Copy pasting their page: If you're an EU citizen, you can sign it
Copy pasting their page:
This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.
Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.
The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.
If the initiative passes and laws get introduced in the EU, you will likely benefit from it even if UK legislation does not follow suit. Companies will often base their practices around the most...
If the initiative passes and laws get introduced in the EU, you will likely benefit from it even if UK legislation does not follow suit.
Companies will often base their practices around the most restrictive set of regulations they are subject to in the markets operate in.
Are they taking this beyond the scope of Ubisoft's "The Crew" now? That'd be great news. Ross is very passionate about this and is willing to take this all the way. If you care about this at all,...
Are they taking this beyond the scope of Ubisoft's "The Crew" now? That'd be great news.
Ross is very passionate about this and is willing to take this all the way. If you care about this at all, this is the initiative you should follow.
I believe something like this was always the end goal, but The Crew served as a perfect example of why it's needed. Which is why it featured so heavily in the earlier part of the push.
I believe something like this was always the end goal, but The Crew served as a perfect example of why it's needed. Which is why it featured so heavily in the earlier part of the push.
IMO I think the provision to include MMOs in this are too onerous. There are sometimes licensing restrictions and whatnot that the developer would have to work through to make server code publicly...
IMO I think the provision to include MMOs in this are too onerous. There are sometimes licensing restrictions and whatnot that the developer would have to work through to make server code publicly available. But on the other hand, if they don't include it, it might be a convenient loophole for all always-online games to be totally an MMO.
if the dev doesn't respect the license, the game gets taken down anyway. Then we're back to square one (with the dev only losing money from lawsuits if it gets that far). It trickles down regardless.
if the dev doesn't respect the license, the game gets taken down anyway. Then we're back to square one (with the dev only losing money from lawsuits if it gets that far). It trickles down regardless.
I don’t see why that changes anything to be honest. It just means that sort of licensing is no longer available to publishers. It may be tough to get existing projects relicensed, but for future...
I don’t see why that changes anything to be honest. It just means that sort of licensing is no longer available to publishers. It may be tough to get existing projects relicensed, but for future projects they just need to account for this law. There are plenty of scenarios where companies need to do things that cost more because of laws to protect the consumer. Is it too onerous to require car manufacturers to include seatbelts and airbags?
A car can kill people, be it the passengers or others outside. A video game cannot. I really don't like how these conversations always end up making metaphors to actual life saving regulations....
Is it too onerous to require car manufacturers to include seatbelts and airbags?
A car can kill people, be it the passengers or others outside. A video game cannot.
I really don't like how these conversations always end up making metaphors to actual life saving regulations. It's entertainment at the end of the day and the majority of gamers simply move on when a game dies. It'd be a nice gesture, but I wish we wouldn't act like these "consumer rights" are in the same realm as other recent court rulings.
Of course, but existing projects is a non-trivial part of this, no? If forced with a choice to either try to figure out the licensing soup for an old server or suspend access in the European...
Of course, but existing projects is a non-trivial part of this, no? If forced with a choice to either try to figure out the licensing soup for an old server or suspend access in the European Union, especially for more niche games where they can afford the loss of sales, a lot of publishers would choose the latter and call it a day.
Again, I know carve-outs create loopholes, so I personally don't have a solution to this.
Or they can just keep running the servers. It’s really a simple solution. Publishers make slightly less money. I won’t be loosing sleep over that. Ultimately what they are doing now is immoral....
Or they can just keep running the servers. It’s really a simple solution. Publishers make slightly less money. I won’t be loosing sleep over that.
Ultimately what they are doing now is immoral. While buying games isn’t technically ownership, it is treated exactly like ownership by everyone involved. Laws are slow to catch up with morals, but they do eventually. They knew this was a potential problem, and now they have to deal with it.
At some point the studio either shuts down or eats the legal cost over keeping the game up. Either way the devs by this point are long gone. You can't make a horse drink, . I can't agree for a...
Or they can just keep running the servers. It’s really a simple solution. Publishers make slightly less money. I won’t be loosing sleep over that.
At some point the studio either shuts down or eats the legal cost over keeping the game up. Either way the devs by this point are long gone. You can't make a horse drink, .
Ultimately what they are doing now is immoral
I can't agree for a simple reason: very rarely do popular games shut down. A game shutting down usually means the gaming community has moved on from it, so the damage is mitigated by default. If a tree falls...
And then those games become lost media! Does no one care about historical preservation?
very rarely do popular games shut down. A game shutting down usually means the gaming community has moved on from it, so the damage is mitigated by default.
I imagine most people don't really care until it's too late, sadly. AKA, until [game franchise they like] becomes lost media. People as a whole don't really have the foresight to pre-emptively...
Does no one care about historical preservation?
I imagine most people don't really care until it's too late, sadly. AKA, until [game franchise they like] becomes lost media. People as a whole don't really have the foresight to pre-emptively protect against such factors, partially because they may not even realize they care, or will care.
I guess my point is that shutting down a game is still immoral for reasons of preservation. I honestly don't care how big a playerbase the game has when it shuts down; in fact, it doesn't affect...
I guess my point is that shutting down a game is still immoral for reasons of preservation. I honestly don't care how big a playerbase the game has when it shuts down; in fact, it doesn't affect my calculus in the slightest.
I suppose it goes back to the tree philosphy for me, There's too many issues in the world and other interests in my life to care about preservation of a format of game I very rarely play, possibly...
I honestly don't care how big a playerbase the game has when it shuts down; in fact, it doesn't affect my calculus in the slightest.
I suppose it goes back to the tree philosphy for me, There's too many issues in the world and other interests in my life to care about preservation of a format of game I very rarely play, possibly in a genre I don't care for.
I also am a bit cynical here, because you can "preserve" a game without making it publicly accessible on some store to download. But I know many people conflate the two with "I should always be able to play this game on demand, forever".
If there are organizations that care strongly about that I fully support their endeavors but they may not do it in a way the gaming audience feels is "preservation"
If there's one thing I believe with all my heart, it's that the general gaming audience is small-minded and short-sighted, and it refuses to develop a true political consciousness. There are a ton...
If there are organizations that care strongly about that I fully support their endeavors but they may not do it in a way the gaming audience feels is "preservation"
If there's one thing I believe with all my heart, it's that the general gaming audience is small-minded and short-sighted, and it refuses to develop a true political consciousness.
There are a ton of films from the early days of cinema that are completely lost. Wouldn't it be so much better if there weren't lost, even if they weren't available on Netflix?
Can you tell me more about the licensing restrictions that might apply? I could see situations where anyone who wanted to host a server in the future would need to get appropriate licenses in...
Can you tell me more about the licensing restrictions that might apply? I could see situations where anyone who wanted to host a server in the future would need to get appropriate licenses in order to legally host, but would there be concerns purely about making the server code available?
Licenses will often say things like "you can run this on your own machines but cannot redistribute it to others at all, even under 'you can look at it but not run it' terms". If whatever library...
Licenses will often say things like "you can run this on your own machines but cannot redistribute it to others at all, even under 'you can look at it but not run it' terms". If whatever library that is is a dependency of the server, releasing the server code without it is just throwing code out there that nobody can compile, which isn't useful.
As a non-programmer, that still seems solvable, though? If the absent libraries are clearly documented, couldn't potential hosts acquire them on their own? Or is it impossible for some technical...
As a non-programmer, that still seems solvable, though? If the absent libraries are clearly documented, couldn't potential hosts acquire them on their own? Or is it impossible for some technical reason?
(I am a professional programmer, but not in games. I do make things that run on servers and have worked with restrictively licensed libraries before.) It's impossible for an entirely non-technical...
(I am a professional programmer, but not in games. I do make things that run on servers and have worked with restrictively licensed libraries before.)
It's impossible for an entirely non-technical reason: the companies that make these libraries won't sell them to you, an individual (or they won't do so for a reasonable price). They're set up to sell to other businesses.
Your options for this sort of dependency are to
release code that's missing a part and hope the rest of it gets leaked (in which case you may as well just leak the whole thing, since you clearly don't care about legality), or
release code that's missing a part and let the community write a replacement for that part that does the same thing. This sounds appealing until you realize the reason they licensed this library from another company: because whatever it does was so hard/expensive/time-consuming to write that they were willing to pay another company large sums of money for it despite having a team of professional programmers right there.
(In practice, I think the latter would work fine, because there are often a few dedicated nerds who are really into a given game and will spend copious amounts of time making it work.)
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. So in your opinion, how do you think it should be solved, if being able to host a server after the devs don't want to any more might become a legal...
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. So in your opinion, how do you think it should be solved, if being able to host a server after the devs don't want to any more might become a legal requirement?
Honestly? This problem doesn't have to exist. Bring back the ability for players to host their own servers as a first-class feature, and this becomes a non-issue, because now you already thought...
Honestly? This problem doesn't have to exist. Bring back the ability for players to host their own servers as a first-class feature, and this becomes a non-issue, because now you already thought through all this to be able to distribute the server in the first place. If the company wants to host some official blessed servers, fine, but those shouldn't be the only ones.
(This opinion extends past games. I want to be able to self-host everything.)
Copy pasting their page:
If you're an EU citizen, you can sign it
Cries in UK. Also with the right to repair legislation that came in recently. Bollocks.
If the initiative passes and laws get introduced in the EU, you will likely benefit from it even if UK legislation does not follow suit.
Companies will often base their practices around the most restrictive set of regulations they are subject to in the markets operate in.
The campaign website has a comprehensive FAQ that answers a lot of common questions.
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
Are they taking this beyond the scope of Ubisoft's "The Crew" now? That'd be great news.
Ross is very passionate about this and is willing to take this all the way. If you care about this at all, this is the initiative you should follow.
I believe something like this was always the end goal, but The Crew served as a perfect example of why it's needed. Which is why it featured so heavily in the earlier part of the push.
IMO I think the provision to include MMOs in this are too onerous. There are sometimes licensing restrictions and whatnot that the developer would have to work through to make server code publicly available. But on the other hand, if they don't include it, it might be a convenient loophole for all always-online games to be totally an MMO.
It'll be interesting to see how this develops.
Why are licensing issues a problem the consumer has to deal with?
if the dev doesn't respect the license, the game gets taken down anyway. Then we're back to square one (with the dev only losing money from lawsuits if it gets that far). It trickles down regardless.
I don’t see why that changes anything to be honest. It just means that sort of licensing is no longer available to publishers. It may be tough to get existing projects relicensed, but for future projects they just need to account for this law. There are plenty of scenarios where companies need to do things that cost more because of laws to protect the consumer. Is it too onerous to require car manufacturers to include seatbelts and airbags?
A car can kill people, be it the passengers or others outside. A video game cannot.
I really don't like how these conversations always end up making metaphors to actual life saving regulations. It's entertainment at the end of the day and the majority of gamers simply move on when a game dies. It'd be a nice gesture, but I wish we wouldn't act like these "consumer rights" are in the same realm as other recent court rulings.
Of course, but existing projects is a non-trivial part of this, no? If forced with a choice to either try to figure out the licensing soup for an old server or suspend access in the European Union, especially for more niche games where they can afford the loss of sales, a lot of publishers would choose the latter and call it a day.
Again, I know carve-outs create loopholes, so I personally don't have a solution to this.
Or they can just keep running the servers. It’s really a simple solution. Publishers make slightly less money. I won’t be loosing sleep over that.
Ultimately what they are doing now is immoral. While buying games isn’t technically ownership, it is treated exactly like ownership by everyone involved. Laws are slow to catch up with morals, but they do eventually. They knew this was a potential problem, and now they have to deal with it.
At some point the studio either shuts down or eats the legal cost over keeping the game up. Either way the devs by this point are long gone. You can't make a horse drink, .
I can't agree for a simple reason: very rarely do popular games shut down. A game shutting down usually means the gaming community has moved on from it, so the damage is mitigated by default. If a tree falls...
And then those games become lost media!
Does no one care about historical preservation?
I imagine most people don't really care until it's too late, sadly. AKA, until [game franchise they like] becomes lost media. People as a whole don't really have the foresight to pre-emptively protect against such factors, partially because they may not even realize they care, or will care.
I guess my point is that shutting down a game is still immoral for reasons of preservation. I honestly don't care how big a playerbase the game has when it shuts down; in fact, it doesn't affect my calculus in the slightest.
I suppose it goes back to the tree philosphy for me, There's too many issues in the world and other interests in my life to care about preservation of a format of game I very rarely play, possibly in a genre I don't care for.
I also am a bit cynical here, because you can "preserve" a game without making it publicly accessible on some store to download. But I know many people conflate the two with "I should always be able to play this game on demand, forever".
If there are organizations that care strongly about that I fully support their endeavors but they may not do it in a way the gaming audience feels is "preservation"
If there's one thing I believe with all my heart, it's that the general gaming audience is small-minded and short-sighted, and it refuses to develop a true political consciousness.
There are a ton of films from the early days of cinema that are completely lost. Wouldn't it be so much better if there weren't lost, even if they weren't available on Netflix?
Can you tell me more about the licensing restrictions that might apply? I could see situations where anyone who wanted to host a server in the future would need to get appropriate licenses in order to legally host, but would there be concerns purely about making the server code available?
Licenses will often say things like "you can run this on your own machines but cannot redistribute it to others at all, even under 'you can look at it but not run it' terms". If whatever library that is is a dependency of the server, releasing the server code without it is just throwing code out there that nobody can compile, which isn't useful.
As a non-programmer, that still seems solvable, though? If the absent libraries are clearly documented, couldn't potential hosts acquire them on their own? Or is it impossible for some technical reason?
(I am a professional programmer, but not in games. I do make things that run on servers and have worked with restrictively licensed libraries before.)
It's impossible for an entirely non-technical reason: the companies that make these libraries won't sell them to you, an individual (or they won't do so for a reasonable price). They're set up to sell to other businesses.
Your options for this sort of dependency are to
(In practice, I think the latter would work fine, because there are often a few dedicated nerds who are really into a given game and will spend copious amounts of time making it work.)
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. So in your opinion, how do you think it should be solved, if being able to host a server after the devs don't want to any more might become a legal requirement?
Honestly? This problem doesn't have to exist. Bring back the ability for players to host their own servers as a first-class feature, and this becomes a non-issue, because now you already thought through all this to be able to distribute the server in the first place. If the company wants to host some official blessed servers, fine, but those shouldn't be the only ones.
(This opinion extends past games. I want to be able to self-host everything.)