ImplyingImplications

I can't believe "I would have millions of Canadians suffer" is getting upvotes...never change internet.

What would you do? Cut trade entirely? Start a war? Millions of Canadians will suffer over a 3% tax on Facebook?

I absolutely hate always online DRM in single player games, so I get it. Personally, I'll avoid games that use it. I was a huge fan of the Hitman series but haven't played any of the new ones because of always online, live service, season pass, model they decided to go with. It's a deal breaker for me, but I understand it isn't for everyone else. I told my friends I wouldn't be playing Helldivers 2 with them because of its use of kernel level anti-cheat and they just gave me a weird look.

I'll choose to support games that are developed in consumer friendly ways, but I also accept that not everyone sees it as a big deal. If a company decides they need kernel level anti-cheat, then that's on them. They won't get my money, but I'm not about to start a petition to legally ban the use of kernel level anti-cheat and call anyone who won't sign it an industry shill and bootlicker.

Want to stop games you buy from being killed? Don't buy games that can be. Does this mean you'll be sitting out while all your friends have fun playing the latest hit game? Probably. Does it mean 10 years later when the game no longer works you can smugly tell them "heh, looks like you guys got scammed." Also yes. Just don't be surprised that they think you're weird.

Tunnel Snakes rule!

Interesting. It seems to be one of those live action dating sim games where hot actresses play your secretary or childhood best friend or whatever and you click through dialog options in an attempt to marry them at the end.

Except the theme of this one isn't to marry your favourite girl but to get revenge on a group of relationship swindlers. It doesn't say what they mean by "revenge" but it seems like a game directed at incels.

From the initiative:

This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.

Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.

This is all that the initiative states on the matter. How it would actually work in practice is anyone's guess because the wording is so vague. Supporters seem to be under the impression that companies have a "server.exe" file they purposefully don't provide players because they're evil and hate you. They could also be contracting out matchmaking services to a third party and don't actually do it in-house. Software development is complex and building something that will be used by 100,000 people simultaneously isn't easy.

There's a reason comedic videos like Microservices, where an engineer explains why it's impossible to show the user it is their birthday based on an overly complex network of microservices, and Fireship's overengineering a website exist. Big software is known to be difficult to maintain and update. Huge multiplayer games aren't any different. It's likely there isn't actually a "reasonable" way for them to continue to work. Supporters are hopeful this initiative would cause the industry to change how game software is developed, but that hope gets real close to outright naivety.

Yes, that's the original game theory view that was popular during the 60s. The other two links reference modern day studies which show it doesn't hold up to reality. People naturally choose cooperation and have no problem avoiding the worst outcome. They understand the tragedy and will work together to regulate themselves in order to avoid it.

Same with Turkish oil wrestling.

"Why are you guys oiled up in nothing but leather shorts?"

"It's...a sport"

"Why is your hand down his shorts?"

"...it's how you win."

SciShow also has an episode on it. The tragedy can often be avoided by everyone agreeing that destroying the commons is bad and to adhere to a set limit. Modern research showed that happens way more often than an escalating free-for-all that would ruin the commons.

Counter examples were roads, which get loaded with traffic, and use of plastic bags, which fill up in landfills. Agreements can't solve all cases. Sometimes alternatives (public transportation) or incentives (a charge per plastic bag, no charge for reusable) are needed to avoid the tragedy.

He should get tips from the Yakuza team