Worse solution, but I would accept if publishers were forced to clearly display the exact date when the game will stop functioning at the point of purchase and all advertising materials.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I see what you're getting at but this would be difficult for a publisher to stick with in the event the game does horribly. Requiring them to keep their word to the date advertised would end up with them only guaranteeing a week, or send ramifications through all industries requiring truth in advertising.

A middle ground would be simply to legislate that when games require online connectivity for any reason, the appropriate software is released to allow a locally run server to enable online function at the time the company decides to decommission their servers. Then require them to hold these files in an accessible manner for at least as long as the servers had been active for.

That would be difficult in the event the company goes out of business, but I'm sure this would be a difficult thing to explain to most politicians so maybe not so simple after all.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If they can't keep their committed date (or fold entirely), then the source goes open. If every copy happens to get deleted during the bankruptcy, treat it as criminal fraud by the top levels of the company and go after everyone that could have decided to improve backups and other IT methods of avoiding that but didn't. That's assuming it was accidental, higher penalties if it can be proven to be deliberate.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In an ideal world, the penalties you describe are suitable. Though, gaming industry aside, for the executive level of most any corporation, being a scapegoat and handed a golden parachute is the worst case scenario for them leaving. In many cases floating across the street right into another executive position.

Jail time isn't a likely outcome. It just isn't the world we live in, unfortunately.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah golden parachutes are such a joke in this society that likes to pretend to be a meritocracy.

Though on that note, I'd love to see a law that limits golden parachutes to the lowest paid position in the company. Hell, I'd be ok with that being scaled to full time. Not because disgraced executives deserve even that much but because it would give some incentive to increase pay rates across the company. I've also long thought that executive compensation should also be limited by some multiple of the lowest pay. And yeah, I'd include stock options and grants in that (for both employee and executive compensation).

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Agreed. The whole idea of these huge payouts could be eliminated and replaced with what exists for everyone else - severance pay. Calculated off a regulated minimum formula, based primarily on how long the person served the company.

I also agree with you that the top and bottom salaries should have a correlation. The C suite making the salary of a shelf stocker in one day should not happen. I think I could accept that the top gets somewhere around 10 or 20 times higher salary. Even 100x would be an improvement to the way it is now.

Like you point out, between stock options and whatever else, an executive salary could be a few hundred thousand, even if their total compensation is tens of millions. In fantasy land it would be nice if, once a company grows to a certain point, say a billion dollars in value, if it were required to convert to an employee owned cooperative entity.

It's a shame things are the way they are. Maybe one day we won't have politicians that can be bought. That's a different discussion altogether.