Stop Killing Games

To preface this, I am a supporter of SKG, my main issue with things like 'The Crew' was an unclear end date and it being terminated without reason. I think that the EU should only allow companies three models of selling products, a product, where when you buy something, it can run offline off the bat. A regulated service, where you SPECIFY clear MINIMUM end dates (the game can be terminated after this date, not HAS to be terminated, to avoid guessing, but can be), and a live service game which has its software turned over to people upon EOL.

I think that second option is where me and alot of SKG people diverge in viewpoints, I dont care about big AAA studios mainly, but games cannot be unique in how it handles services, the whole "can be EOL'ed" at any time for any reason is something which I would not like for ANY service gaming or not, but the whole idea of services which can be taken away is not as much as a issue for me if done responsibly, (minimum date specified clearly, not just in contract, and proper reasons among other things).

The reasoning for this is because, it seems weird to set a entirely new direction for video games, things like, a gym membership, or pieces of software or just something where you have x time with a service. For the most part, they will disclose when it ends, and usually clearly, unlike games, the issue with games might come with guessing the end date, but this can be better solved by just, having a minimum date where after that point, it can, but does not have to be taken down, and any time before that date, I do not care if its difficult for upkeep of the game, even in bankruptcy, there was a contract made and it should be followed.

Exceptions will be if you bought a item from that game which could be revoked upon EOL of that date, so the game should either offer refunds, or just give the software out, (going to what I think should be the third model of how games can be sold), or maybe offer terms on how long you get to retain that item. The reasons I state things like this is because, there isnt that much difficulty in architecting games going forward to be able to be handed off to the community at EOL. But there will be some difficulties and things that need to be maybe dropped when it comes to game development (i am not confident about this point, as maybe anything could be made differently in a way that aligns with how SKG wants it to be). You could say games are not services, but it could be that the thing you purchase is like a service to access that product (like steam, but i might be wrong on this)

I hope that the second way to offer games (regulated services), would be used infrequently, for like niche games, and not abused by AAA companies, and I dont know if it would be. I do not say this for their sake but rather because games cannot be unique in how it offers/forbids live-service games without a EOL plan to send it over to the community but should make sure it is handled responsibly through adding what they would like companies to do, but also the acceptable middleground.

If I am misunderstanding something, please correct me.

🇫🇮: Yksi sadasta suomalaiset ovat allekirjoittaneet Euroopan kansalaisten aloitteen!

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/47553369

It's clear that game developers are going to lobby this thing and hard. It can't be a "grassroots" movement anymore hoping on the support of some big names out of the kindness of their heart. It needs some "professionalisation". It can't just be "Ross and his invisible army will handle it" anymore.

• a website with
  • a list of public names supporting the movement e.g "supported by these companies 'Game developer A', 'Game Developer B', 'Preservation Group A', 'Preservation Group B', 'X number of individuals from country A', 'Politician A', 'Politician B', yada yada yada"
  • the representatives of the movement (not just Ross, but those on the names of the initiatives and so on)
  • a "how do I get involved" section
    • ways to donate and where the money is going
    • how to join internally (a private forum or group)
    • material to spread if not on the inside like links, images, and videos
    • calls to action
    • whatever else you come up with
• coordination and a game plan
  • who is doing what with whom and when
    • Member is talking Game Preservation company for sponsorship
    • Member is coordinating with community to have a protest in front of UK parliament on some date
    • Member is having a meeting with Members of Parliament to get support
    • and so on
  • a group of designers and artists making content for the movement
  • publicly available research to refute existing and possible claims made by lobbying groups and naysayers

Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable.

Ah, yeah, so when I play an old game that's kept alive by the community with dedicated servers and some random user were e.g. using hate speech or such in (voice) chat, then the publisher, that released and discontinued that game way before there were laws about hate speech is now liable?! Ha ha. In other news, if you fear that you might be liable for this, why publish software which light be problematic in a few months/years/...? Also multiplayer lobbies and unsafe community content - name a more iconic duo. You often ignore reports about toxic players and hackers anyway, although you probably are liable for their damages (at least after we reported them)

In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

Then why the fuck are Singleplayer Games designed to be online only? Also, why not just release a docker image of your server plus a docker-compose/kubernetes deployment definition? You're usually using cloud hosting and automated deployment anyways, so you probably already have one laying around anyways...

Please support the initiative of Stop Killing Games!

EU Petition

UK Petition

Please support the initiative of Stop Killing Games!

EU Petition

UK Petition

Ross is targeting 1.4M or more signatures, keep recruiting for more signatures until the end of July.

Direct Link to Initiative: https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

Videogames Europe didn't just release a short press statement yesterday, they also released thus much longer position paper.

Warning: Reading it might cause brain damage

Video Games Europe represents 19 European and international video game companies and 13 national trade associations across the continent.

Still important to track how much of a buffer we can get before the end of the month.

Direct Link to Initiative: https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

It's not over yet!

We still need a safety buffer to offset errors and outright fakes. Also, if we *really* wish to go above and beyond, we still need to rile up support from folks in the countries currently under threshold.

https://stopkillinggamestracker.pages.dev/

Bulgaria and Slovenia are really close, I think they're basically there. But if Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta get with the program and surpass the threshold, I think that'd indicate the unanimous support for the campaign and universal disdain for destroying art, which is going to be harder to ignore and sweep under the carpet.

Sign now!!
https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

@skg

Please keep signing!

Slovenia 🇸🇮

Bulgaria 🇧🇬

Luxembourg 🇱🇺

Cyprus 🇨🇾

Malta 🇲🇹