Stop Killing Games Fails To Secure EU Law Despite 1.3 Million Signatures (dexerto.com) 106
The European Commission has declined (PDF) to propose a law requiring publishers to keep discontinued video games playable, despite the Stop Killing Games initiative collecting nearly 1.3 million verified signatures. Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry code covering end-of-life transparency and preservation. Dextero reports: The Commission's full communication said a legal obligation to keep games playable, as requested by the initiative, "would not be proportionate." It cited concerns about intellectual property rights, confidential business information, publisher costs, and potential cybersecurity or safety risks once games are no longer supported. The code of conduct could include more transparent storefront labeling about possible game discontinuation, along with more partnerships between publishers and cultural heritage institutions to preserve games. However, it would not legally require publishers to provide offline patches, private server tools, or other methods for players to continue accessing games after official support ends. The Commission also argued that existing EU consumer law already provides some safeguards, including requirements around transparency, contract duration, termination conditions, and possible refunds if a shutdown conflicts with the agreement or a consumer's reasonable expectations.
[...] Despite the setback, Stop Killing Games has said it is not ending its push for legislation. In a response posted after the Commission's decision, the official Stop Killing Games account said the outcome was "not unexpected" and claimed the campaign had already prepared for the result. The group said it is now pushing for members of the European Parliament to amend Stop Killing Games into the Digital Fairness Act instead. "We can move on without the Commission and their non-decision," the group said, referencing earlier comments from Accursed Farms creator Ross Scott.
[...] Despite the setback, Stop Killing Games has said it is not ending its push for legislation. In a response posted after the Commission's decision, the official Stop Killing Games account said the outcome was "not unexpected" and claimed the campaign had already prepared for the result. The group said it is now pushing for members of the European Parliament to amend Stop Killing Games into the Digital Fairness Act instead. "We can move on without the Commission and their non-decision," the group said, referencing earlier comments from Accursed Farms creator Ross Scott.
online petitions mean shit (Score:3, Insightful)
mean shit - who is really dumb enough to think thats a thing that persuades goverment.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a legal initiative. https://www.europarl.europa.eu... [europa.eu]
Re: online petitions mean shit (Score:5, Insightful)
It still has no teeth. You get to make a presentation to The Overlords, and then they get to ignore it.
Didn't get me wrong, it's better than nothing, but there's no obligation for the government to do anything as far as I can tell.
Re: online petitions mean shit (Score:5, Informative)
The European Commission is the EU's civil service. Petitioning it was always a long shot, because for them to act you have to convince them that there is a good case within existing EU rules. They aren't there to make new rules, they are there to enforce the existing ones.
They have effectively said that existing consumer protection rules don't extend far enough to force publishers to make offline patches and server code available, but in their opinion do offer some of the things being asked for already and so the petitioners should contact their state consumer rights body.
To get a change in the rules, it needs to go through the European Parliament and the elected MEPs. That's how democracy works. Elected officials make the rules, civil servants enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
But to your point, yeah, it sounds like this petition was doomed to fail because they brought it to the wrong body. If you want new laws, go to the people who write them, not the people who don't.
Re: (Score:2)
It was worth a go, but it was always a long shot. You could interpret the current rules as requiring some of this stuff, but it's a hard case to make. Either way, it was probably necessary to demonstrate that the current rules are inadequate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your Secretary of Defense is not elected, neither the Secretary of Justice, Education, or Finances ... and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
They're actually nominated by the president and have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly: they are not voted into office.
And the same is true for the European Commission.
The Commissioners are appointed by the GOVERNMENT(s).
Evaluated in several hearings.
Approved by the EU parliament.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To the current president of the EU Commission, which is Ursula von der Leyen.
Just like a minister in Germany is reporting to the Chancellor or a Secretary in the US is reporting to the POTUS, or a minster in the UK is reporting to the Prime Minister.
Commissioners encroach on legislative functions (Score:1)
The Commissioners are appointed by the GOVERNMENT(s).
And they are the only ones that can draft new legislation. A power normally reserved for elected members of the government, members of a legislature.
In contrast, the secretaries in the executive branch of the US government are implementing the laws defined by the constitution, or created and passed by the legislature, or implemented directives from the executive.
Re: (Score:2)
And they are the only ones that can draft new legislation. Wrong. The parliament can draft a legislation ... basically everyone can.
Nope. From google, pay really close attention to "They hold the exclusive "Right of Initiative" in the EU" and "While the European Parliament and the Council of the EU can request the Commission draft a law, they cannot originate legislation themselves":
"Within the European Commission, the College of Commissioners generates and proposes all legislation. They hold the exclusive "Right of Initiative" in the EU. This draft legislation is drafted by the Commission's Directorates-General (expert departments)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. The Secretaries are part of the Executive branch of government. They do not originate legislation.
The commissioners then have a double role, as they are primarily also executive branch.
They hold the exclusive "Right of Initiative" in the EU.
It is a bit more complicated than that, but in general you are right, I was not thinking about that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The Secretaries are part of the Executive branch of government. They do not originate legislation. The commissioners then have a double role, as they are primarily also executive branch.
Which basically paraphrases what I have been saying :-)
Re: (Score:2)
So, nope, they're appointed by the President, approved by the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the President, who is the one in charge. The President in our system is vested with all execu
Re: (Score:1)
I am also not sure what your point is: as the EU commission works exactly the same.
Except that the Commissioners actually have to pass a test/approval of qualification.
And: the head, aka President of the Commission, is not proposing all of them, but plenty are proposed by the government of the member states.
Hence: the voters in each country, vote for their own government and vote for parties/people to join the European Parliament.
Their own government is involved, or the only one who is proposing/appointing
Re: online petitions mean shit (Score:1)
The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Justice, Education, etc - in fact, the entire cabinet - all have one thing in common, The Don't Create New Laws! That's the role of the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch - both of which are all elected by the people.
Re: (Score:1)
The EU Commission does not create new laws either. /FACEPLAM
They propose laws (rarely) to the parliament. And the parliament votes on the laws, after plenty of discussion and refinement. (Usually they propose ideas about laws, and the parliament sets them up).
Are you really so farking stupid that you do not grasp the EU works exactly the same?
Re: (Score:1)
Democracy and the EU don't belong in the same sentence. It's one of the least democratic entities in the developed world.
Re: (Score:1)
Greetings Fox News viewer!
Re: (Score:3)
The best comparable example to help you understand might be the plight of smaller states in the US or western provinces in Canada. Yes, you can claim they do get a vote within their federal unions and smugly claim it is perfectly democratic, but when their votes are (and always will be) effectively a rounding error when lumped together with those of far-larger and far-off popul
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has about 1% pop. of EU
What? Canada's population *density* is much lower than the rest of the EU, but in terms of actual population, you're off by almost an order of magnitude. Canada has about 9.2% of the population of the EU.
Canada has about two-thirds the population of France, the U.K., and Italy, or about half the population of Germany. Canada has more population than any single country in Europe other than Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Ukraine. With UK now out of the EU and Ukraine not yet in it, that would make Ca
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has about two-thirds the population of France, the U.K., and Italy...
Sorry, I just realized that was worded ambiguously. I meant that it has two-thirds the population of any of those three countries individually. So I should have worded that as:
Canada has about two-thirds the population of France, the U.K., or Italy.
Mea culpa.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, I think my point is that while I still strongly advocate for
Re: (Score:1)
- in comparable population sizes that would mean Canada is roughly equivalent to Connecticut compared to California in the US. If electoral college votes translated to parliamentary seats
Bad comparison. California has 54 electoral college votes and Connecticut has 7 or about 13% as much as California. On the other hand California has 39.5 million people and Connecticut has about 3.6 million or about 9% as much as California. The American system is rigged to allow tyranny of the minority. Low population states get disproportionally high representation in elected positions. If their representation was proportional using Connecticut as the base Florida would have 77-78 electoral college
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, the European Commission also has the responsibility to proposes legislation and send it to the European Parliament. The EC declined to do their exclusive duty according to the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) and unilaterally dismissed the required 1 million signatures in an anti-democratic fashion.
Next step is to go to European Parliament, which has a lower bar for petitions and is generally more willing to exercise its authority against other branches.
Re: (Score:2)
The European Commission is the EU's civil service. Petitioning it was always a long shot, because for them to act you have to convince them that there is a good case within existing EU rules. They aren't there to make new rules, they are there to enforce the existing ones.
This is partly true, but the European Commission is also the only body that can create initial proposals for new EU legislation. The European Parliament and EU Council cannot create new legislative proposals from scratch by themselves, they can only amend and approve proposals from the Commission.
Now that the European Commission has declined to submit a new legislative proposal on the subject, though, the European Parliament will try the one thing they can do: They'll amend the Digital Fairness Act to inclu
Re: (Score:1)
no, that's how a bureaucratic republic works. These days it's the favored cover for a plutocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Petitions are a first step, and it also is a way to raise issues that the government may not even be aware of, and if it is aware of may not consider important in the belief not enough people care about the issue.
Democracy isn't simple, it's not a simple power game, it's a system that requires two way communications. There's a reason the first amendment of the US talks of petitioning the government.
If you don't see that, you probably don't see the value in writing to your elected representative either. Yet
Educational failure (Score:2)
Trying to educate AC? But isn't being ineducable the entire point of being an AC?
But I'm mostly disappointed (as usual) that the promising story produced no funny.
Re: online petitions mean shit (Score:1)
Holy cow, you mean that just because 1.3 million (verified!) people signed an online petition to force companies to let them keep playing discontinued video games for free in perpetuity that the EU can just say 'Nyet!'?
But, but, they REALLY, REALLY want it!
This is so stupid, give game manufacturers a reason to do what you want, don't just try to force them into complying with your selfish desires... offer them money, tax-breaks, SOMETHING!
Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry (Score:4, Funny)
Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry code covering end-of-life transparency and preservation which no one will bother with.
Has any voluntary industry code and self regulation EVER worked?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm speaking here about EU and UK politics, can't speak for the US. It's actually quite usual to do it this way.
Re: Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary indus (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always Nancy Reagan's catchphrase: Just Say No.
Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. Games don't even have the network effects and lockin that you get with other types of software; it's a part of the economy where Just Saying No is easiest of all.
Don't like the quality? Don't spend your money. They have no power over us except what we give them. Stop being so selflessly altruistic when it comes to actively supporting your own abuse.
It's so damn easy, and there's already hundreds of years worth of hassle-free game-playing available to spend the few remaining seconds of your life on.
Re: Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary indus (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always Nancy Reagan's catchphrase: Just Say No.
Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. Games don't even have the network effects and lockin that you get with other types of software; it's a part of the economy where Just Saying No is easiest of all.
Except when it's not. It's not always clear at the time of purchase that the publisher has the ability to shut down the game at some unspecified future date. So "just saying no" requires some knowledge of the future that may not be available. In addition, on platforms like Steam, publishers can push updates that you *must* install to continue playing which remove features or add an online requirement that didn't exist when you purchased it, leading to it being disabled remotely when the publisher eventually shuts down the servers. The TOS/EULA generally require that you agree to all future updates to the TOS/EULA without notice or ability to opt out, so the consumer really doesn't have any actual rights to the games they "purchase" in this system.
Even if the outcome of Stop Killing Games isn't legislation that requires publishers to create tools or release code, an acceptable outcome (IMHO) would be regulation that requires transparency, labeling, and prohibits what's effectively sabotage so the consumer can make an informed decision and have some guarantee they get what they actually paid for. If a digital storefront carried a disclaimer that said "This game requires an online connection to the publisher's server to run. The publisher has not guaranteed the server's operability for any length of time" then a user would at least have the opportunity to consider that risk when purchasing. Additionally, if a regulation prevented publishers from deploying an end-of-life update (a "time-bomb") that didn't exist when purchased, that would also protect consumers without harming publishers. So there are some easy approaches here which don't burden publishers.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that stipulates that any digital good to which your access can be removed by the publisher must be described as either a "rental" or "subscription", with the length of the term clearly spelled out, with penalties for revoking access before the end of the term. That way, you can know exactly what you're getting, for how long, and can count on it being there; and publishers can't trick you into thinking you're "purchasing" something you aren't. As much as I love Steam, I'm aware this would include the entire Steam library. The most obvious downside to me is that this would likely lead to the normalization of the idea that you don't own your video games in general.
Re: Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary indu (Score:1)
It's not always clear at the time of purchase that the publisher has the ability to shut down the game at some unspecified future date.
Are you a child? EVERY online game will be shutdown at some point, the ONLY discussion/question is how long before it happens?
Off-line game will theoretically play for ever, but advances in computer hardware/operating systems may cause all but the most committed player to to eventually decide it's no longer worth the effort to keep their Apple ][ running to play Oregon Trail (for example).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not always clear at the time of purchase that the publisher has the ability to shut down the game at some unspecified future date.
Are you a child? EVERY online game will be shutdown at some point, the ONLY discussion/question is how long before it happens?
This is not true for games that provide a dedicated server software you can run. Games like Counter-Strike, which is 26 years old and still averages about 8,000 players [steamcharts.com], do exactly that. Although Valve provides an in-game server browser that queries a central server, you can directly connect by IP address to play online multiplayer without any help from Valve. Minecraft and many other popular games use this model. One of the things the SKG community would like is for publishers to provide some pathway t
Re: (Score:1)
Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. ...
Don't like the quality? Don't spend your money.
That's a different issue. Under copyright law, once the work is protected, I own it.
OK so technically all citizens own it, not just me personally. But it instantly becomes the property of all of us.
This is why only limited rights are made an exception and granted to the author. Distribution, public performance, etc.
So then, if you loaned me something of yours, and I take so poor care of it that its basically destroyed and there is nothing left to return back to you, do you not consider that fucked up at f
Re: Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary indus (Score:5, Informative)
Has any voluntary industry code and self regulation EVER worked?
Yes. Good examples can be found the world over: Media advertising standards, financial standards, heck the entire engineering profession is self regulated by its own industry. Many reporting standards are as well. As are quite a few product safety standards (the overall "don't kill people" is law, but how to achieve that is mostly driven by industry self-regulation in many parts of the world).
Now there's plenty of examples where it also didn't work, and those often get followed up with actual laws, but there are still plenty of examples in industry where industry codes self regulated. For example when America shat itself in 2008 Australia was largely insulated from the same problems due to the Australian Banking Association's (industry body) governance code that effectively banned the kind of sub-prime finance dumb-fuckery in the country years earlier.
Want another example? It's not legally required in most of Europe to label vegan products, yet industry has adopted ISO 23662 despite it not being required by any law to do so. And while we're talking about standards, the harmonisation of electrical standards in the EU was almost entirely industry driven, and except for subtleties of specific wiring rules for examples in houses, most electrical standards maintained by CENELEC are entirely voluntary yet followed throughout all industry.
Re: (Score:1)
That point about vegan makes no sense.
Food is labeled, it is plain obvious if it is vegan or not.
Why would anyone need to be forced to put an extra sticker on it?
You probably mean, if something is made from "ersatz meat" that the industry is voluntarily putting "vegan" on it?
Well, actually: there is a special shelf for vegan products. It is usually not mixed with meat/cheese products.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Are you sure? If you're considering buying a package of croissants, how can you tell if they were made with butter or margarine? Either way they'll look the same, done properly they'll taste almost exactly the same and if the list of ingredients lies, how can you tell?
Re: (Score:1)
What is the difference if the list of ingredients lies or the vegan label lies?
how can you tell if they were made with butter or margarine :D
It is usually on the label
Re: (Score:2)
My point being that if the manufacturer is going to lie, the lie will be on both the list of ingredients and the vegan label. At that point, how can you tell?
Re: (Score:1)
By getting suspicious and doing a gene analysis on the food.
Re: (Score:2)
Food is labeled, it is plain obvious if it is vegan or not.
Yes. Welcome to my point. There's no law in the EU or in Germany requiring vegan foods to exist, or vegan foods to be labelled. There's no legal definition of vegan either. Yet when you go to Lidl or ALDI, or REWE or Netto, you may notice that they all use the exact same symbol on vegan products. Go take a look, and then go look up your legal requirements, note there aren't any, and note that everything is the same precisely because of industry self regulation.
Why would anyone need to be forced to put an extra sticker on it?
No one is, yet the labels are there. Welcome to
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I do not get your point.
And it seems you do not get mine.
I guess we both had no point?
My point is: the ingredients label shows what is inside. It is plain obvious if it is vegan or not. An extra label: "Vegan" is not really required.
It is just an eye catcher. And as mentioned before: there are whole shelves that only contain vegan food ... another "eye catcher".
Re: (Score:2)
ISO 23662 allows manufacturers to self-declare compliance so it's kind of useless.
I suspect many instances of industry self regulation were done on the threat of government intervention so I wouldn't really call those success stories.
Re: (Score:2)
ISO 23662 allows manufacturers to self-declare compliance so it's kind of useless.
I think you missed the point. The fact that anyone is following ISO 23662 at all is my point. Also self-declared compliance is far from useless, since if you have a common standard to which you self-declare compliance you create a legal anchor - usually under existing false marketing laws for your customers.
There's no legal definition of vegan, yet the industry adopts ISO 23662. That is industry self regulation. If you take one of those labelled products to a lab and find meat in it, you can sue the company
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that examples of self policing in the absence of laws can't be trusted because they're self regulated and not enforced by laws.
Well, I guess I can't argue with that. But it's meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies. Bad nesting. Was intended for 66197052.
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit! Shouldn't read Slashdot in order. Ignore my post, I don't think I'm telling you anything new given the context :-)
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that examples of self policing in the absence of laws can't be trusted because they're self regulated and not enforced by laws.
Well, I guess I can't argue with that. But it's meaningless.
It's far from it. Once you declare compliance to a common standard, even if it is self regulated, you create a legally binding requirement to follow it under existing advertising, marketing, and general contract law.
If I sell you a burger and say it's veganish, and there's meat in it, well fuck you no recourse for you.
If I sell you a burger, throw the standard vegan logo on it, declare on my website we follow ISO 23662, and there's meat in it, well I can reasonably expect you to find a lawyer to fuck me ins
US (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost. Self-imposed regulations becoming standards enforceable by the government agencies cease being "self regulation". But if your point is that laws and regulations may be industry driven then yes absolutely. The fuckups who fuckup are usually in the best position to determine why and their fuckups are the basis for so many regulations out there.
Commissions position does not matter (Score:5, Informative)
As it says on the summary already - the fact that we got a non-answer from commission doesn't matter here. It would have been *nice* to get a legislation from there, but in the end they don't matter.
Ross Scott explains it better at https://youtu.be/CgoODQFrPgw?t... [youtu.be] but the point is that SKG already has majority support in European Parliament, and the plan is basically that SKG gets tacked on by the parliament as an amendment to Digital Services Act (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act). The DSA is already supposed to do things like rein in lootboxes, so it's already addressing issues for video games.
Commission's stance ultimately does not matter here at all. No need to be discouraged.
Re:Commissions position does not matter (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, wrong piece of legislation in progress - meant Digital Fairness Act, not Digital Services Act. https://digitalfairnessact.com... [digitalfairnessact.com]
We gave up democracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the European Commission is not democracy sadly! It is actually a private elitist administrative body, mandate by country governments and simply vetted or not by the EU Parliament... if they care about the uses or the industry, will depend a lot of the person on charge of that area, we had good people, but also corrupt ones. The EU Parliament is a democracy and usually much easier to reach... and they can force the Commission actions if enough support is gather
Re: (Score:1)
Your cabinet is not democratic either.
It is appointed by the ruler who somehow got voted into his position, unless he is a king or dictator.
the European Commission is not democracy sadly!
The European Commission is the cabinet of the EU. Stupid idiot.
and they can force the Commission actions if enough support is gather
No, they can't. But they can vote laws into action the Commission disagrees with, perhaps that is what you meant?
Re: (Score:2)
I am impressed somebody figured out what I was talking about though. They of course use the mod point to mod me down but I'm surprised it didn't go over their heads.
make it open-source instead? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be easier to get them to open up just the netcode portion, as they may have legitimate concerns about protecting the game engine code. Especially if they're using someone else's engine (UE, Unity...). Which reminds me that they might not actually own the netcode either, that may be 3rd party as well. And we can't really expect them
Re: (Score:2)
and quite another to spend more money on it.
And that's the core of the issue.
If it were profitable the companies wouldn't be shutting it down.
If it meaningfully impacted customer sentiment or business goals, they'd open up or release servers, or make that last-minute change to the game as a final update.
As games are, so much time has passed. The original dev team has moved on two titles, three titles, maybe even more since the initial development, especially for long-running games. The maintenance teams have also come and gone. The last teams who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Another solution to this is to fix IP law. Require all patents be for an actual tangible new invention, declare IP rights only for actual human beings, and limit copyright to 17 years. Enforce actual property laws for software like we did for cars.
Copyrigh (Score:5, Insightful)
was created so artists would release their work to the public and be compensated. So why do we offer copyrights on stuff that is not made available or removed from the market.
How about we change the law into something that removes copyright when it's not available, or no longer available.
We need to change the laws that allow lock in, or that change the terms after purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
So why do we offer copyrights on stuff that is not made available or removed from the market.
Because the rights to products exist for potential market re-entry. E.g. if I create the new latest and greatest thing, and remove it from market I retain the right to use said thing a year later. Just because it's not on sale doesn't give others the right to the creation.
Now that's purely copyright / licensing issue. There's further questions of what constitutes a product and what constitutes a temporary license. But the copyright argument is barking up the wrong tree. Copyright is given for a (way too lon
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger problem, copyright was never meant to last so long. As technology has advanced it becomes possible to make more media more quickly, so if anything copyright terms should have been shrunk, but they've been extended instead.
The single most important thing to fix about copyright is reducing the terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that the artist makes money on the resale of that art?
Re: (Score:2)
How about we change the law into something that removes copyright when it's not available, or no longer available.
Because fundamentally, Author's Right include a "right to widthdraw" any work they don't want to see published anymore. For example in France this is codified in Statutes as L121-4 CPI. It will be present in a way or another in national legislations in European countries, as it is understood as a fundamental right. It is very unlikely the EU Member States will want to we move to a system where Authors don't have a control over their works (before the work reaches public domain, long after every contributing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Author's Right is a legal system, different than Copyright systems. The works you describe, where individual attribution is impossible due to the fusion of contributions (e.g. video game artwork created in the name of a corporation) are referred to as Collective Works and protected as well in Author's Right systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Let People Enjoy Things [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Wait until the subscription servers for the heated seats in your car are shut down to save tens of dollars in operating costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because your life is a shitshow of chaos that requires your focus doesn't mean others don't have the spare capacity to complain about these things.
Maybe organize your life around something else than digital hoarding
Who said hording? Hording is the compulsion to accumulate things, especially things you don't use. Wanting to play a game and being unable to isn't hoarding. In fact it's the opposite, it's actively using the thing you bought for its intended purpose.
ADHD
Speaking of opposites, people with ADHD typically aren't concerned about long term duration of an activity be
Re: (Score:1)
Gimmie a bit, it'll take a minute to figure out when adults first had hobbies.
Always love the Cybersecurity angle!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, they didn't even asked to be exempt of cybersecurity liabilities after the games EOL (which instead would be on homebrew servers providers). They just rejected the whole proposal altogether.
"Stop buying games" (Score:1)
Well, if that's the case then I suggest a new initiative: "Stop buying games." If the governing bodies won't help then vote with your wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if that's the case then I suggest a new initiative: "Stop buying games." If the governing bodies won't help then vote with your wallet.
Stop buying games yhat require remote services in order to play.
While you're at it, stop buying cars that depend on remote services in order to work.
And thermostats.
Etc.
Ban violent games? Good luck with that... (Score:2)
Not being much of a gamer I haven't followed this story (at all!) so the headline and initiative name "Stop Killing Games" made me think it was 1.3 million signatures from people who want to ban games in which people are killed. "No way that's going to pass," I thought. People love virtual murder.
Then I figured out that it's the killing of the games people want to stop, not the games that include killing.
Vaguely related, I had a serious EverQuest addiction ~20 years ago (the reason I gave up on any bu
It's the beginning (Score:2)
I think you are reading the document wrong. The European Commission is not a legislator, it just proposes laws.
First for all there will the Digital Fairness Act presented and MEPs are free to put into it whatever they feel is suitable to protect consumers including stopping kill-games language.
Also, the MEPs could use the Cloud and Development Act to strengthen reverse engineering and interoperability rights for game servers.
The interesting aspect is here:
"Rightsholders remain in principle free to determine
Boycott (Score:3)
I guess you nerds will just have to actually boycott these game makers. I always found this movement funny because you still want to play the shitty games these companies put out despite knowing how shitty a company these big game makers are. There are plenty of really good indie games out there just waiting for your support.
Lack of democracy in EU (Score:1)