How immensely reasonable. It is crazy that this even has to be brought up.
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
290 points (100.0% liked)
Linux Gaming
18371 readers
134 users here now
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
No memes/shitposts/low-effort posts, please.
Resources
WWW:
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Completely agree. Once they drop support remove always online requirements and provide what is necessary for people to run their own servers. That’s basically the way things used to work by default.
There are definitely improvements that can be made in this area. I'm all for requiring transparency about what exactly is being purchased, like the California law that requires informing the purchaser if they are buying ownership or a licence to access, or Steam's store page requirements to list all DRM, third party accounts, anti-cheat, etc. However, this initiative is vague, doesn't suggest any actual law changes, and its promoter seems to be more into the idea of data hoarding than consumer protection.
From the initiative:
Videogames themselves are unique creative works. Like film, or music, one cannot be simply substituted with another. By destroying them, it represents a creative loss for everyone involved and erases history in ways not possible in other mediums.
This has nothing to do with consumer protection. He's even said in a video that he wants the genre of gacha games to end. I play gacha games. Why does he get to prevent me from playing games I like? I thought we were protecting consumers? I feel like this cause is like the PETA organization. It's definitely a great idea in general, but they're going about it in an extreme way.
I don't see it being extreme to be able to play any game I purchased forever, instead of right now when if an online only or online required game shuts down, it is just gone.
Fuck transparency, just don't destroy games that don't need to be destroyed. The movement is specially designed NOT to be suggesting any laws as that's for law makers to design and implement, the goal is to show people don't want things they purchased to be remotely disabled.
They need 600k more... I doubt they'll get that much in a month...
Ok, thanks for sharing how the system works. 600k more, then I really hope everyone shares! Can't give up without trying 😁
Don't get me wrong, even if we don't reach it it's still a message to legislatures that this is something we want. I have my hopes up :3
Fuck Piratesoftware for painting this initiative in a bad light
Signed! Thanks for sharing
This doesn't seem to mention online components. What's a "reasonably functional (playable) state" for a purely online game? It says publishers don't need to provide resources, but surely some form of resource (e.g. server code/compiled binary) is essential for such a game to be "playable," no?
I wish they would've clarified that. As it stands, I can see an argument for publishers just abandoning and disabling online components as "reasonable," yet so many games are defined by that online component.
Maybe they just wanted to keep it simple. Idk.
Here's my response in that thread, in case anyone is interested: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18090621
Yeah. I wasn't really sure if this was the answer or not, just that I had seen a potential conversation asking similar questions or along the same lines, and others seemed to have had a take on this.