this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
336 points (99.7% liked)

Gaming

4888 readers
119 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Paying once and having the game shut down a year later, and paying the same price but a little once a month and having the game shut down a year later is the same. I don't get this thinking at all.

[–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 11 points 1 month ago

Stop Killing Games initiative has been targeting what they consider a winnable legal case, not necessarily the best ethical one. So, as the other poster said, they are not targeting subscription based games as much or at all on the basis that those are up front about the fact that your access is lost without a subscription.

I do, personally, wish to see all games playable forever but I fully understand why they are strategizing the way that they are.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

The WoW example is a little different from a subscription standpoint in that the server is a arguably major part of the game itself. The content you see, your character's data, world events, etc. all happen server-side. WoW is a lot more than just some netcode to get clients talking in a one-shot.

That being said, if Blizzard were to sunset WoW, then it should also be required to provide a way to self-host a server and a client update to connect to third party servers without needing to modify game files.

I'm not even saying they need to open-source it or make it free, just make a server application available.

[–] Klear@quokk.au 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In the second case the publisher is upfront about it and you are told this is how it will work when you pay. The first case is basically fraud, where you're paying for something on the assumption you'll be able to keep it and then it gets destroyed.

In the end it boils down to which practice can be reasonably attacked on legal grounds, not necessarily how predatory it is.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Fair point, I didn't think of it from that view point.