> 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.
Depends 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.
Alternatively, 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.
Wait, 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?
Surely 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?
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.
But we are interested in benefits first and foremost since we are consumers, i.e. people who use the product. Regarding the costs, nobody dismisses them. But saying that the costs of giving the game to community are tremendous is simply misguided. Developers and publishers have been doing this since the beginning, it's not something new.
The reason why publishers don't do this is also very clear - they want us to play their newer games and spend money there. They are not doing this because it's hard for me. They just want to maximize the profit, that's it.
> But we are interested in benefits first and foremost since we are consumers
We're only consumers when we consume, but that is not the extent of our participation in society. To optimize for consumption is a shortcut to certain doom.
> But saying that the costs of giving the game to community are tremendous is simply misguided
Tremendous, no. Significant? Yes. The cost could very well be in the millions for a single project, but how many hours of gameplay does that actually buy? Do those later hours come at a significantly increased cost?
>The reason why publishers don't do this is also very clear - they want us to play their newer games and spend money there. They are not doing this because it's hard for me. They just want to maximize the profit, that's it.
I get why someone who plays games would want this. But as someone who doesn't play games, why on earth would I want to encourage this? It defies most basic economic theory.
You're suggesting a subsidy for gamers which everyone else would to pay for in the form of slower economic activity and lower tax revenues. I do not want to subsidize your games.
> The cost could very well be in the millions for a single project
How did you come to this number? Something simple like giving the binaries with docs doesn't cost that much money. I'm not sure what you are referring to.
> how many hours of gameplay does that actually buy?
You seem to confuse the cost of continued support with the cost of giving it to the community. Nobody is asking publishers to continue support when they don't want to.
> But as someone who doesn't play games, why on earth would I want to encourage this?
You are not expected to support this if you don't care about it... But don't act surprised when you find out that some people do play games and they do care about them.
> You're suggesting a subsidy for gamers which everyone else would to pay for
>> You're suggesting a subsidy for gamers which everyone else would to pay for
>No, that's not how it works. Not even close.
As far as I can tell, legislation which enables you to play a game in perpetuity instead of for a limited time will likely reduce the amount of tax revenue your gaming-related activities generate.
A useful metric to focus on here is the cost per hour of entertainment. The price of the game itself might stay the same, but the cost of your gaming itself would be subsidized.
> legislation which enables you to play a game in perpetuity instead of for a limited time will likely reduce the amount of tax revenue your gaming-related activities generate
How so? If I'm sure that a game is not going to die, I will be more willing to pay for it. The more such games exist, the more money I will be willing to spend on them. Hence more taxes from me. Otherwise I will stick to older games that don't have this problem, which will bring less taxes from me because of the cost.
> cost of your gaming itself would be subsidized
By whom? I know there are currently tax returns (or exemptions is more correct term probably) for gaming companies. But how does having end of life plans change this?
> 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").
> 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.
Yeah, 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.
