[dgellow]

> Reading the terms you have no idea.

If a game says clearly a constant internet connection is required, I don’t see how you would expect it to work when their servers are down. It would indeed be nicer if they would provide a local experience, but is it really something that should be enforced through regulations? That feels very wrong to me. I personally dislike EA business model and wouldn’t engage with it, I think it’s a pretty shitty corporation. But when buying diablo games where a connection is required, even if I always only play them solo, at no point do I have expectations I will be able to continue playing if servers are shut down. The deal is clear from the get go, I can decide to engage or not. There a lots of other games to play if I care more about local experience.

The arguments to “stop killing games” feel very entitled to me and the slogans disingenuous

[rileymat2]

You could frame the regulation in a variety of ways:

1. Require a clear labeling of sunset date.

Or

2. Require an independent trust created from a portion of the initial payment to fund ongoing operation.

Or

3. Ban fixed payments for things with ongoing known operating costs.

Or

4. Provide local mechanisms to continue to run the game.

The original sin is a fixed price for an ongoing expense as a business model.