Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

as the article alludes to this should be next thing on the agenda for the EU. Users should have a guarantee that access to any software that runs offline can't be revoked and it'd probably be a good idea, just like with the gatekeeper legislation, have a requirement for publishers over a certain size to keep old software available, or if they can't do this or go out of business having to open source it.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure this is already covered by DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/770. You purchase "Digital content" from the company; regardless of how they word it (like saying it is a license) while you are making your purchase this law defines it. You may also purchase digital service with an ongoing subscription fee. They render your content unusable, putting them in violation of Article 5, 7 and possibly 8. The preferred remedy is that they make it usable again or failing that provide a refund.

The only real way around this is for the game to be free to play, or fully subscription based from the beginning. Then it is classified by this directive as a digital service. However, if they sell digital content like skins or other items then it again is covered as a digital good even if only used within the service (unless the purchase is actually declared time limited at the moment of purchase). In any case they would need to tell you the length of time for which you are purchasing service.

If you are in the EU, demand a refund under this directive or that they supply you with the content you purchased. If you don't get a refund, issue a chargeback if your credit card company is willing.

I hope the EU also applies this law retroactively and with fines that are a percentage of global revenue. Also it’s worth piercing the veil of limited liability for fraud.

Or we need to make sure that, for things that can't run offline, the verbiage is clear that you're renting, not buying.

Seems like we could have both.

This can't run offline.

Then give buyers the ability to make their own servers.

Critics are noting that Ubisoft did this to prevent exactly that.

The point was "don't take away users' ability to run their own servers"

It absolutely could. It just doesn't. For reasons.

So said EA when they launched that Sim City... ;)

TBH if you give money to the likes of Ubisoft and EA you deserve your fate. I've stopped ages ago*.

* I don't even pirate their games. I have a backlog of legit bought games that will probably last me more than my natural life time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com