• Voyajer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s pretty clear Jason here doesn’t fully grasp how these initiatives work.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Watch the actual video. He nailed it on the head just whats wrong with the initiative and made a second video going into more detail how such an initiative not only doesn’t do what its stated to do, but could maliciously be exploited by bad actors legally can profit if companies are forced to give up binaries.

      If you’re against games as a service model… Then just don’t buy those games. If you’re against single player games having required online, this initiative doesn’t solve that issue in the slightest.

      • Please_RTFA@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’ve watched both videos and the live streams he took down already. I also think he doesn’t get how the initiative phase is specifically meant to be broad.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Effective Initiatives that result in meaningful laws the public wanted are not broad. They should have a laser focus on the EXACT issue the public wants dealt with. No ambiguity, no room for misinterpretation from legislators and politicians and definitely no room for lobbyists and interested third parties to twist and push the resolution to something that doesn’t align with what the public signed on.

          If the EU picked this up and tailored it into a law, there’s a very good if not entirely likely chance they would just legislate that games-as-service must stay active for XX amount of years before binaries or some other tool is released so others can host their own private server. This doesn’t address the core concerns people are claiming they have, such as just having offline singleplayer play or cutting back on games as service options, and still leaves in all the loopholes that malicious parties could use to attack and devalue software and force it to early sunset so they can profit without having to pay the original developer of said software.