dudinax

The day Trump flip-flopped on Tik Tok, my wife's feed started to carry humanizing Trump videos. They've since disappeared.

No, u/dirthawker0 is supporting your point.

There are also video games in libraries, and there are books in libraries with components that are unusable these days. Nobody is required by law to support these components in perpetuity. Nor is any publishing company required by law to maintain support for a book in perpetuity in any way.

Nor is anybody required by law to help you fix your classic car. People with classic cars spend tons of money to find spare parts or even get them manufactured. This is despite the fact that cars are much more of a necessity than video games.

Likewise, if you paid a video game to keep their servers open, or paid them for their source code, they'd give it to you. If you paid a smart person to reverse engineer the network protocol and write an equivalent server, you'd have your part.

Yes, and if you don't like it you don't have to buy them. It's why I prefer not to use Steam.

If games have to be playable in perpetuity, then you can't buy a game that isn't playable in perpetuity.

But what is also unreasonable is needless, always online DRM that shuts down one day.

There are lots of video games without forced online DRM, and video games aren't a necessity. You can simply stop buying games from these services and let people who don't care about such things continue to buy them.

So you want to legally require game companies to "preserve history" in perpetuity, unlike every other kind of company in existence?

'

The second sentence isn't true.

But the whole market isn't shitty rip offs.

You don't need to be protected from video game sales, you need to be protected from fraudulent game sales, that's it.

If you want to buy a game that runs on proprietary servers that will shutdown one day, you should be allowed to do that.

Following the lifecycle of the species is one path towards an ok life.

Bill the Galactic Hero vibes.