• MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    17 days ago

    While it might not be easy for existing games…

    I can’t see why they would try to include existing games. Laws are (almost?) never retroactive. How can you comply with a law if it doesn’t exist yet?

    • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Any game currently live when the law rolls put should be included. If game is already shut down, but the company releases a new game, one could argue they should be forced to comply as well.

      • MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        That doesn’t sound fair at all. I think for many games, considerations such as this potential law will demand would have to be included in the initial design and development. There are also the potential implications for licensing of middleware etc.

        Again, you cannot be expected to comply with a law that doesn’t exist yet.

        There may be a case for “live-service” games that it could apply as they could be considered to be under constant development. Most of those are either subscription or free to play though which would exclude them entirely as neither is a purchase of a perpetual license.

        • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          17 days ago

          …live service games shutting down is like the main reason for these bills in the first place. They are absolutely not excluded.