this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
570 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

76962 readers
3097 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hond@piefed.social 169 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Most of the responses of the ministers(?) covered in the article seem to be pretty solid.

But then:

Responding to the arguments, the government’s representative, minister for sport, tourism, civil society and youth, Stephanie Peacock MP, acknowledged consumer sentiment behind Stop Killing Games, but suggested there were no plans to amend UK law around the issue.

“The Government recognises the strength of feeling behind the campaign that led to the debate,” she said. “The petition attracted nearly 190,000 signatures. Similar campaigns, including a European Citizens’ Initiative, reached over a million signatures. There has been significant interest across the world.”

She continued: “At the same time, the Government also recognises the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades.”

Peacock claimed that because modern video games were complex to develop and maintain, implementing plans for games after support had ended could be “extremely challenging” for companies and risk creating “harmful unintended consequences” for players.

Handing online servers over to consumers could carry commercial or legal risks, she said, in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.

On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”

“Licensing video games is not, as some have suggested, a new and unfair business practice,” she claimed.

Yeah, full on corpo spin. Fuck her.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 86 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”

This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works, now or back in the 1980s. You can't agree to terms without seeing them first, and even then such agreements aren't necessarily legally binding. For someone who is supposed to write laws, she should be removed from office for showing such gross incompetence.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 2 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure (not absolutely) this has appeared in court and even click-wrap licenses, where one clicks to agree to a license with a higher word count than King Lear are not valid due to the end user high administrative burden (reading 20K+ words in the middle of a software install).

There was a period in the 1980s where end users automatically were assumed to agree to licensing, but also licenses were extremely lenient and allowed unlimited use by the licensee without any data access rights by the providing company. 21st century licenses are much more complicated and encroach a lot more on end-user privacy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dellish@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Handing online servers over to consumers...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Stop Killing Games specifically against this? This sounds like some Pirate Software bullshit. My understanding is we want the tools to host our own servers if the parent company decides to take theirs offline.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 45 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

SKG doesn't specify how companies need to solve the problem, only that games need to continue to function after the company stops supporting them.

For some games (e.g. Assassin's Creed), that could be as simple as disabling the online aspect and having a graceful fallback. For others, that could mean letting people self-host it. Or they can provide documentation for the server API and let the community build their own server. Or they can move it to a P2P connection.

Game companies have options. All SKG says is that if I've purchased something, I should be able to keep using it after support ends.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bluGill@fedia.io 16 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

If you don't want to give the sever away (including the ability to use it) then don't shut it down or otherwise make the game unplayable.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Or release API documentation for the server and help the community create a replacement. Companies have options here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 2 weeks ago

Wouldn't it be amazing if we had marginally competent political representatives rather than the complete wastes of oxygen that we have right now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 68 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"digital ownership must be respected"

gets into bed with Meta and OpenAI

[–] mjr@infosec.pub 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Always have been

[–] tyranical_typhon@lemmings.world 63 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

in addition to safety concerns due to the removal of official company moderation.

Piss off. This just means they won't be able to rely on companies to control what people get to say.

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago

They mentioned the early days when it comes to licensing games to us.

But dont mention that in the early days of multiplayer games it was us moderating our own online communities, not the company selling the game.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago

Official moderation is often worse than in community forums, lol. Overbearing in censored words, while not being active enough against abusive players.

That argument is absolute bullshit.

It's not like anybody demands Microsoft must protect you from mean words if you connect Outlook to some random mail server. Games are no different.

[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 53 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

More proof that the current "Labour" government is in the pockets of rich companies and not on the side of consumers.

[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If only that wasn't true if the other big parties as well.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Member when "no taxation without representation" was a thing people believed in?

Us Americans fought a war over that nonsense, and it's looking like we might need to again.

Common UK, figure it out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 50 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"Digital ownership must be respected."
Yeah, that's what this entire thing is about.

[–] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 40 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The same govt that saw the overwhelming support for petition against the Online ID verification Act & went nahhhhhhh we don't listen to our citizens.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 7 points 2 weeks ago

Unless it's a referendum, apparently.

[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

They don’t need to “hand online servers” just publish the API and do one last update to accept self hosting.

And new releases should always support self host.

[–] atmorous@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

These current politicians dont know a single thing about what you said but I agree

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 8 points 2 weeks ago

And they will make sure to continue to not know a single thing about what was said. Ignorance isn't a valid legal defence, but it sure is a common deflection tactic these days. Law makers have a professional and ethical obligation to become informed on the issues their constituents care about, but it seems like it's rare to find one that remembers that obligation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago

Losing a monopoly on specific game servers certainly can have a commercial risk. Are you entitled to that at all, let alone when you stop hosting them?

Legal risk of what? Others will have that responsibility, unless you've done something you don't want others to see?

Safety - Yes someone might have less moderation than you - that's up to the users to decide if it's okay. We still have the right to change our car's break pad - the thing that stops a large mass moving fast from hitting children.

[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If digital ownership isn't acknowledged, digital piracy doesn't exist. It's just copying something no one owns.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Baggie@lemmy.zip 24 points 2 weeks ago

Such a brain-dead stance on the matter. Nobody is asking for your garbage DRM servers, we literally want the opposite of that.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Vindication for bored ape NFT owners everywhere

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

I mean... A large percentage of NFTs now link to nothing. Dead URLs. So the bored ape bros should actually be on the side of digital preservation & Stop Killing Games.

But considering 96% of NFTs are now dead projects worth nothing, the bored ape bros probably just want to forget about the whole thing and move onto the next get rich quick scheme.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 7 points 2 weeks ago

You see...a few years ago anyone with two pennies to rub together but not as many braincells went fucking bananas for these ai images of cartoon monkeys. Some people got really possessive and started claiming that they owned the usage rights and were threatening people taking screenshots with legal action.

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It is not pertinent to this article.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 13 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm unconvinced anyone will really legislate this, and if it is, it'll just lead to that country being scratched off the list of where the game is officially supported.

Realistically, we need to stop buying online only games where the servers will eventually go offline, and support those that release open servers.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 11 points 2 weeks ago

The hope is that the EU will legislate it and not even apple fucks with the EU.

[–] DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

I stopped buying that stuff ten years ago. Indie games are always better these days

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hang on, arent these the same fuckers who greenlit AI training on IP they don't own?

[–] teuniac_@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sort of. But it's easy to understand their thinking.

A long time ago they were a left winged party. But nowadays they're so afraid of the far right that for each decision they ask themselves "what would people absolutely not expect from a left winged party? Let's do that!" Which has led to several more right winged policies than the previous right winged government.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mjr@infosec.pub 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Digital ownership? Games producers want to own players' fingers now? I guess that's slightly better than cutting their ears off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] majster@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago

If you as a consumer want to own software FLOSS is the only option.

[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You know, I have purchased around 200 games. I have no idea how many of those can be mine because they're linked to a store, maintained (usually) by a corporation hellbent on optimised profits, subject to mandatory updates so I have no choice but to play the way they want me to, and I don't have the space to store them all. I don't feel like any of them are really owned by me (and I know this is true but I reject that notion), not until they're transferred to an offline machine.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 5 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

They're not owned by you. You own a license to use them. Some stores, like GOG, give you a less restrictive license, but it's still a license.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

As long as the button says buy, then its ownership and should be treated like physical goods.

[–] regedit@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

If I gotta pay IL sales tax on a digital game I better fucking own it!

load more comments
view more: next ›