With the rise of the live-service model, video games have shifted from a product you buy to a service you rent, one that publishers can switch off whenever they want.
Reading through the article, they aren’t just proposing to widen the SKG movement beyond its original intent (which is already a bad idea). They’re proposing that “more clear labelling of what a customer is paying for” is enough. Fuck that noise, and fuck these asshats. The core of the problem is that people currently aren’t allowed to irrevocably own and use what they paid for.
This article proposes that companies should be allowed to pay lip service by just advertising that they’re selling a “revocable license” which is already what they do. This “journalist” can kick rocks, because they clearly don’t care about actually fixing problems
Reading through the article, they aren’t just proposing to widen the SKG movement beyond its original intent (which is already a bad idea). They’re proposing that “more clear labelling of what a customer is paying for” is enough. Fuck that noise, and fuck these asshats. The core of the problem is that people currently aren’t allowed to irrevocably own and use what they paid for.
This article proposes that companies should be allowed to pay lip service by just advertising that they’re selling a “revocable license” which is already what they do. This “journalist” can kick rocks, because they clearly don’t care about actually fixing problems
They’re clearly an industry plant trying to sabotage the movement.