I'm not a gamer, but gamers have my entire support. That industry, like so many others, needs to be reminded they're not supposed to be making the rules.
The whole movement has seemed a bit silly to me this whole time. And I don’t understand what the appeal is of the guy heading it up.
Just my take on things.
But I also believe the games industry has abusive practices relating to selling games that basically expire without clear warnings and planned dates of expiry.
But I also believe the games industry has abusive practices relating to selling games that basically expire without clear warnings and planned dates of expiry.
How can you call it silly when they fought for what you call abusive practices yourself?! Typical nihilistic cynicism, disregarding the actual hard work that went in to it and the progress that was made.
The approach, and the framing and the legal footing is silly, or not legally sound. I just find this approach, and the person heading it up misguided.
You can want something to happen, AND find a particular effort trying to achieve the goal ineffectual. You can also find the person heading up the effort to be the wrong fit.
If you guys can’t separate the two, then I don’t know what to tell you.
In any other art medium it would be an outrage if they would be destroyed when the owners didn't find them financially sound. We have film, music and other arts preservation agencies or projects. I don't see why videos games can't have the same level of respect.
I mean, he does have a point. I do think there should be some obligations and disclosures to enable third parties to take over unsupported games, the specifics of how this particular project presents that seem... not super technically or legally sound?
Maybe we can try again in a bit with a project built by people who have a clearer view on both the legal and technical side of what's being asked.