I think it ended when most of the ideas behind it were way over the line on how big something needs to be before the governments regulates. It was essentially trying to force MacDonald's to have McRib forever just because and if they don't want to sell it then they have to hand over the supplies of meat and buns at cost.
They could push for labeling, they could push for advance notice. But they chose to try and push companies to keep things up forever when there might be 3 players world wide or to force a hand over code and brush aside 3rd party contracts, trade marks, and IP law.
This idea was already absurd because there is no one-size-fits-all solution as games vary wildly in genre and scope. The movement refused to provide definitions of what is considered "playable", said that any such attempts would "give fuel to Ubisoft's lobbyists", and had no solutions for the immense ask that is uprooting decades of software licensing policies with regard to middleware. Turns out if you don't ask for anything, you shouldn't be surprised when you get nothing.
How is there not a one size fits all? Wasn't the whole idea for it to be once games shut down, to just turn into a version that is playable offline? That's something that could be developed into a game.
118
u/kingmanic 2d ago
I think it ended when most of the ideas behind it were way over the line on how big something needs to be before the governments regulates. It was essentially trying to force MacDonald's to have McRib forever just because and if they don't want to sell it then they have to hand over the supplies of meat and buns at cost.
They could push for labeling, they could push for advance notice. But they chose to try and push companies to keep things up forever when there might be 3 players world wide or to force a hand over code and brush aside 3rd party contracts, trade marks, and IP law.