News on what the UK government response means on the issue of game destruction by publishers! It's not all awful, just most of it! Also, some news on how t...

From the videos description: News on what the UK government response means on the issue of game destruction by publishers! It’s not all awful, just most of it! Also, some news on how the campaign to end game destruction is going internationally. Relevant links below:

Australian Petition: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6080

UK Petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071/

Canadian Petition: https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4965

https://stopkillinggames.com

    • then_three_more@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      8 months ago

      I’ve not watched either, but this is probably the relevant extract from the wall of text that the UK gov put up.

      If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      4·
      8 months ago

      Basically, there probably is a legal case to answer especially for supposedly single player games that have online components, but it would be up to individuals to actually go about suing the game companies, the government isn’t going to get involved.

      I sent it at the time, petition was badly done, it really should have just focused on keeping software products in general around after support is dropped by the creating company. This isn’t just an issue that affects video games, and get and by using video games in the name it allows the government to kind of just dismiss it.

    • Kayn@dormi.zoneEnglish
      51·
      8 months ago

      I’m currently at work, so disclaimer: the following is an AI-generated summary.

      • The UK government has responded to the petition to stop game publishers from destroying players’ access to purchased games, but the response is complex and not entirely straightforward.
      • The government’s response suggests there may be some legal avenues to pursue, particularly around the requirement for clear information to be provided to consumers about the longevity of online games.
      • The key issue seems to be that most online games do not clearly disclose when their service will be shut down, depriving consumers of information needed to make an informed purchase decision.
      • Pursuing this angle through consumer protection regulations like the CPRs may be more promising than directly trying to prevent game shutdowns, which the government response suggests is not clearly prohibited.
      • However, there are many open questions about the specifics of how to report and pursue potential violations, including around time limits, penalties, and differences between UK and Scottish law.
      • The creator of the video acknowledges this is a complex legal maze, but believes there is potential to do “a lot of damage” to the industry if the right approach can be identified.
      • Gathering more signatures on the UK petition may help, but the creator is skeptical this alone will lead to legislative change.
      • Overall, the response provides some promising leads, but significant work is still needed to determine the best path forward and how to effectively leverage the apparent legal violations.
      • The creator expresses frustration at having to essentially act as “self-checkout law enforcement” to get the government to enforce existing consumer protection laws.
      • Despite the challenges, the creator remains determined to find a way to hold game publishers accountable and prevent the destruction of purchased games.