Would you be happy to put a person on the street so a thousand people get to continue playing league of legends in 2060?

The interests being balanced here are so far apart it's pretty obvious why one side should have much larger access to lawmakers on this issue. Frieren is suggesting they should have none at all!

And FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing.

▲

account42 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Would you be happy to put a person on the street so a thousand people get to continue playing league of legends in 2060?

Yes.

The balance is that everyone's free speech has already been SEVERELY restricted in order for the game industry to have a business model at all. This is about making sure that the rest of our society actually gets a remotely fair deal. Asking that companies can't just take away what they have sold is really below the bare minimum.

▲

drbscl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> And FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing.

You're aware that they are taxed products that people buy with their wages, right?

	▲	l23k4 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but you'd generate the same value by simply collecting them.

▲

sensanaty an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing.

The people building games wouldn't be contributing anything if the players weren't playing/buying them.

▲

thrance an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

False dilemma. Riot could release the server binaries when they end League of Legends service, and no one would get thrown on the street.

▲

LtWorf 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everything you buy instead of something else is putting someone on the street.

▲

l23k4 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So? How does this relate to the disgusting anti-democratic suggestion that game devs should not be heard in relation to this topic?

I really can't see how my ability to buy other products justifies denying them representation, these things do not seem even vaguely connected.

▲

Ukv 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> disgusting anti-democratic suggestion [...] denying them representation

I assume the idea isn't that developing a game means you don't get to vote as a citizen, but that the industry can't lobby for special access ("spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups").

	▲	l23k4 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What is that even supposed to mean in practice? Given the lack of a reasonable proposal, I think I'll take their words at face value.

▲

thrance an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's democratic about a decision made by the wealthy few, disregarding a massive popular wave!?

▲

LtWorf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I love how you complain about the poor companies while companies are the only ones being heard. maybe take less of a moral superiority stance?

▲

xinayder 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing.

if there are no players, there is no money to be made, developers will be fired.

and besides, I'd rather put someone on the street if this is the multibillionaire CEO that exploits his devs, than a dev itself. And companies can, you know, slash their billionaire salaries and bonuses to comply with the law.