How is it vague? If I buy a game, it should be playable for all eternity. Just like how I can pop in Super Mario on NES and play it just like how it was in the 80s.

Or how I can still play Half Life deathmatch more than 25 years after its release.

[–] proton_lynx@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I agree. Louis brought a good point when he talked about Gran Turismo licensed content (like Ferrari cars and etc), that some companies have licenses that will expire for content in the game. But you know what? THAT'S NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM. You buy a game, you should be able to run it until the end of time.

[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

How is it vague?

It's vague in all the legal ways:

First of all which kinds of games it applies to. It obviously can't work for games that have a technical server requirement, ... world of warcraft, but actually EVE online. The guys who run that game, get experimental hardware that's usually military only (or at least they did in the past). The server is not something, you could run even if you wanted to. Drawing the legal boundary between what "could be" single player offline (e.g. the crew, far cry, hitman), wasn't done.
It's not clear how it should apply to in terms of company scale. The new messenger legislation that was passed, made space for the EU parliament / system to declare and name, individually, who counts as a company that is is big enough, so that they have to open their messenger system to others for interoperability. It's not clear if the law has to apply to everyone, and every game, or just e.g. companies above 20 million revenue or something.
It's not clear what happens if a company goes bankrupt, and the system isn't immediately ready to keep working.

And a few more.

That being said, I think Thor's stance on this is silly. All of that is part of the discussion that is now starting. He could raise good points and get them included, but I guess that's not happening.