- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
No. This is dumb. Activist movements get nowhere when they broaden their goals to encompass all things that would be nice to have. They become nebulous and impossible to appease.
Stay simple, stay focused. Win one battle at a time. Stop killing games.
The original petition is already pretty nebulous and without specific demands. Leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state is such a broad claim you can as well extend it to other demands.
I will accept any amount of downvotes for this, but please come back in 5 years and tell me I have been wrong.
While I agree that the current state of SKG is painfully light on ideas for practical implementation, it is at least focused on a single issue.
A plan could be arrived at.
Trying to tack on tangentially-related stuff like workers’ rights is only going to get the whole thing bogged down in conflicting discussions.
The funny thing is: The campaign relies on politicians to define the final implementation of this. That will most likely fail spectacularly. Adding worker rights to it will most likely increase the chance of success, because at least that is something they have experts for…
That’s still inherently more specific than ‘that plus nebulous notions of workers rights’.
Also, that’s not nebulous in terms of end user expectation, that’s just nebulous in terms of technical implementation.
And it needs to be, because being specific could run into legal issues, such as if you require the server binaries to be available, you’re now violating copyright. The law should specify the result, not the process to get there.
The law is specifying the end user result. Keep the game we bought available to play in the way we bought it.
Questions about server binaries and copyright are implementation details for companies to work out.
That’s not specific “the way we bought it” could be argued to require servers to be kept running and no company will take actions to put themselves in a position to get sued.
The way we bought it just requires the server code to be available to run, if does not require any specific company running servers. And running servers is not a suable offense.
I didn’t say it was, but a lot of people are wanting offline access.
Point is it’s not inherently clear with one vision what SKG is. Just like Brexit and any number of dumb things it’s been marketed in a shotgun approach to get as many people on board as possible and coasting on a “well the EU politicians will just figure out what we want”
This is a trap and I’m gonna have to say we refuse the bait.
One thing at a time, we cannot demand that’s just gotten off the ground to carry too many plates at once.
Lol no.
If you want workers’ rights get your own movement started, you don’t get to come shit up the initiative others have set up for an entirely different purpose.
This, I can’t help but to think this is a trap.
It sounds noble sure, but it would cause the movement to start spinning too many plates at once.
Stop Killing Games can focus on other industry problems later when it has established more of a presence. If it starts caving into demands to go into several other directions before it has its foot in the door it will crumble.
I am not saying we throw workers under the bus, I’m saying we don’t try to help them before we are able to help ourselves.
Stop Killing Games can focus on other industry problems later when it has established more of a presence.
Or just not? SKG is a consumer rights and art preservation movement, not a labor rights movement.
None of the people who signed up for SKG should expect it to pivot to something else once the stated goal is achieved, and especially not to legitimise itself as an organisation beyond its stated mission off the back of the support for it.
I guarantee you without a shadow of a doubt that a “Stop firing devs” would not have gone anywhere close to this level of support.
Moreover, it’s basically impossible to unionize any kind of digital asset production work, because with modern internet connections locations are a non-issue, and you can’t unionize across vastly different countries and economies.
Too many people are willing to work in games while being paid breadcrumbs to even make a union possible, even without the outsourcing issue, and frankly if you are that willing to get fucked why should anyone stand in your way?
Reading through the article, they aren’t just proposing to widen the SKG movement beyond its original intent (which is already a bad idea). They’re proposing that “more clear labelling of what a customer is paying for” is enough. Fuck that noise, and fuck these asshats. The core of the problem is that people currently aren’t allowed to irrevocably own and use what they paid for.
This article proposes that companies should be allowed to pay lip service by just advertising that they’re selling a “revocable license” which is already what they do. This “journalist” can kick rocks, because they clearly don’t care about actually fixing problems
They’re clearly an industry plant trying to sabotage the movement.
And reasonably-priced love!
And a hard boiled egg!I want a pony.
WE SHOULD ALSO BRING BACK PRETZEL DAY
