For sone of these games piracy would solve nothing. How wouldI run an 8vs8 PvP mission in DCUO that players are required to do if there aren't 16 players on the server? If Im hosting it offline that content is still dead.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

Private WoW servers thrived. Much of the endgame content required 40 players to collaborate for hours at a time, and they have kept their own dream running for well over a decade.

You should have the option to find and play with others long after corporate servers are abandoned. Whether or not there are other players immediately available is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Edit - and you're all over this thread licking boots and saying "you signed the agreement!"

Thanks. We know how license agreements work. They are included in the thing we want to change, when we talk about changing the industry. We want to stop allowing bullshit license agreements. The exact same way many of us want Right to Repair for people who bought tractors with proprietary software.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 hours ago

It also allows the game to revive itself. Those 40 players playing pirated WoW could introduce more people to the game. And at the very least, it allows it be run in the future if ever historians should need access.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I dont think you do know how licenses work when your complaint amounts to ” I want this the way I want it not the way I agreed to it”.

You either accept the game the way it us offered or you dont play the game. You are not entitled to get things the way you want them.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Lol swing and a miss again, my friend.

Nice use of the word "entitled" - really sums up your stance on the consumer/business relationship.

The consumer is "entitled" for protesting predatory or unethical business practices.

The consumer is "entitled" for opposing the ongoing enshittification of entire industries.

The consumer is "entitled" for wanting businesses to not be able to legally hide behind unsustainable licensing practices that provide no value to society and further entrench the ever-growing rent/subscription model that is squeezing people dry for no reason.

The entire point - the entire fucking point - is that these licenses are not okay. So, no, I don't pay for these licenses, but I don't think anyone should be able to pay for these licenses, because I don't think anyone should be able to "sell" these licenses.

These licenses - like many unethical business practices - put the corporation that offers them at a financial advantage over the corporations that don't.

Regulations - in every industry - should level the playing field. They can allow ethical business practices to be viable and competitive, instead of being liabilities and risks. The copyright/IP system is an example of those regulations instead being weaponized against the consumer, and needs a massive overhaul.

And guess what? In a functioning society, consumers are entitled to get what they want. They are entitled to oppose unethical business practices, and use their collective power to try to stop it. Why the fuck would we want it the other way around? Why are corporations entitled to get whatever they want?

We have every goddamn right to protest those business practices whether or not we do business with those companies - just as we have every right to protest unethical or discriminatory hiring practices by companies that we don't work for. Even if plenty of people applied for those jobs and signed those contracts, we have every right to protest anyway.

But enjoy the taste of corporate boots!