7 ms·
It's a much smaller set of European citizens, and yet they have a much larger access to lawmakers. So no, it's not idiotic.
by roblabla 3mo ago
It's a much smaller set of European citizens, and yet they have a much larger access to lawmakers. So no, it's not idiotic.
- l23k4 3mo ago[flagged]
- sensanaty 3mo ago> People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing. The people building games wouldn't be contributing anything if the players weren't playing/buying them.
- LtWorf 3mo agoEverything you buy instead of something else is putting someone on the street.
- l23k4 3mo ago[flagged]
- LtWorf 3mo agoI love how you complain about the poor companies while companies are the only ones being heard. maybe take less of a moral superiority stance?
- Ukv 3mo ago> disgusting anti-democratic suggestion [...] denying them representation I assume the idea isn't that developing a game means you don't get to vote as a citizen, but that the industry can't lobby for special access ("spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups").
- l23k4 3mo agoWhat is that even supposed to mean in practice? Given the lack of a reasonable proposal, I think I'll take their words at face value.
- thrance 3mo agoWhat's democratic about a decision made by the wealthy few, disregarding a massive popular wave!?
- account42 3mo ago> Would you be happy to put a person on the street so a thousand people get to continue playing league of legends in 2060? Yes. The balance is that everyone's free speech has already been SEVERELY restricted in order for the game industry to have a business model at all. This is about making sure that the rest of our society actually gets a remotely fair deal. Asking that companies can't just take away what they have sold is really below the bare minimum.
- thrance 3mo agoFalse dilemma. Riot could release the server binaries when they end League of Legends service, and no one would get thrown on the street.
- orthoxerox 3mo agoDepends on how they licensed various libraries used in the server binaries. Some of them might not allow redistribution of the final product, only provision of digital services.
- thrance 3mo agoThat's a non-issue, those providers would have to relax their licenses, since releasing binaries after EOL would become expected of all.
- Krutonium 3mo agoAlternatively, as SKG suggested, Riot could post the spec needed for a server to communicate with the game, and someone could just write a server for it.
- hobofan 3mo agoAll hundred different microservices? And I'm sure you also want docs for how to run them all together too?
- drbscl 3mo ago> And FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing. You're aware that they are taxed products that people buy with their wages, right?
- l23k4 3mo agoYes, but you'd generate the same value by simply collecting them.
- Folcon 3mo agoWait, are you arguing that activities that make people happy have little to no value? I mean, we only spend money when we believe that what we buy with it is more valuable than the money we've spent, so there is some underlying activity or follow up to spending the money that naturally follows otherwise, the buyer would perceive no benefit and would not buy again So how are you equating collection and enjoyment of your purchase as the same?
- l23k4 3mo agoSurely they must have value at an individual level, for people are willing to pay to engage in those. The time you spend playing games does very little to help the society around you, and might in fact distract you from more productive activities. Perhaps gamers would go outside instead, and reduce the burden on the healthcare system. This essentially amounts to government intervention to reduce the already incredibly cheap cost per hour of these activities for a small minority of gamers. Is that good public policy?
- skotobaza 3mo ago> Is that good public policy? Yes, because you will not be limited in time to enjoy a single title. Like it's the case with other media - books, music, movies, etc. This is good because future people (who haven't even been born yet) will be able to enjoy the same slice of entertainment that we enjoy right now. Just like we can still enjoy games made 40 years ago.
- xinayder 3mo ago> FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing. if there are no players, there is no money to be made, developers will be fired. and besides, I'd rather put someone on the street if this is the multibillionaire CEO that exploits his devs, than a dev itself. And companies can, you know, slash their billionaire salaries and bonuses to comply with the law.
- l23k4 3mo agoYeah, but you don't get to choose where the money comes from and which projects get cancelled because of this last straw. These things have real costs which eventually affect many, many people who are not billionaire CEOs. It would be absurd to disregard those costs and not consult the industry on them when writing laws like this.