are even trying it on even though it's illegal to not accept legal tender. And yet every other month some part of our telecoms sector falls over hard enough to deny people access to their accounts.

I wonder if game companies will be required to keep the internet running if something eventually falls over.

In the UK it it perfectly legal to not accept cash. Many shops are card only.
I know France has a law that cash must be accepted, and there is wish amongst many in the UK to keep cash, but there is no doubt it is being phased out. ATM's are getting hard to find, public transport is card only in many places.....
As for online games, many have gone now, My personal biggest loss is NFS World, put loads of money into that, but I always knew what I was paying for.
The OP post is more about single-player or other games that are bought as a complete product.