Nathan 31 Jul, 2024 @ 10:33am
2
3
4
2
3
2
16
EU citizen's initiative to stop killing games
Ownership can still be saved outside the US, we just have to get signatures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en#

"Giant FAQ on The European Initiative to Stop Destroying Games!" (41min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVBiN5SKuA

Deadline: 31-Jul-2025
454,826 488 676 649 034 signatures towards 1,000,000 goal


"The end of SKG"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIfRLujXtUo


Could someone make individual posts to link the SKG stuff on the german, french, spanish subforums here in their native languages?
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/24/
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/25/
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/27/
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/29/
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z4w_h2-UkM
Quoting Ross from YT:
I've been told by volunteers they want as many people as possible to make a twitter post on July 2nd with the hashtag #stopkillinggames to try and get more attention to the campaign. I'll make a post with them then also.
Last edited by Nathan; 29 Jun @ 12:03pm
Originally posted by Yujah:
The "Stop Killing Games" European Citizen's Initiative has hit its 1M goal!

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

Also the UK petition has passed its 100K goal -- although, note, that one is as a "mere petition" something other than the ECI, and is not necessarily expected to do much directly. The ECI hitting 1M is so expected: it means this request for legislation by EU citizens will definitively get presented to the European Commission, and is with the current history of consumer-rights focus in the EU not expected to just fall by the wayside there either.

Very good news -- but warning: more will still be needed to offset any invalid signatures e.g. due to missing/wrong personal information.

Also in a national sense this ECI is a huge success. At the time of the 900K update (a mere day ago) 19 out of 27 EU countries had hit their national thresholds and at 1M that's now with additionally Czechia, Latvia and Greece grown to 22 out of 27, with Slovenia at 96% and Bulgaria at 90% poised to get there as well. This leaves only the three precisely as to population smallest EU countries Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta out of it.

The national threshold exists exactly to try and make sure that proposed EU-wide legislation is also carried EU-wide, or at least by a significant percentage, and certainly that's then here the case. The 22 countries that have passed their national threshold are, more or less in chronological order:

Finland, Sweden, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, France, Spain, Lithuania, Portugal, Estonia, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Italy, Czechia, Latvia, Greece.

The 5 that aren't there yet are:

1. Slovenia (96%)
2. Bulgaria (90%)
3. Luxembourg (50%)
4. Cyprus (40%)
5. Malta (35%)

1 and 2 will undoubtedly still be making it as well -- and that's quite amazing.

It's interesting that Bulgaria is going to be the last of the bigger countries to meet the threshold: it's the only EU-country using the Cyrillic alphabet and in that sense the one with the biggest language-barrier between itself and English. Greece (using the Greek alphabet...) is also only just in.

Finland won! They are at 450% of their threshold. Sweden is at 355 the current second and will probably stay there until the end of the initiative. Netherlands is at 314 the current third, Germany 312, Ireland 303, Denmark 286, ...

https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en#

Congratulations to the Fins. Given that thing I said earlier as to this still needing more signatures than 1M precisely: erhm, go Germany go? :)

Previous: https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/0/4511002848507277219/?ctp=38#c601908863574254880
< >
Showing 1-15 of 2,037 comments
Chika Ogiue 31 Jul, 2024 @ 10:38am 
3
You do realise that still wouldn't prevent an online only MMO from being shutdown, right? Unless that is, you're all prepared to pay for the server upkeep... And I don't see any government or the majority of any country's population being happy with wasting tax-payers money on such a frivolous venture. The Crew was an okay game, but it's by no means a culturally important milestone. You people need to get over it.
Nathan 31 Jul, 2024 @ 10:41am 
2
2
You clearly didn't watch the video or read the initiative.
BJWyler 31 Jul, 2024 @ 10:44am 
Old news, bub.
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/0/4526764378252076547/

https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/12/3812910932507382739/

And as the previous two posters indicated, this is not going to work the way you think it's going to work.
Last edited by BJWyler; 31 Jul, 2024 @ 10:47am
Aachen 31 Jul, 2024 @ 10:54am 
:chbee: …. Ownership of what, now?
Kargor 31 Jul, 2024 @ 11:01am 
2
Originally posted by Nathan:
You clearly didn't watch the video or read the initiative.

Of course I didn't.

Europe, or rather the EU-part of it, still follows a more-or-less democratic system with a more-or-less free market; that just makes it impossible to just tell publishers that they have to keep something active forever. And even if it's not MMOs, you also cannot force them to keep selling a game forever, or to keep renewing licenses forever so they can keep selling it forever.

And yes, I wouldn't mind games being a more perpetual thing, and Steam is actually doing the best they can: apparently, their contracts with publishers allow them to let people download and use games even after they have been taken off the market, very much like a CD purchase back in the day. However, even Steam cannot sell games that publishers have removed from Steam, and MMOs are an entirely different thing altogether because of them depending on servers being active.
Crazy Tiger 31 Jul, 2024 @ 11:03am 
People seem to forget that developers/publishers/platforms/corporations will find the next loopholes and such anyway. They're much better prepared and informed than people who read and watch clickbait articles and videos.
RiO 31 Jul, 2024 @ 11:06am 
Originally posted by Nathan:
You clearly didn't watch the video or read the initiative.

They're actually right though.

This initiative wouldn't stop the plug being pulled on an MMO; unless the playerbase themselves would be willing to come together to host the server infrastructure for it on their own costs and split the bill.

All this initiative seeks is legislation that will forbid publishers from abandoning a game before making available, within reason, the material necessary for the game to continue to function without the publisher's further involvement. It strictly does not seek legislation that would have the effect of requiring the publisher to continue to invest effort and resources into a game after they've discontinued it, in so far as they'd have left it in a working state.

This can help a lot with titles that have, for instance, always online DRM and would cease to work when the publisher pulls the plug on the authentication server. Or with traditional multiplayer games that don't require large server environments, but could run off of a simple dedicated server.


Originally posted by Kargor:
Originally posted by Nathan:
You clearly didn't watch the video or read the initiative.

Of course I didn't.

Europe, or rather the EU-part of it, still follows a more-or-less democratic system with a more-or-less free market; that just makes it impossible to just tell publishers that they have to keep something active forever.

-- And that's literally not what the initiative is seeking. You might want to actually go back and read it.


Originally posted by Nathan:
Ownership can still be saved outside the US

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights,

Just a tip:

It would help your point immensely if you would stop using the word 'ownership.' Even if you are using it in its colloquial sense of being able to exercise control over a thing. For every sane person discussing in good faith that understands this is what you mean, there will equally be someone discussing in bad faith intentionally misinterpreting your use of the word and trying to push a narrative and create a strawman argument to burn down, that you meant it in the legal sense of the word.
Last edited by RiO; 31 Jul, 2024 @ 11:15am
Slav Mcgopnik 31 Jul, 2024 @ 11:39am 
The only thing this could genuinely help with is always online DRM in non-MMO type games.

You can’t force devs to keep servers online, that’s nuts. You can’t say a shut down game is in the hands of the player base (legally) because that would be a nightmare for copyright law.
RiO 31 Jul, 2024 @ 12:21pm 
Originally posted by Slav Mcgopnik:
that would be a nightmare for copyright law.

Would ironically actually not be a problem in the EU from the 'getting your money's worth'-perspective. Only from the game-preservation perspective.

As per Directive 2019/770 Article 10 all EU member states must enact national laws that hold traders liable for non-conformance where access to or use of digital content is restricted through the consequence of a conflict over third-party rights; in particular intellectual property rights.

In the hypothetical situation where a future law would exist that forbids publishers from pulling the plug on a game without first supplying the materials to keep it in a functioning state without their future involvement, and a publisher would still try to do so without providing said material while citing as their defense that they can't because it is protected under copyright - then those laws kick in and everyone can hold the trader liable for defect, and demand a refund. After which traders have a legal right of redress to sue the publisher in question for damages.

So one way or another, any publisher attempting to try to pull a fast one that way, is going to end up paying the piper for it.
Last edited by RiO; 31 Jul, 2024 @ 12:24pm
Had Matter 31 Jul, 2024 @ 12:21pm 
Find publishers and developers that support the idea of preservation, establish a code of conduct they commit themselves to and give them a seal of approval that they can use as advertising. Use the fomo on them.
Last edited by Had Matter; 31 Jul, 2024 @ 12:21pm
Had Matter 31 Jul, 2024 @ 12:26pm 
Originally posted by RiO:
Originally posted by Slav Mcgopnik:
that would be a nightmare for copyright law.

Would ironically actually not be a problem in the EU from the 'getting your money's worth'-perspective. Only from the game-preservation perspective.

As per Directive 2019/770 Article 10 all EU member states must enact national laws that hold traders liable for non-conformance where access to or use of digital content is restricted through the consequence of a conflict over third-party rights; in particular intellectual property rights.

In the hypothetical situation where a future law would exist that forbids publishers from pulling the plug on a game without first supplying the materials to keep it in a functioning state without their future involvement, and a publisher would still try to do so without providing said material while citing as their defense that they can't because it is protected under copyright - then those laws kick in and everyone can hold the trader liable for defect, and demand a refund. After which traders have a legal right of redress to sue the publisher in question for damages.

Texas two step, no legal chance. You can't hold a company liable that isn't liquid or doesn't exist anymore.
Slav Mcgopnik 31 Jul, 2024 @ 12:50pm 
Originally posted by RiO:
Originally posted by Slav Mcgopnik:
that would be a nightmare for copyright law.

Would ironically actually not be a problem in the EU from the 'getting your money's worth'-perspective. Only from the game-preservation perspective.

As per Directive 2019/770 Article 10 all EU member states must enact national laws that hold traders liable for non-conformance where access to or use of digital content is restricted through the consequence of a conflict over third-party rights; in particular intellectual property rights.

In the hypothetical situation where a future law would exist that forbids publishers from pulling the plug on a game without first supplying the materials to keep it in a functioning state without their future involvement, and a publisher would still try to do so without providing said material while citing as their defense that they can't because it is protected under copyright - then those laws kick in and everyone can hold the trader liable for defect, and demand a refund. After which traders have a legal right of redress to sue the publisher in question for damages.

So one way or another, any publisher attempting to try to pull a fast one that way, is going to end up paying the piper for it.
This sounds even worse when you put it this way.

Because the way you're wording it, it would force developers to eternally support their games, or force them to spend extra time and money to build outs, all so that maybe fans could piece them together enough to run private servers. Or else risk mass refunding from every single person who has played the game plus the stores it was hosted on.

If this was actually how it would play out, I'd just imagine most companies would stop publishing in the EU, because this would massively suck for any game dev trying to make any sort of project that's not entirely singleplayer.
Doctor Zalgo 31 Jul, 2024 @ 12:57pm 
Originally posted by Slav Mcgopnik:
Originally posted by RiO:

Would ironically actually not be a problem in the EU from the 'getting your money's worth'-perspective. Only from the game-preservation perspective.

As per Directive 2019/770 Article 10 all EU member states must enact national laws that hold traders liable for non-conformance where access to or use of digital content is restricted through the consequence of a conflict over third-party rights; in particular intellectual property rights.

In the hypothetical situation where a future law would exist that forbids publishers from pulling the plug on a game without first supplying the materials to keep it in a functioning state without their future involvement, and a publisher would still try to do so without providing said material while citing as their defense that they can't because it is protected under copyright - then those laws kick in and everyone can hold the trader liable for defect, and demand a refund. After which traders have a legal right of redress to sue the publisher in question for damages.

So one way or another, any publisher attempting to try to pull a fast one that way, is going to end up paying the piper for it.
This sounds even worse when you put it this way.

Because the way you're wording it, it would force developers to eternally support their games, or force them to spend extra time and money to build outs, all so that maybe fans could piece them together enough to run private servers. Or else risk mass refunding from every single person who has played the game plus the stores it was hosted on.

If this was actually how it would play out, I'd just imagine most companies would stop publishing in the EU, because this would massively suck for any game dev trying to make any sort of project that's not entirely singleplayer.

In practice, what would happen is that you'd wind up with companies being created for individual games (like what happens with movies), that company would licence the IP from the parent studio and then when the studio is no longer interested in supporting or selling that game, it would wind that company up.
Spawn of Totoro 31 Jul, 2024 @ 1:38pm 
Originally posted by Doctor Zalgo:
In practice, what would happen is that you'd wind up with companies being created for individual games (like what happens with movies), that company would licence the IP from the parent studio and then when the studio is no longer interested in supporting or selling that game, it would wind that company up.

Yep. People who build houses do that all the time. Create a company, build the houses under it's name. Keep it up for the warranty period, then close it. No one to sue at that point and completely legal.

Another possibility is they increase game prices to compensate for the end of life cost for the game.

There is also the question of IP and how that works out. Servers aren't exactly open source software.

I just see too many pitfalls for such little gain.
Mountain Months 31 Jul, 2024 @ 1:44pm 
"ownership" is a selfish and outdated capitalist concept that needs to be left behind

fortunately these little campaigns always go no where

:cool_seagull:
< >
Showing 1-15 of 2,037 comments
Per page: 1530 50