Comment by meheleventyone
9 hours ago
There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games. I’m sure you have a point but this attempt at articulating it is confusing.
9 hours ago
There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games. I’m sure you have a point but this attempt at articulating it is confusing.
> There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games.
That’s not accurate. I used to play the Android version of EA Tetris [1]. I liked the game so much that I paid to remove ads from it. One day, I opened the game, and the game told me that I wasn’t allowed to play it unless I installed an update for it. I installed the update, and launched the game again. The game then told me that I would not be allowed to play it after a specific date. After that date passed, I tried opening the game again, and it refused to let me play the game.
For more examples of games that contain self-destruct mechanisms, see the Stop Killing Games wiki [2].
[1]: <https://tetris.wiki/Tetris_(2011,_Electronic_Arts)>
[2]: <https://stopkillinggames.wiki.gg/wiki/Dead_game_list>
What else is a completely unnecessary requirement to sign in to an account to play a single-player game?
A form of copy-protection basically. I get the desire for the emotive framing though but I think the EOL implications were simply not considered. I also agree with the idea that at EOL that copy-protection should be removed. There are however a vanishingly small number of games that are built this way so I'm not sure regulation is the best way of approaching it.
But this is an additional and much less effective layer of copy protection compared to the actual copy protection. The game wouldn't be meaningfully easier to pirate without it.
IMO this means it isn't a form of copy protection.
1 reply →