Never had any faith in them anyway, just empty old suits that should have retired 20 years ago and now just want to get a bit more money before they keel over.
Best solution is to just stop buying games and go back to piracy, only way to keep your games these days.
The reason these games can be destroyed is that even piracy is often impossible. The ones you’re pirating are more often than not going to be the ones that were never at risk of being targeted by this initiative.
Then start considering buying games that you can also get through piracy, as long as you keep giving them money and allowing them control nothing will change.
i’m planning to make sure my game is “piratable”… but shh 😅
Way ahead of you.
Good video to show how bs the corpo claims are. Especially the licensing claims.
I think this video is specifically for the California bill, but similar arguments are being used against both initiatives.
Fuck the Eu Commission. They are traitors to everything the EU stands for. They deserve to burn with every billionaire on this planet.
Uh, they are the EU.
Uh, they are not. It’s like saying the entire US government consists of only the members of congress.
The European Commission is one of two legislative bodies. It’s the one that can introduce new legislation. The European Parliament is where SKG has a much broader support, and they are aiming to modify the Digital Fairness Act.
I think you confused something here. While I agree that it is nonsense to claim that the Commission “is the EU”, it is not really a legislative body. While it is true that the Commission “initiates” legislation, it is an executive institution and such work is more in line with national governments drafting new legislation (even if there commonly Parliaments then rubber stamp a legislative initiative based on that). The two legislative institutions of the EU are the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (comprised of ministers from each national government), the amend, veto or agree on legislation together, with committee work etc, as one would expect from legislatives.
I probably didn’t translate that properly. I meant “one of the two bodies involved in lawmaking”.
In that case, if you choose to include the Commission, there would be three bodies. There is a reason the “trilogue” is called that way. The third body is the Council of the European Union which has basically equal standing to the European Parliament but represents the member states, while the EP represents the voters directly. Both can bring in amendments and veto or agree on a piece of legislation (while the Commission can’t, its influence is with initiation and the initial draft).
Wanted to say exactly that. The EU Commission is seemingly actively pushing against everything common sense EU citizens are for, while the EU parliament is busy rejecting the BS coming from the Commission.
Corruption. Corruption everywhere.
Money wins again.
It’s not a big enough issue for the pols to come down on the side of the people. They know they won’t be voted out on this one decision, so they came down on the side of the money.
On the bright side, there’s not enough money in live service anymore, so plenty of companies are getting cold feet when it comes to making games that can be killed anyway. Yeah, that’s a reach for a silver lining, but it’s something. I’d like to believe that the action they say they’re taking will result in real change, but it sure doesn’t sound like it.
there’s not enough money in live service anymore, so plenty of companies are getting cold feet when it comes to making games that can be killed anyway
Got a source to back that up? I’d love for it to be true, but all I’ve ever heard is the opposite…
And I thought there was a third example in recent weeks, but I’m struggling to find it right now. In place of that, you can look at the implosion of Sony’s live service efforts, with Marathon falling far short of making money, and for some reason Fairgames, rumored to now be called Break-In, will be the last one out the door after that Horizon live service. After that, I’d be shocked if they keep trying.
Marathon falling far short
Teehee 😁
…and they wonder why we become EU-sceptics…
Goddamn it. Lobbying wins again
Lobbying will always win until people start busting out guillotines
it’s literally corruption with makeup.
People like to say the US is a corrupt cess pool, and they’re right, but so is the rest of the world. EU isn’t an exception when corporate profit are on the line.
What the fuck @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu ? You are listening to people who don’t represent the majority of users. Fuck you.
*citizens, not users
EU commission does what everyone expected them to do: Deciding based on what wealthy lobby groups tell them.
:(
I come to distrust the EU with opinions like this every day
Well, I called that one.
It’s not even a matter of corruption, it’s basic intellectual property rights and asking for those rights to be eroded. I’m not saying these companies aren’t evil, they are evil as fuck! But to ask the EU to make a bunch of illogical changes doesn’t make sense. Enforcement of existing consumer rights is what I said would likely result and hopefully that is true. You can do a lot within the existing framework without having to use some poorly thought out nuclear option.
I know of no examples where people rose up to demand enforcement of existing laws and rights and something changed, but I’d love to learn that I’m wrong. The lack of enforcement usually shows a gap where the law didn’t cover the real world scenario diligently enough.
I can think of tons:
- The entire US Civil Rights movement
- Women’s Suffrage
- South African anti‑apartheid movement
- #MeToo etc, etc.
I think the idea of govt needing to “cover the real world scenario diligently enough” isn’t the issue here. Its a matter of non‑justiciable demands. My biggest issue with SKG was the lack of real goals. They needed clearly defined actionable demands from the beginning because groups like the ESA were going to come in swinging hard on them. They didn’t do that.
It’s not a matter of law failing to cover real world scenarios, its a matter of making real world demands that can be addressed by law.
Those are terrible examples. We needed affirmative action policies to get past people’s biases, and women’s suffrage needed an amendment to the Constitution. MeToo was more the destruction of “catch and kill” tactics by social media for powerful men committing crimes that rarely leave evidence beyond corroborating witnesses.
Plus, there was zero danger of eroding intellectual property rights here.
I’ve never heard anyone say that the Civil Rights movement was a bad example of people demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights. That’s kind of the hallmark of that exact thing.
And the EU commission outlined exactly why this is eroding intellectual property rights.
I honestly don’t know what to say to you at this point. I’m not going to debate your bad faith arguments, so that’s where this ends. Much like SKG.
The whole intellectual property rights arguments boils down to the fact that publishers and their suppliers don’t want restrictions to tell people they’re actually buying a license and not a copy. Yes, as a property holder you enjoy complete control of how those properties are used, but if they decide to sell a copy you don’t get to take that sale back, unlike with a license could be termed.
So then the industry is using all it’s power to avoid that designation, including lots and lots of bad faith. My opinion is that at this point the offenders need some form of punishment.
In the case where you have a legal copy, you as a consumer are free to keep that copy and keep it running.
You’re making a distinction between a license and a copy that doesn’t exist.
It’s a license for a copy just like any other software. Watch this by the guy who started SKG to understand better.
The issue is that these companies sell you a perpetual license (there’s no expiration date) and then through disabling servers etc they are effectively revoking it which is fraudulent.
That is a huge part of the IP issue. Even Value has tried to argue that Steam is a subscription service and that you don’t own Steam games but rather licenses to games on Steam. And it was for the exact reason you mentioned: a user was banned from Steam but wanted access to the hundreds of games he purchased.
That is the practical side of the problem. The logical side of the problem is the erosion problem. For example, SWTOR was planning on being retired and eventually offlined when the new SW title releases (thereby replacing it). Under SKG, the new title would effectively be forced to compete with the old despite the fact that the IP holder doesn’t want that. They would have limited power over how their IP is being used. A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way. The IP would in essence be fighting the IP. That is erosion. You have the rights but those rights become more limited.
Honestly, most people here are commenting with their feelings (not you, just in general) and anything that isn’t fanatical level support for SKW is instantly attacked with absurd ideas how things “should work”. There is legitimate reasons to support SKW and there is legitimate worries to how SKW is handling things.
Under SKG, the new title would effectively be forced to compete with the old despite the fact that the IP holder doesn’t want that.
chad_yes.jpg
Publishers shouldn’t be able to erase existing games consumers have purchased so that new games don’t have to compete with them. That’s the equivalent of Disney confiscating all DVDs of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and destroying them so that the new MCU movies don’t have to compete.
If their new products aren’t good enough to compete with the old, tough shit. Not an excuse to confiscate and destroy what consumers already paid for.
OK, I’ll bite.
Even Value has tried to argue that Steam is a subscription service and that you don’t own Steam games but rather licenses to games on Steam.
If you open a printed, physical book, you’ll likely see something like this printed on the first page: “copyright [author name], all rights reserved”. If the book was printed in the last year, it might also include language explicitly forbidding AI training and other forms of data mining.
If you look at the back of the packaging of physical movie releases (so for example a DVD or Bluray case) you’ll find find something like “this movie has only been licensed for personal used. Public exhibition is not permitted”
Because media has always been licenced. The question therefore is less about license vs ownership and instead about what makes a fair license. SKG argues, that the licensing as it currently exists is deeply unfair. Unfair enough that it possibly already violates EU law. That’s what the lawsuit in France is about.
A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way.
Not really. The game has, as you yourself noted, been licensed to you. The granted rights don’t include commercial activity. Publishers could even put the videogame equivalent of the language from the movie cases into their licenses to spell that out.
A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way.
I’m guessing you blocked me, but these are mods, and they’ve existed for a long time.
I’ve never heard anyone say the Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of existing laws and rights. Segregation was the existing law that needed to be changed, not enforced.
I mean I think Ruby Bridges would probably disagree on that, but ok.
Do you think the Civil Rights movement started and ended with Ruby Bridges?
Famously, the civil rights movement didn’t end with zero changes to laws on the books because they were all perfect beforehand. The EU commission did not outline how this erodes intellectual property rights, but somehow, after a behind-closed-doors meeting with the industry that SKG wasn’t allowed to attend, they were convinced that it would.
Realistically though, it can be quite a complicated situation. One I’ve written about numerous times before. Servers behind the scenes can be incredibly complex, especially when it comes to games that have DLC and micro-transactions. And then you have to add to that the licensing on music and other things. Plus various other things I’m not thinking of right now
Holy lazy writing Batman!
As if this all wasn’t adressed by SKG 100 times before. Did the author never hear about SKG before writing this article?
As it is the tradition in the sector, I hope the industry will listen to player communities and agree on better sunsetting standards so communities can continue to meet and play together.
lol. lmao even.
Industry? Listening to customers?
Especially the fucking gaming industry where the likes of EA, Ubisoft, and all the HUGE companies now owned by Microsoft have been shitting on consumers with absolutely staggering impunity for decades!
Is there something we can do? One more petition, with already debunked lobbyist lies? I will sign it again.
