Stop Destroying Videogames petition heads to the European Union

Quoting: Mountain ManYou can't expect the entire global software industry to suddenly go open source just because some gamers in Europe have their noses out of joint.

"You can't expect the entire global smartphone industry to suddenly go USB-C just because some customers in Europe have their noses out of joint."

Quoting: macrumors.comWhy Apple Adopted USB-C
The European Union instituted legislation mandating that electronic devices like smartphones use a "common port," which the EU established was the USB-C port.

source: https://www.macrumors.com/guide/usb-c-iphone/

Why are you so pro-corporations/anti-consumers?


Last edited by benstor214 on 4 August 2024 at 8:58 pm UTC

Quoting: Mountain ManYou can't expect the entire global software industry to suddenly go open source

Neither I nor the Initiative asked for something like that. The bare minimum ist that software that was already purchased will remain functional or give the customer the ability to run the necessary infrastructure. At no point the text says something about making intellectual property open source.

It is of course possible to agree in the contract between the developer and the artist that all rights revert to the artist at the end of the distribution phase of the game. The artist can then pursue all copyright infringements outside of the customer's purchase agreement.

Quotelicensed intellectual property, music, and artwork in their games that they can't simply give away.

And nobody said something like that.

QuoteYou say it's not the consumer's problem, but it is,

I said it shouldn't, but at least for the last part we can agree.

Quoteand they already have 100% control over the situation: If you have any concern whatsoever that an online service for a game might be discontinued at some point in the future, then don't buy that game.

That's the opposite of control. In fact this argument applies to all sorts of fraudulent sales, since you were not forced to buy any fake products.

QuoteTo be frank, if the government takes up this cause and passes legislation saying that companies must make their games available to consumers in perpetuity, then I can see a lot of developers and publishers deciding that the EU market isn't worth the trouble.

Yeah, we heard it all before, in every discussion from consumer rights to data privacy/protection. I don't fear any of this.

Edit: You know man, i hope you will never be in the situation where your car gets unusable because of licensing of software and stuff. But of course you could easily avoid such a thing by not purchasing a car in the first place.


Last edited by Deleted_User on 5 August 2024 at 9:22 am UTC

Reading the comments, it seems weird to me that people yell, regulation! at something like this, when the "intellectual property" is a form of regulation in the first place.

I'm not particularly fond of regulation, because i think it's mostly patching the symptoms rather than treating the cause (usually state-enforced monopolies like "intellectual property")


Last edited by robertosf92 on 5 August 2024 at 10:56 am UTC

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain ManWhat they're demanding is simply not realistic and will most likely encourage developers and publishers out of the European market, or perhaps release special "EU Exclusive" titles that are basically crippled out of the box.

As I said, the power already rests in the hands of the consumers. If you don't like that a game could be "remotely disabled" (talk about a straw man!), then don't buy it. It's as simple as that. No heavy-handed government involvement necessary.

It might not go anywhere, but not for the reason you stated. I frankly don't understand which part of "release the server software and/or remove the DRM when you're commercially done with a game" isn't 'realistic'. Of course it is, and it would cost studios near nothing to publish the required components when they stop monetizing a game.

The reason why it won't happen is more like because governments don't care enough, or don't want to interfere with the Holy Free Market, and not because it couldn't be done.

As noted, it simply may not be legally possible for a company to essentially release a game for free when it contains proprietary and copyrighted content. It's not as simple as some people would like it to be.

Quoting: benstor214

Quoting: Mountain ManYou can't expect the entire global software industry to suddenly go open source just because some gamers in Europe have their noses out of joint.

"You can't expect the entire global smartphone industry to suddenly go USB-C just because some customers in Europe have their noses out of joint."

Quoting: macrumors.comWhy Apple Adopted USB-C
The European Union instituted legislation mandating that electronic devices like smartphones use a "common port," which the EU established was the USB-C port.

source: https://www.macrumors.com/guide/usb-c-iphone/

Why are you so pro-corporations/anti-consumers?

Nevermind that USB-C was in wide use years before that initiative. It seems the EU simply codified a standard that had already been adopted by the tech industry. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain ManWhat they're demanding is simply not realistic and will most likely encourage developers and publishers out of the European market, or perhaps release special "EU Exclusive" titles that are basically crippled out of the box.

As I said, the power already rests in the hands of the consumers. If you don't like that a game could be "remotely disabled" (talk about a straw man!), then don't buy it. It's as simple as that. No heavy-handed government involvement necessary.

It might not go anywhere, but not for the reason you stated. I frankly don't understand which part of "release the server software and/or remove the DRM when you're commercially done with a game" isn't 'realistic'. Of course it is, and it would cost studios near nothing to publish the required components when they stop monetizing a game.

The reason why it won't happen is more like because governments don't care enough, or don't want to interfere with the Holy Free Market, and not because it couldn't be done.

As noted, it simply may not be legally possible for a company to essentially release a game for free when it contains proprietary and copyrighted content. It's not as simple as some people would like it to be.

You keep ignoring the fact that this isn't what the initiative is about. Nobody is being told to release their games for free. Even "essentially".

They've already sold that content to their customers. The game should be left in a (reasonably) playable state for those existing customers unless there's a very good reason not to.

Quoting: Deleted_User

Quoteand they already have 100% control over the situation: If you have any concern whatsoever that an online service for a game might be discontinued at some point in the future, then don't buy that game.

That's the opposite of control. In fact this argument applies to all sorts of fraudulent sales, since you were not forced to buy any fake products.

On the contrary, it's the very definition of control. Vote with your wallet. Nobody is forcing you to buy it.

The other misconception is that the software in question is being sold fraudulently when there is no explicit or implicit guarantee that it will continue working in perpetuity. I suppose companies could simply state plainly on the box that there is no such guarantee, and this whole thing becomes moot.


Last edited by Mountain Man on 5 August 2024 at 2:22 pm UTC

A potentially interesting outcome of this could be that publishers that sell a product that depends on an external party for functioning will have to specify a minimum time that they guarantee the functioning of this product for all or part of its functions. This could apply to everything from games to a "smart" fridge. I think it would be extremely beneficial for consumers if producers are forced to think about this before they are allowed to sell anything so it could be included in the value of a product.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain ManWhat they're demanding is simply not realistic and will most likely encourage developers and publishers out of the European market, or perhaps release special "EU Exclusive" titles that are basically crippled out of the box.

As I said, the power already rests in the hands of the consumers. If you don't like that a game could be "remotely disabled" (talk about a straw man!), then don't buy it. It's as simple as that. No heavy-handed government involvement necessary.

It might not go anywhere, but not for the reason you stated. I frankly don't understand which part of "release the server software and/or remove the DRM when you're commercially done with a game" isn't 'realistic'. Of course it is, and it would cost studios near nothing to publish the required components when they stop monetizing a game.

The reason why it won't happen is more like because governments don't care enough, or don't want to interfere with the Holy Free Market, and not because it couldn't be done.

As noted, it simply may not be legally possible for a company to essentially release a game for free when it contains proprietary and copyrighted content. It's not as simple as some people would like it to be.

You keep ignoring the fact that this isn't what the initiative is about. Nobody is being told to release their games for free. Even "essentially".

They've already sold that content to their customers. The game should be left in a (reasonably) playable state for those existing customers unless there's a very good reason not to.

"Remove DRM and give us your server code" is to essentially demand that companies release their games for free after they are no longer commercially viable.

Quoting: EhvisA potentially interesting outcome of this could be that publishers that sell a product that depends on an external party for functioning will have to specify a minimum time that they guarantee the functioning of this product for all or part of its functions. This could apply to everything from games to a "smart" fridge. I think it would be extremely beneficial for consumers if producers are forced to think about this before they are allowed to sell anything so it could be included in the value of a product.

No company will ever promise that, and if anybody bothered to read the fine print, they would know that companies actually state the opposite, that there is no explicit or implicit guarantee of future functionality, and that product support can be discontinued at any time with or without notice.