Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

I'm a little out of the loop on this so can someone clarify. Does this initiative want publishers or game companies to keep dead game servers live or just allow consumers to self host/play the product if the dev/publisher no longer wants to front the bill?

They want the legality of some practices to be checked, more specifically if a company can sell you a game that seems - for all intents and purposes - like a product, but then write in the ToS that it's actually a license and that they can take your ability to play the game away whenever they want.

The intention would be to force companies into one of these two categories:
>Sell a game as a product, with the guarantee that game will still work on the specific hardware/software configuration it was sold for even after the company no longer supports the game, providing tools if necessary.
>Sell a game as a license or service like they've been doing, but give clear terms that are adequate to those types of transaction, aka giving a clear explanation for how long your license lasts.

 

[GudOlRub]

This whole initiative might be a complete bust in terms of what its objectives are, tbh my gut feeling tells me that it will probably be, very rarely movements like this succeed on their first try. People will have to care enough about it and fight hard as hell if they want change to happen. But at least we can make legislators finally talk about this and that's a start. Put the AAA industry under a spotlight with their ever scummier and unnecessary always-online bullshit on singleplayer games and whatnot and to me that's a win.

I think it's also pertinent to point out that the EU has ruled that software is a good, not a service, so although a bit unrelated, I'd honestly like if this whole thing sparked the curiosity of the EU comission about how games are sold to customers and also led to another conversation that gave us more concrete answers about whether platforms like Steam can sell you "licenses" of games that could be taken away from you at any moment or if they would be in trouble legally speaking for doing that instead of selling a "copy" that we in fact do own. Of course it's all a lot more complex considering what Steam itself is and how the games are stored but at least we'd start getting answers.

EU Court: When You Buy Software You Own It - Public Knowledge

web.archive.org

CURIA - Documents

curia.europa.eu

 

[Guilty_AI]

This whole initiative might be a complete bust in terms of what its objectives are, tbh my gut feeling tells me that it will probably be, very rarely movements like this succeed on their first try. People will have to care enough about it and fight hard as hell if they want change to happen. But at least we can make legislators finally talk about this and that's a start. Put the AAA industry under a spotlight with their ever scummier and unnecessary always-online bullshit on singleplayer games and whatnot and to me that's a win.

I think it's also pertinent to point out that the EU has ruled that software is a good, not a service, so although a bit unrelated, I'd honestly like if this whole thing sparked the curiosity of the EU comission about how games are sold to customers and also led to another conversation that gave us more concrete answers about whether platforms like Steam can sell you "licenses" of games that could be taken away from you at any moment or if they would be in trouble legally speaking for doing that instead of selling a "copy" that we in fact do own. Of course it's all a lot more complex considering what Steam itself is and how the games are stored but at least we'd start getting answers.

EU Court: When You Buy Software You Own It - Public Knowledge

web.archive.org

CURIA - Documents

curia.europa.eu

Ross does admit this is kind of an uphill battle, and at the very least he wants an definitive answer from lawmakers on whether this practice is illegal even if it's a "no". Because as it stands, there is no consensus or clear answer.

 

[Clear]

This example or an example for servers using a multi-tiered architecture with microservices has already been covered in one the latest videos posted by the guy running Stop Killing Games. I won't link it so you are finally going to put the effort to inform yourself. I informed myself on the bullshit spouted by PirataGame by watching his video, so if you want to engage in this conversation in good faith put some effort.

My points are made in good faith! Trouble is I seem to be dealing with angry children who react to any reasonable criticism with lame ad-hominems.

My opinion doesn't impact your "goals", and yet you act like I'm somehow obstructing "consumer rights" !

Which just shows how this is 99.9% emotion and 0.1% actual intellect.

Its cliche, but also plainly obvious that this is a case of you simply not being able to handle the truth.

As to watching all of Ross's videos, why would I bother when the law-makers who'll eventually consider this surely won't.

Here's a taster of how this works in reality taken from the actual Stop Killing Games website:

EU Overall:

Launched a European Citizens' Initiative to introduce new law in the EU against publishers purposefully destroying video games they have already sold.
[https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home]
Results: Still ongoing, please consider signing if you're eligible!

Worked with Member of European Parliament Niklas Nienaß and the support of MEP Patrick Breyer to submit questions to the European Commission on the legality of publishers destroying video games they have already sold.
[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2024-001352_EN.html]
Results: Their answers imply video games of this nature could be violating Directive 93/13/EEC, but it is up to the member states to resolve this.

Submitted complaints on "The Crew" to the European Consumer Centres Network [https://commission.europa.eu/live-w.../european-consumer-centres-network-ecc-net_en]
Results: A dead end, there was no consistency from the various offices and was likely a redundant measure towards contacting the DGCCRF.

UK:

Submitted a government petition in 2024 to UK Parliament on the practice of publishers destroying video games already sold [https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/659071]
Results: It ended prematurely due to Parliament dissolving. The new one has been relaunched [https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702074/], please consider signing if eligible!

France:

Submitted complaints to the DGCCRF on "The Crew".
Results: The issue has been escalated at the highest levels of the agency, decision pending.

Submitted complaints to French legal mediators on "The Crew".
Results: still ongoing

Contacted the UFC-Que Choisir about consumer complaints on "The Crew".
Results: Still Ongoing https://www.stopkillinggames.com/countries/france

Germany:

Submitted complaints to the Verbraucherzentrale on "The Crew".
Results: The issue has been escalated at the agency, decision pending.

Australia:

Submitted complaints to the ACCC on "The Crew".
Results: Issue escalated at the agency, decision pending.

Submitted a government petition to Australian Parliament to end the practice of publishers destroying video games already sold [https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6080].
Results: Said they won't act, but we should go through the ACCC to resolve this.

Canada:

Submitted a petition to Canadian Parliament on the destruction of games [https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4965].
Results: A dead end, it said the provinces will have to deal with the issue instead, which are likely too small to impact the industry.

USA:

Submitted complaints to the FTC on the game "The Crew".
Results: No response, but this was expected.

Brazil:

Tried to initiative a lawsuit against Ubisoft on "The Crew".
Results: Failed due to us requiring sales figures on "The Crew" in order to proceed, which we weren't able to obtain.

This is the response based on their "patient zero" case. The one with presumably the most persuasive evidentiary base to work from.

Do you honestly think broadening it out and turning it into a petition is going to improve the prognosis ?

Because I surely don't.


And please, do not EVER put me in the same camp as that idiot cunt Pirate Software. I'm not making YT videos attacking anyone, I'm simply disagreeing with this approach because I am 100% convinced its going to make zero impact.

 

[GudOlRub]

And please, do not EVER put me in the same camp as that idiot cunt Pirate Software. I'm not making YT videos attacking anyone, I'm simply disagreeing with this approach because I am 100% convinced its going to make zero impact.

This got a hearty laugh out of me ngl

But I don't agree with you on the zero impact thing. At this point something, anything is better than nothing.
It should be more than clear now that this market in general (of course there are exceptions) is not capable of regulating itself, whatever they can do to squeeze another dollar out your wallet they will. Voting with our wallet is also basically impossible to control on an industry-wide scale, you have your Concords and Suicide Squads every now and then but those flops didn't even have anything to do with ownership.

The reality is that most people just live day by day, not caring or thinking about what might happen to their digital libraries in the future, which is more than fair imo, most people have way more pressing matters to worry about in their daily lives.
With this said I think it's up to the enthusiasts to try their best and scream their lungs out hoping that more people grow aware of the issue and that one day legislators will hear and act upon it.

 

[mèx]

This whole initiative might be a complete bust in terms of what its objectives are, tbh my gut feeling tells me that it will probably be, very rarely movements like this succeed on their first try. People will have to care enough about it and fight hard as hell if they want change to happen. But at least we can make legislators finally talk about this and that's a start. Put the AAA industry under a spotlight with their ever scummier and unnecessary always-online bullshit on singleplayer games and whatnot and to me that's a win.

I think it's also pertinent to point out that the EU has ruled that software is a good, not a service, so although a bit unrelated, I'd honestly like if this whole thing sparked the curiosity of the EU comission about how games are sold to customers and also led to another conversation that gave us more concrete answers about whether platforms like Steam can sell you "licenses" of games that could be taken away from you at any moment or if they would be in trouble legally speaking for doing that instead of selling a "copy" that we in fact do own. Of course it's all a lot more complex considering what Steam itself is and how the games are stored but at least we'd start getting answers.

And this is fine. The initiative could be completely shut down or rejected if this passes through a proper discussion. But you have to start somewhere at some point to get the legislators talking about the issue. Maybe some members of the parliament will take this to heart and make it part of his/her agenda. Who knows what could happen. Being the EU any change will take ages, but it's better than nothing.

And please, do not EVER put me in the same camp as that idiot cunt Pirate Software. I'm not making YT videos attacking anyone, I'm simply disagreeing with this approach because I am 100% convinced its going to make zero impact.

If you think this will have zero impact, that's fine and no one can provide a factual sure-fire counter argument. Those are just opinions based on some scattered evidences, on both sides. If this something that's feasible or not we will see once this initiative actually goes through a proper discussion via the EU commission.

The point I'm trying to make is that being against this a priori or even worse, campaigning against this is extremely dumb. If you don't agree, don't sign it and move on.

 

[simpatico]

Dude, the petition is for them to just look at the matter. This doesn't even guarantee anything, they can just take a look, decide there's nothing illegal about what game companies do and move on. Some of these petitions didn't even result in legislation, just follow-up actions.

In fact, the intended and likely result from this wouldn't even be to create legislation, it's for lawmakers to take a look at the practice of selling a game as a product - but it says in small letters it's actually a license that can be revoked whenever - and decide if that is law-compliant.

If you actually watched the videos, you'd know before this Ross contacted a whole bunch of different lawmakers from different countries, explaining this practice, to see if they could provide a definitive answer on whether this was legal. What he got was a whole bunch of mixed responses with some saying it was, other saying it wasn't, and the majority saying they didn't know.

I agree in principal. Don't get that lost here. Best case scenario of it actually coming to pass with the governments that exist in the real world, just means a future where only AAA pubs can even risk making a persistent online game. It's just gonna lock out the small guys. I'm sympathetic to the meaning behind the petition, but in reality we all just need to be more selective when we're buying games. I just rolled the dice on a Forza Motorsport 4 key.

 

[Guilty_AI]

 

[Clear]

The point I'm trying to make is that being against this a priori or even worse, campaigning against this is extremely dumb. If you don't agree, don't sign it and move on.

My point is really a very simple one:

Make the campaign laser-focussed on specific problems and remedies:

Example:
Demand all titles with a cloud component to bear a legally binding statement at point of sale, guaranteeing a minimum level of functionality in the event of the service becoming defunct for any reason.

This is a good one as it implies liability without placing unreasonable burden on the provider.

Stretching a little:

A minimum duration service life should be guaranteed or else the provider must build in remedies to maintain the product's functionality in the event of the service become defunct,

This second one is a bit trickier as there would need to be caveats to protect the provider against scenarios where the service life is foreshortened due to reasons beyond their control, and the dimensions of the liability would need to be codified.

Transferral of ownership I'd say would be best avoided as it runs into deep water due to confliction with GDPR. Under that legislation the data custodian is legally bound to destroy all personal data past the point of usefulness. Hence it could be argued that individual player records and data are sensitive information that cannot be transferred without consent.

The bottom line for me is that the more general the protection asked for, the more difficult the question becomes for the legislators to arrive at a fair and reasonable prescription for all situations that will stand up to the critiques of high-priced legal counsel hired by the industry.

I hope that makes my position clear.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Yup.
Keep signing (if you haven't yet). No way to tell which ones are valid until they are all checked.

I'd laugh my ass off if the spoofing was significant - that would only give more spotlights and more coverage to the initiative. As well as likely land some people in prison, because as Ross said, this isn't some change.org petition, but official government action.
And if that meant it fails, it would likely lead to an extension or quicker relaunch due to the criminal activity.
So, well done, Mr Hackerman

Make the campaign laser-focussed on specific problems and remedies:

No.
This is not the suggestion of a law. It is an initiative to have lawmakers look into the issues to begin with, including suggestions of how to deal with it in a way that is both consumer- and producer-friendly.
At this stage, very specific focus would be entirely counterproductive.
The campaign is keeping the goal of having future (!!) games "playable in a reasonable way" vague for a good reason: There is no fixed one-size-fits-all "reasonable" and it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Many laws are like that, because they have to be.
The goal is to keep the work developers/publishers would have to do to an absolute minimum, or else this is doomed to fail.

As many pointed out: If the work involved for devs is too much, they wouldn't be developing games with online components anymore. Nobody wants that, including the initiative, and therefore the initiative is created with the careful intent of avoiding exactly that.
This is also what people like PirateSoftware completely fail to understand - the initiative very carefully and with purpose avoids the exact thing critics claim the initiative would lead to.
Now who is right about this? A bunch of people who can't even read FAQs, or the the actual politicians and lawyers involved in formulating the initiative (it's not like Ross wrote that on his own)? Rhetorical question, answer SHOULD be obvious.

Transferral of ownership I'd say would be best avoided as it runs into deep water due to confliction with GDPR. Under that legislation the data custodian is legally bound to destroy all personal data past the point of usefulness. Hence it could be argued that individual player records and data are sensitive information that cannot be transferred without consent.

The bottom line for me is that the more general the protection asked for, the more difficult the question becomes for the legislators to arrive at a fair and reasonable prescription for all situations that will stand up to the critiques of high-priced legal counsel hired by the industry.

Nobody is asking for account data protection past end-of-life, that would be very much outside of "reasonable".
A much more likely scenario (in the case of something like an MMO) would be that the means to self-host are somehow given, but the actual databases with the data are of course gone forever.
In a single player game, gamers also cannot demand that their save games are kept around forever - in much the same way, any kind of progress achieved in an MMO cannot be reasonably protected.

Yes, this could very much lead to some MMOs becoming single player games past their end-of-life.
And that would be totally fine in the sense of game preservation and usage rights (if clearly communicated).
Also, if the game was beloved enough, someone WILL find a way to make a server for it anyway, as time has shown.