kazaika

Just a small akshually : Viruses cant be dead or alive because the have no metabolism anyway so most (modern) vaccines work by extracting their mrna or the lipids on their surface and injecting that. Injecting a small portion of whole viruses my still infect you. Fyi

Edit: ok I talked some garbage here: while viruses do not have a metabolism and thereby are, by the definition of some, not alive, there is apparently a way to make vaccines by destroying the genome of the virus via heat or chemicals and using the "shells" to make vaccines..

Source (disclosure: website owned by vaccine producer) here

Firefox. Read the new statements on their website and the Full diff of the pull request. Not concerned at all.

Edit: pumped for ladybird, but its gonna be a few years until that is finished

*Apostels

I don't know this name, I read its part of the Fediverse... Does this affect us?

Nothing in history proves we can

Bruh, now you're just talking nonsense. History proves shit about the future, and its kinda sad that you cant name a single great thing in history

Guys stop getting upset, he didnt play any of them

Wrong, see first bullet point https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci

You dont need bots to ruin a game, ddos is sufficient and cheap enough to come by, probably even easier in the future. Argument 2 already covered in other comment below

It may be true that it may not actually happen. However:

• I have elaborated on monetization in another long comment.
• it cannot be wrong to have monetary interest in your product.
• A law (which is the goal afaik) needs to account for unlikely scenarios, thats why its usually so hard to make new ones

I am not against leaving games playable, but the fact that people like the game means that the devs did a good job and their fate needs to be accounted for. Devs who make good games are not an enemy

Stop killing games said that games need to be kept in a functioning state afaik. That means exactly that. I am very for modding games but modding a game does not entitle me to the original creators intellectual property, but merely the part j have added.

Also what documentation? :)

This still doesn't cover for the abuse of studios which is the main concern here, after all making games harder to kill off shouldn't come with making the production or maintenance more risky or significantly mor expensive. A malicious party trying to kill a game because they dont like it or part of the community is still a valid motive.

Regarding your Question, minecraft servers are a good example of this: there are many servers out there which monetise in game resources or grind shorteners for real world money. I dont think that it is a stretch to say that a non sandbox game could be adjusted to work in such fashion. Also the point is not that there are other options, but that someone may easily make money with stuff the dont own and have never contributed to in its making.

At the end of the day all of us still want new games to be made. Therefore we need to accept that the people making them need to be able to have a steady income doing their job. Monetising ones own creation is, and should be, well within your rights. Even if some of us dont like it providing a platform in form of a game, as a service / with ever fresh content can be a valid value proposition and there are many studios out there doing this successfully while being well respected, think of Deep rock galactic or path of exile.

If you want to make this a law, how would anyone handle this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jMKeg9S-s&t=73

This argument holds true for developers of all sizes and is somehow totally ignored by most here.