It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Matthias00001111: I'm no legal expert, but I'm quite sure simply going out of business doesn't save you from being sued.
avatar
BrianSim: You certainly are no legal expert. You can't sue a company for civil redress issues (that aren't 'criminal law' crimes like embezzlement, etc) after they've gone out of business. See various examples of holiday companies going under where people have to claim with the credit card company to get their money back because there's no-one left to sue.
I'm no legal expert, but I have at least somehow an understanding that liability for a business can differ dramatically from country to country depending on which form of business you operate. Despite that, I have never heard of a form that gives liables legal immunity once they just closed their business...
And I certainly don't trust legal statements of some midwit in a forum, who despite being apparently a native speaker, has severe difficulties to comprehend and understand their own language.
Like here:
avatar
BrianSim: [...] you seem to be one of 'those people' who can only talk SKG up by talking DRM-Free down by inventing baseless claims of how 'broken' all DRM-Free games are (and received one moderator warning about)
avatar
ponczo_: Alright, this thread is getting out of hand a lil' bit. Let's say I will not lock it right away, but ask you guys to stop arguing about personal stuff and get back on the track. Any further offtopic, arguing and name-calling will be met with bans (as this message is a warning to everyone).
Post edited July 05, 2025 by Matthias00001111
avatar
BrianSim: You certainly are no legal expert. You can't sue a company for civil redress issues (that aren't 'criminal law' crimes like embezzlement, etc) after they've gone out of business. See various examples of holiday companies going under where people have to claim with the credit card company to get their money back because there's no-one left to sue.
avatar
Matthias00001111: I'm no legal expert, but I have at least somehow an understanding that liability for a business can differ dramatically from country to country depending on which form of business you operate. Despite that, I have never heard of a form that gives liables legal immunity once they just closed their business...
And I certainly don't trust legal statements of some midwit in a forum, who despite being apparently a native speaker, has severe difficulties to comprehend and understand their own language.
Like here:
avatar
ponczo_: Alright, this thread is getting out of hand a lil' bit. Let's say I will not lock it right away, but ask you guys to stop arguing about personal stuff and get back on the track. Any further offtopic, arguing and name-calling will be met with bans (as this message is a warning to everyone).
avatar
Matthias00001111:
You are from Germany.
In Germany there are several legal constructions of companies (for example GmbH), where the employed people, including the head of the company, are only partially legal responsible.
Even more when the company simply cases to exist.
If the company doesn't exist anymore, it can't give any technical support anymore and that is absolutely legal. It has been legal for physical goods in the past, it has been legal for software in the past. Even when name rights where bought up by somebody else, that person was not liable for the old stuff of the former company.
And if we don't rewrite a huge pile of laws, this won't change just because some devs are forced to keep their games running (*as long as the company does exist).

I can only see it working the other way.
A huge number of games on GoG are from Devs and/or Publishers, that don't exist anymore. But somebody bought up the rights in the past and have the games republished.
Some of those games where made to be usable again by GoG.
But if buying up rights now would include a "you have to take care it works until the end of time" - nobody with a sane mind will buy up such rights.
And GoG, that is trying to bring back old stuff from the grave, will have even a harder time to get right holders to republish.

And if this law would require you to keep your games running where they have been bought.
Well, just look at the number of games that have been delisted from GoG because of various reasons. Most of them are not taken care about anymore.
If you are forced to take care until the universe went dark (because that is what the initiative is basically about), going for another store next to the biggest is a risk you most likely don't want to take.



I don't know why quoting is fucked, But I guess it has to do with the post I just quoted.
I tried to fix it but something is simply fucked. So I won't bother anymore.
Post edited July 06, 2025 by randomuser.833
avatar
Axemark038: Whether you agree with the initiative or not, you should still sign. Its first goal is to start a legal discussion in hopes of protecting players' purchased games but also not at the expense of developers. I implore you to sign. Thank you.
avatar
timppu: Sorry, I will not sign pro-DRM initiatives that will push games more to streaming services where they don't have to provide any ridiculous "EOL plans".
Me neither! Who named this thing "Stop Killing Games" anyway?

1) It doesn't affect DRM (not anti-DRM)!
2) It doesn't concern spyware in games, just as important issue as DRM!
3) It doesn't concern old games! Why should i care about CoD: Warfare something in 2045 or The Crew 6 etc. It won't bring The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth from the dead or Darkspore.

Nor does it concern monopolistic practices in gaming industry Epics UE5 comes to mind.

So it is not really about preventing games from dying is it?

The best possible outcome i predict will come from this is that the developers will be obliged to put an expiration date warning label on games, like for example servers shutting down on X date.