Would any art gallery pay for a piece that the artist could walk in and take away whenever they wanted?

This isn't so much about art, more about what you deserve when you pay money for something. People are still free to make whatever they want.

>I feel... uneasy about the idea. Are games art?

Yes, which is precisely why they shouldn't be treated like a commodity. Nobody is telling artists what art they can make, what the initiative is about making sure public continues to have access to works of art.

Which is normal for everything that's considered to be of cultural relevance. Film studios and novelists don't get to burn libraries down the moment someone stops paying them. It's exactly because games are art that preservation and access need to be priorities. Can you imagine if Amazon started to delete books from your Kindle? (I'm pretty sure they tried that once actually, with 1984 no less)

The destruction of art is, in most civilizations, seen as completely obscene. The reason why game companies got away with it was precisely because games had a lower status.

How do you feel about art that changes over time? Temporal pieces. Plays that were only ever to be performed once?

Those are cool! They're also designed that way for a specific art-based reasoning - the temporality often has a deeper meaning.

Games designed for limited play, however, are designed that way for the sake of profit churn.

> are you comfortable telling artists what types of art they can create?

Yes, absolutely. For instance, I think it's fine to prohibit artists to kill animals for the sake of making art. Or humans, but it's already outlawed.

art, shmart. aside the fact that a large part of art is money laundering or tax evasion, what is being asked for is more like banning radioactive or cancerous paint pigment

Once art get sold, it becomes a product and your customers have legal rights in that transaction

Depends entirely on the game. Some are art, games designed by people who love games for the sake of games. Others are things that employ the use of art for the sake of long-term financial gain.

Yes, games are art. Which is why this is so important. Are you comfortable with destroying cultural heritage for the sake of corporate profit? Did you even ask artists working in the game industry what they think about this?

what a strawman. its not about "you cannot draw this" but its more like "please dont use dyes that offgas deadly fumes", a technical regulation not about substance

Talk about strawman, it's literally "I paid for something I don't like, there should be a law!" And you're comparing it to poison gas

>... it's literally "I paid for something I don't like, there should be a law!"

It's much more like "I paid for something, there should be a law so no one can take what I've paid for"

>... it's literally "I paid for something I don't like, there should be a law!"

Is this entirely the fault of the customer, or is it that the studios have largely forced this model upon customers, leaving them with little choice?

IMHO the incentives are disproportionately in favour of everyone doing something that hurts consumers (= "something that I don't like"), thus regulation in favour of consumer rights is appropriate.

There isn't a scenario where, at scale, someone can offer a product that respects consumer rights and is successful, because it's too profitable to not respect consumer rights just like it wasn't in many other cases.

this was not a literal comparison, wtf, but an example of a technical limitation that will be imposed by law as a counter to your "art" stupidity. You can Use alternative formulation if you cant comprehend basic methaphors: „stop using dyes that decay in 2 months“