A requirement to leave a game in a "working state when support ends" doesn't mean continuing support (ie, running the server). It means the game should still work when the server is gone, which means either fully offline play, or a means for players to run their own servers. That's the whole point of this campaign, which is taking place across multiple countries.
so that no further intervention whatsoever is necessary for the game to function
I mean, I'd accept "release the source code" but this doesn't.
"Release the source code" isn't going to be considered a reasonable thing to ask a government to legislate on. "Make sure the game can still be played after support ends", which in practice means patching it so it doesn't require an internet connection to servers that no longer exist and/or allowing players to self-host their own servers, is far more likely to succeed. It's a reasonable request that someone who has bought something should be able to continue using it for as long as they want, no matter what happens to the company that sold it to them.
It's a request that stands a decent chance of success if a politician can be made to understand what the problem is, because it is an easy extension of existing consumer rights law. Requiring game studios to hand over their source code to gamers would be considered excessive and unreasonable, and is therefore much more likely to be denied outright.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. For the majority of gamers, the changes proposed would be more than sufficient, so that's a good reason to push for it even if it isn't what an open source idealist would want.
I wouldn't require source code, no. I would just consider that one acceptable form of allowing the game to continue being playable. However, it requires intervention from the user, so it wouldn't be accepted under this proposal.
Under the proposed rule, a company would not avoid penalty by releasing the source code.
Of course they wouldn't, and they shouldn't. Releasing the source code doesn't absolve them of a responsibility to make sure the game is actually working when they end support. "We fucked over all our players, but here's the source code so someone else can fix it for nothing" would be a really shitty thing to do and they shouldn't avoid penalty for fucking over the majority of their players (and the unpaid people who will have to fix it for them).
On the other hand "we patched the game so it'll continue to work for everyone who bought it" benefits most players, and "we patched the game so it'll continue to work for everyone who bought it, AND here's the source code so others can expand/modify it if they feel so inclined" would satisfy everybody. It just shouldn't be a legal requirement.
Also keep in mind that in the UK system, if a petition reaches its 100,000 signature minimum in order to be considered for debate in parliament, that's only the beginning of the process. It doesn't just get put into law exactly as the petitioner words it. It goes through multiple debate stages, where the MPs consider all the options, and then the law gets written - and then it usually gets amended a few times. So I would expect that if this petition did lead to a change in the law, the resulting legislation would have considered multiple options for what "leaving the game in a working state" would look like. A surprisingly large amount of UK legislation on this kind of stuff sort of goes "this is what we want, but companies have freedom to choose how they will implement it".
A requirement to leave a game in a "working state when support ends" doesn't mean continuing support (ie, running the server). It means the game should still work when the server is gone, which means either fully offline play, or a means for players to run their own servers. That's the whole point of this campaign, which is taking place across multiple countries.
I mean, I'd accept "release the source code" but this doesn't.
"Release the source code" isn't going to be considered a reasonable thing to ask a government to legislate on. "Make sure the game can still be played after support ends", which in practice means patching it so it doesn't require an internet connection to servers that no longer exist and/or allowing players to self-host their own servers, is far more likely to succeed. It's a reasonable request that someone who has bought something should be able to continue using it for as long as they want, no matter what happens to the company that sold it to them.
It's a request that stands a decent chance of success if a politician can be made to understand what the problem is, because it is an easy extension of existing consumer rights law. Requiring game studios to hand over their source code to gamers would be considered excessive and unreasonable, and is therefore much more likely to be denied outright.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. For the majority of gamers, the changes proposed would be more than sufficient, so that's a good reason to push for it even if it isn't what an open source idealist would want.
I wouldn't require source code, no. I would just consider that one acceptable form of allowing the game to continue being playable. However, it requires intervention from the user, so it wouldn't be accepted under this proposal.
Under the proposed rule, a company would not avoid penalty by releasing the source code.
Of course they wouldn't, and they shouldn't. Releasing the source code doesn't absolve them of a responsibility to make sure the game is actually working when they end support. "We fucked over all our players, but here's the source code so someone else can fix it for nothing" would be a really shitty thing to do and they shouldn't avoid penalty for fucking over the majority of their players (and the unpaid people who will have to fix it for them).
On the other hand "we patched the game so it'll continue to work for everyone who bought it" benefits most players, and "we patched the game so it'll continue to work for everyone who bought it, AND here's the source code so others can expand/modify it if they feel so inclined" would satisfy everybody. It just shouldn't be a legal requirement.
Also keep in mind that in the UK system, if a petition reaches its 100,000 signature minimum in order to be considered for debate in parliament, that's only the beginning of the process. It doesn't just get put into law exactly as the petitioner words it. It goes through multiple debate stages, where the MPs consider all the options, and then the law gets written - and then it usually gets amended a few times. So I would expect that if this petition did lead to a change in the law, the resulting legislation would have considered multiple options for what "leaving the game in a working state" would look like. A surprisingly large amount of UK legislation on this kind of stuff sort of goes "this is what we want, but companies have freedom to choose how they will implement it".
Good point.