Comment by Blackthorn

> Because they sold them. They put it out in the world. If they just made it and then immediately destroyed it, wonderful! But they didn't.

They sold a pass to play the game while it was open. Just like a swimming pool or a buffet.

Just because we got an executable software instead of a wrist band doesn’t change what it is.

Is the naming convention the sticking point here?

Did we really think it meant “all you can eat until the heat death of the universe”?

> And, also, their creators are not a monolith. They were worked on by hundreds of hands. The production company shouldn't get to unilaterally make that decision.

Why not?

I have never had a say as a developer or designer of other software when the company turned off products, how much we charged customers, what the SLA was etc. etc. etc.

I signed a contract to do a job on a thing. Regardless of how much pride I took in my work I understood the license it would be distributed under and what my role was.

We can form guilds or join coops if we want a say. Labor has pull before and during the work. Get it in writing. After the fact we’re fucked. Welcome to earth. Sucks here but we make do.

> This is this and that is that.

But this is that. They sold us a concert ticket. We checked the checkbox next to the EULA. Nobody made us do it.

I get the ick from this kind of game it so I stopped buying them, except for when I do. Just like I stopped eating Doritos.

I don’t expect something that comes in a colorful crinkly bag at gas station to be healthy and I don’t expect a game sold by some big studio to not be ripping me off.

The idea of interacting with lawyers and politicians to solve the problem of “some of my luxury goods are a bad value” never crossed my mind.