Post #3390336

2026-06-17 01:55 UTC

So, that's the thing: what did you pay for? I'm speaking specifically for SWTOR as that's a good case to work from. When you bought it, did you buy the servers and infrastructure behind it or did you buy just access to that service or did you buy a standalone product? They aren't taking your discs. You bought that, right? They are turning off a computer they have on their end. That's their property, right? If they don't have a right to take your property, do you have a right to take theirs? Then you get into private servers. Do you have the right to their software that they didn't sell to you? That's the funny thing about this. If you have the right to take something from them you didn't pay for, do they get the right to take something from you that you did pay for.

Replies (2)

@missingno@fedia.io 2026-06-17 05:22

If you bought a game, and they've made it so you cannot play the game that you paid for, they are taking the game from you. This is the whole point of Stop Killing Games.

Open ##3390335
@Goodeye8@piefed.social 2026-06-17 07:28

Do you understand the difference between the law as it currently is and wanting to change the law to be something else? Because you’re arguing that the law is what it is and everyone else is arguing that the laws should be changed because what currently is is fucking ass. Currently we don’t access to whatever infra software companies run to keep the games working. One of the possible solutions to what SKG wants is that when you buy the game you also essentially get the server software as well so that if the company decides to pull the plug you just go “cool. I’ll get my own hardware and run it myself”. And would you defend the same shit when it came to physical goods? Let’s say a car came with a software solution that makes the car ring home to make sure you’re allowed to turn your car on. Your argument in essence is that this is fine because you own the car and the fact that you can’t turn on the car once the car manufacturer shuts down their service is completely fine. Would you be happy with a car that the manufacturer can permanently disable whenever they want? This goes back your previous IP argument as well. The old car model is competing with the new car model so to keep your arguments consistent you should be in favor of having your car be permanently disabled because a new model came out. In case you want an actual example of something similar, do you think the people who got outraged by BMW introducing a subscription service for heated seats were stupid? After all there are no laws that prevent BMW from doing this so people should just suck it up. Or are you’re going to argue people should push back if they think it’s a stupid idea. In that case what the fuck do you think we’re doing right now?

Open ##3397010