[DaSHacka]

> Tell gamers how many months, for the advertised price, they will receive a guaranteed level of service and features for.

Companies would just default to saying "we reserve the right to shut off online connectivity at any time."

[ryandrake]

Well, then prevent that via regulation, too. It fatalistic to say "Well, we just can't possibly regulate companies, because they will surely find loopholes and avoid the regulation!" The answer is to write better, more thorough regulation that prevents loopholes. That shouldn't be such a tall order!

[1123581321]

Just write a regulation that every game developer has to make a great game, not charge too much, support it for years, and give it away for free as soon as it's not popular. That way, we'll only have great games and archives of great free games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM

[throwaway85825]

'Great' is neither a legal or commercial term.

[protocolture]

Then just regulate the term Great. You can regulate everything. Just send in the troops to force gamedevs to only make Red Alert 2, objectively the government derived best possible game. Any deviation from Red Alert 2 will be severely punished.

[ryandrake]

Not sure what point this exaggeration is supposed to make. Just let companies do whatever they want and Buyer Beware?

[YurgenJurgensen]

Force them to list an effective annual subscription fee more prominently displayed than any “purchase” price. If they can’t guarantee any level of service, the license is assumed to be valid for one day, and their game ‘costs’ thirty thousand dollars.