this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
588 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

76670 readers
2349 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.

(page 2) 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hond@piefed.social 173 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Most of the responses of the ministers(?) covered in the article seem to be pretty solid.

But then:

Responding to the arguments, the government’s representative, minister for sport, tourism, civil society and youth, Stephanie Peacock MP, acknowledged consumer sentiment behind Stop Killing Games, but suggested there were no plans to amend UK law around the issue.

“The Government recognises the strength of feeling behind the campaign that led to the debate,” she said. “The petition attracted nearly 190,000 signatures. Similar campaigns, including a European Citizens’ Initiative, reached over a million signatures. There has been significant interest across the world.”

She continued: “At the same time, the Government also recognises the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades.”

Peacock claimed that because modern video games were complex to develop and maintain, implementing plans for games after support had ended could be “extremely challenging” for companies and risk creating “harmful unintended consequences” for players.

Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.

On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”

“Licensing video games is not, as some have suggested, a new and unfair business practice,” she claimed.

Yeah, full on corpo spin. Fuck her.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 91 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”

This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works, now or back in the 1980s. You can't agree to terms without seeing them first, and even then such agreements aren't necessarily legally binding. For someone who is supposed to write laws, she should be removed from office for showing such gross incompetence.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 1 week ago

I'm pretty sure (not absolutely) this has appeared in court and even click-wrap licenses, where one clicks to agree to a license with a higher word count than King Lear are not valid due to the end user high administrative burden (reading 20K+ words in the middle of a software install).

There was a period in the 1980s where end users automatically were assumed to agree to licensing, but also licenses were extremely lenient and allowed unlimited use by the licensee without any data access rights by the providing company. 21st century licenses are much more complicated and encroach a lot more on end-user privacy.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works, now or back in the 1980s.

Nah, it's absolutely how it has worked since the 1980s. You've never owned the game, just the physical hardware it's on and a license to use the game. Go read any manual or back of the box or actual cartridge or disc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dellish@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Handing online servers over to consumers...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Stop Killing Games specifically against this? This sounds like some Pirate Software bullshit. My understanding is we want the tools to host our own servers if the parent company decides to take theirs offline.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 week ago (4 children)

SKG doesn't specify how companies need to solve the problem, only that games need to continue to function after the company stops supporting them.

For some games (e.g. Assassin's Creed), that could be as simple as disabling the online aspect and having a graceful fallback. For others, that could mean letting people self-host it. Or they can provide documentation for the server API and let the community build their own server. Or they can move it to a P2P connection.

Game companies have options. All SKG says is that if I've purchased something, I should be able to keep using it after support ends.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bluGill@fedia.io 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If you don't want to give the sever away (including the ability to use it) then don't shut it down or otherwise make the game unplayable.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Or release API documentation for the server and help the community create a replacement. Companies have options here.

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Hell, I'll just take not getting sued into the ground by the company for a copyright infringement. Don't even need the API. If a game is loved enough we will find a way. We just don't have the money to fight lawsuits!

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)

So if the developers of a game go bankrupt, or a single developer of an indie game dies, what do you suggest happens?

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The code should go into escrow when the first game is sold. This is standard practice in industry - you don't buy something without assurance that if the company goes under you have options.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

This is standard practice in industry - you don’t buy something without assurance that if the company goes under you have options.

Which industries is this standard in? I can't think of any. If Samsung went bankrupt who is replacing your S25 Ultra?

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Consumer devices are not industry. they almost never get that treatment.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 5 days ago (3 children)

But the assurance you spoke about is consumer assurance? So you’re saying that your suggestion wouldn’t even apply to video games while suggesting it for video games?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 72 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"digital ownership must be respected"

gets into bed with Meta and OpenAI

[–] mjr@infosec.pub 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Always have been

[–] tyranical_typhon@lemmings.world 69 points 1 week ago (2 children)

in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.

Piss off. This just means they won't be able to rely on companies to control what people get to say.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (2 children)

More proof that the current "Labour" government is in the pockets of rich companies and not on the side of consumers.

[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If only that wasn't true if the other big parties as well.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Member when "no taxation without representation" was a thing people believed in?

Us Americans fought a war over that nonsense, and it's looking like we might need to again.

Common UK, figure it out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

Losing a monopoly on specific game servers certainly can have a commercial risk. Are you entitled to that at all, let alone when you stop hosting them?

Legal risk of what? Others will have that responsibility, unless you've done something you don't want others to see?

Safety - Yes someone might have less moderation than you - that's up to the users to decide if it's okay. We still have the right to change our car's break pad - the thing that stops a large mass moving fast from hitting children.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Vindication for bored ape NFT owners everywhere

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 8 points 1 week ago

You see...a few years ago anyone with two pennies to rub together but not as many braincells went fucking bananas for these ai images of cartoon monkeys. Some people got really possessive and started claiming that they owned the usage rights and were threatening people taking screenshots with legal action.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mjr@infosec.pub 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Digital ownership? Games producers want to own players' fingers now? I guess that's slightly better than cutting their ears off.

[–] Klear@quokk.au 3 points 1 week ago

I don't dig it. I don't dig it at all.

[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You know, I have purchased around 200 games. I have no idea how many of those can be mine because they're linked to a store, maintained (usually) by a corporation hellbent on optimised profits, subject to mandatory updates so I have no choice but to play the way they want me to, and I don't have the space to store them all. I don't feel like any of them are really owned by me (and I know this is true but I reject that notion), not until they're transferred to an offline machine.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

They're not owned by you. You own a license to use them. Some stores, like GOG, give you a less restrictive license, but it's still a license.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

and the law is able to make license conditions illegal/unenforceable (like non-compete clauses in employment contracts)

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but has the law made licenses for software illegal/unenforceable? No.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

literally what STG is about

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Cool, and no laws have been changed, and it's debatable if any should.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

this entire thread is about the STG petition, and thus about the theoretical possibility of how laws could change

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›