this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
595 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

78029 readers
3234 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hond@piefed.social 177 points 1 month ago (30 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 91 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] FreedomAdvocate 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works, now or back in the 1980s.

Nah, it's absolutely how it has worked since the 1980s. You've never owned the game, just the physical hardware it's on and a license to use the game. Go read any manual or back of the box or actual cartridge or disc.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

That's not the point I was making. She argued that opening the box was tantamount to agreeing to the terms, but the full terms aren't on the box. You can't access the full terms until after you've opened it, thus you haven't agreed to them yet as you haven't had the opportunity to read them. And, even then, the agreement is far from iron clad.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)