You recently signed the petition “Require videogame publishers to keep games they have sold in a working state”: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071

The Petitions Committee (the group of MPs who oversee the petitions system) has considered the Government’s response to this petition. They felt the response did not respond directly to the request of the petition. They have therefore asked the Government to provide a revised response.

When the Committee receives a revised response from the Government, we will publish this and share it with you.

Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The company will have the make that decision then, if it means opening the server for use or patching the game for local p2p play then so be it. Otherwise they should be forced to state the game is a rental not purchased if it requires a server that may shut down.

[–] Jajcus@kbin.social 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Otherwise they should be forced to state the game is a rental not purchased if it requires a server that may shut down.

But that is what they already do. Currently this might be hidden in the EULA, that no one reads, but even making this plainly visible during purchase wouldn't change much. I is not like the players have much choice when they want to play that specific game.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 6 points 5 months ago

That's sort of what they do, except they still call it a purchase. I've never seen the word 'rental' on any game store. They shouldn't be allowed to even call it a purchase if it isn't one.

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

I think part of the next phase is to force the companies to list a minimum supported life span, I think the average length a game is supported for now days is around two years, so if the game isn't kept alive the minimum listed time you get a refund but if the life span of the game is listed too short then people will be less likely to spend money on it

[–] g0nz0li0@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

This is why we got Stadia. Imagine Netflix where you pay a monthly fee and still have to buy all the movies and shows at full price. That was Stadia's model.

Thos erodes the concept of ownership so that it is substituted for rental, without stating that clearly. Stadia failed but in doing so it probably helped Microsoft figure out how to eventually get away with doing the exact same thing.

Games should clearly say if you're basically renting them, not have it buried in the EULA. Let publishers full price and let consumers decide if they are prepared to live with it.