Non-game software doesn’t. It’s much harder to convince politicians.
The argument for non-game software would be economical. But most big companies pay the subscriptions, since they want to have the latest version (if not for the features, at least for the security patches). So they’re not affected. The most affected by this is consumers and small companies. Which don’t have a lot of power.
The way to fix this is to support the competitors that don’t do this kind of shit. For office in particular, there’s even free alternatives.
Not really. People should be encouraged, after seeing how bad the software provider treats them, to switch to open source - or at least to software of less shitty companies. You can’t do that with games - each game is a unique[1] piece of art and culture.
Yea, that’s the end goal. It’s a smart way to run a political campaign using relatable concrete problems that people face from abusive licensing policies in the software industry.
We have No Killing Games, now wet me need No Killing Software…
Games have a cultural element to it.
Non-game software doesn’t. It’s much harder to convince politicians.
The argument for non-game software would be economical. But most big companies pay the subscriptions, since they want to have the latest version (if not for the features, at least for the security patches). So they’re not affected. The most affected by this is consumers and small companies. Which don’t have a lot of power.
The way to fix this is to support the competitors that don’t do this kind of shit. For office in particular, there’s even free alternatives.
Not really. People should be encouraged, after seeing how bad the software provider treats them, to switch to open source - or at least to software of less shitty companies. You can’t do that with games - each game is a unique[1] piece of art and culture.
ish ↩︎
Yea, that’s the end goal. It’s a smart way to run a political campaign using relatable concrete problems that people face from abusive licensing policies in the software industry.