Petition: Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games they have already sold
petition.parliament.uk
The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them. We seek this as a statutory consumer right.

The original petition failed due to two issues:

  • UK government misinterpreted what the petition is about and didn’t really answered to what was being asked
  • early general elections canceled all ongoing petitions at the time

This attempt has a new, reworded petition to, hopefully, make it simple and clear enough to avoid any additional problems.

There are two thresholds for UK petitions:

  • 10 000 signatures: official government response
  • 100 000 signatures: petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Here is a video from Ross Scott (the main organizer of the Stop Killing Games initiative) about this update.

  • tomi000@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    16 days ago

    Interesting how condifently you are talking about the subject even though your comment makes it obvious you have no idea what the petition is about.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.caEnglish
      01·
      16 days ago

      The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them.

      If a company says they’re going to disable a video game a year after I purchase it and I won’t be able to retain or repair it and I agree to those terms, can I still buy it?

      • tomi000@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        16 days ago

        Not sure what you mean. Companies dont tell you beforehand that they are going to shut games down. They usually dont even know they will, so I dont see how your example holds up here. Maybe you could explain.

        This is about companies shutting down games after some time making them unplayable, even for people who already purchased them. Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped “supporting” it.

        There is simply no way to justify it. Its a symptom of greed, they dont want you to own a product that doesnt generate them revenue anymore.

        • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.caEnglish
          01·
          16 days ago

          Companies dont tell you beforehand that they are going to shut games down. They usually dont even know they will, so I dont see how your example holds up here. Maybe you could explain.

          But what if they did? Some places have already put laws requiring sellers to inform purchasers if they are selling a licence instead of ownership. If the terms were clear at the point of sale, and I agree to the terms, what’s the issue? You’re allowed to think it’s a bad deal, but why does that mean I’m not allowed to accept it?

          Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped “supporting” it.

          Right. If they explained that at point of sale they would be doing that, and I was alright with it, what’s the problem? I understand you wouldn’t accept that deal. That’s fine. You wouldn’t buy that TV. I don’t see why I must be prevented from buying it too.

      • moody@lemmings.worldEnglish
        0·
        16 days ago

        The goal is not to prevent you from agreeing to bad terms, it’s to prevent the companies from imposing those bad terms on people.

        Would you rather buy a game that you know is going to die in a year, or the same game but that can be played for as long as you want?

        Would you rather companies keep making games with a short expiration date, or games that people can keep playing if they so choose?

        • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.caEnglish
          01·
          16 days ago

          Would you rather buy a game that you know is going to die in a year, or the same game but that can be played for as long as you want?

          I would rather I get to make that choice instead of it being imposed onto me. You can make your choice. I can make mine.

            • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.caEnglish
              01·
              15 days ago

              Who would buy cigarettes? Who would buy a Cybertruck? Who would buy meat? Just because you wouldn’t choose it doesn’t mean it’s a choice that must be banned.