This measure of the China Consumer Association is undoubtedly in response to the ""Yun Pei Yu" mobile game suspension and re-operation" some time ago.
This is certainly a good thing for the game's players. Although the game data is false, the money and effort invested by the player is real.
In fact, when it comes to the most recent suspension, it should be "Magic Apocalypse".
This netease-produced game that has achieved brilliant results on the line, but has not lasted for even a year, and the ending is really shocking.
Searching for "The Book of Revelation" on station B is basically related to its closure
Manufacturers' losses may stop, but the pain caused to players who love this game is eternal. Therefore, it is understandable that the China Consumer Association will investigate this phenomenon.
But there is a but in everything.
To do this questionnaire, I downloaded a Tweet.
The following is the content of the questionnaire:
Very sharp questioning, although this is actually a legal issue.
Online in-game purchases are actually the right to use virtual items that can only appear on a particular platform.
But will changes to the terms of the agreement affect my right to use this?
The questionnaire gave three answers, each of which was clearly illustrated.
It's a very... Radical claims.
In most agreements, ownership of the virtual property is vested in the company, and you have specific access to the character in-game.
If consumers are considered to have ownership, then the entire ecology of online games will undergo drastic changes.
However, in fact, as long as it is clear that the player's in-game consumption purchase is a kind of "rent", this problem can be circumvented.
If it is believed that the consumer has the ownership of virtual property, then when the manufacturer stops serving, it is necessary to compensate all players materially to compensate for the property loss caused by the suspension.
But that's outrageous to think about, right...
This is a strange statement, generally speaking, very few people will have kryptonite in a game that they know they are going to stop, right? I don't think it's a big deal for the player.
The key is, how far in advance must the manufacturer announce the suspension?
"(11) Where it is stipulated that an online game operator plans to terminate the provision of its products and services, it must make an announcement 60 days in advance."
Take the original god as an example:
A: Refers to rough. B: Refers to the monthly card. C: Refers to these "services" of characters and weapons.
If C were to be held, the amount of compensation at the time of the game's suspension would be astronomical. Playing games in the future will become an investment behavior.
I like the option to "keep the stand-alone version of the game" and save a thought that won't change. Moreover, even if it is made into a stand-alone version, it can also be sold for a fee, and the burden on manufacturers is low.
The only problem is that the stand-alone version of online games is generally not very fun.
This question I will, except for AG are selected.
The options given by these questionnaires can leave your own answers in the comment area and talk about what you think are reliable and which ones are not.
But, I said one earlier but right.
I think that restricting the suspension of the game is a matter of limited benefit to the player, but a serious blow to the industry.
A good end of the game, the manufacturer will certainly not want to stop serving. If you want to stop serving, it must be the time when the project is seriously unable to make ends meet. Poor quality games do not necessarily lose money, but games with fewer players must be fried.
Of course, we say that no matter how much, the rights and interests of players should be protected, right? This is just ideal.
If the manufacturer is worried about not being able to exit the market in time when the loss is lost, then he will not enter the market at all. No game is done with the purpose of "cutting a wave of running", if you just want to cut a wave of running, what online game to do? Game development is also costly, and most games can't get their money back just a few weeks.
Just lose some money is better to say, in case the above really says: "Don't stop!" ", immediately it is the cutting of the project, the closure of the shutdown, the online game market is dead silent, and there are a few giants left to lie and win.
In the long run, it may not be a good thing.
Of course, cracking down on arbitrary suspensions, if you can improve the transparency between manufacturers and players, and build trust between players and manufacturers, it is better.
Welcome to leave a message, leaving your opinion and attitude.