[platevoltage]

You should not be able to shut down the ability to play a game if it cost money to buy.

[ryandrake]

You should at least have to refund customers when you take away the ability to use a product they purchased.

[wilg]

This is fair for some reasonable time window after purchase. But I think it's okay for things to have a lifespan even if they cost money.

[ryandrake]

As long as the life span is clearly spelled out when you purchase, so you know that you are actually buying a 10 year subscription, and not a game.

[wilg]

This would be a much preferable law to the one actually proposed.

[platevoltage]

No. It's not a physical good that is subject to wear and tear. There is no excuse for a single player game to have a lifespan because it has some pointless online verification component.

[wilg]

I think it should be legal to sell something with a pointless online verification component.

[wilg]

Yes you should!

[platevoltage]

Give me one good reason why.

[wilg]

Because I think it's good for software developers and consumers for people to have the flexibility to sell something that depends on online services which may become unavailable at some point in the future. This is more valuable than requiring indefinite support, public pluggable backends, or required open sourcing or backend redistribution, which imposes onerous technical or business limitations for an extremely minor consumer benefit all things considered.