Stop Killing Games Fails To Secure EU Law Despite 1.3 Million Signatures (dexerto.com)
- Reference: 0183925112
- News link: https://games.slashdot.org/story/26/06/17/0542212/stop-killing-games-fails-to-secure-eu-law-despite-13-million-signatures
- Source link: https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/stop-killing-games-fails-to-secure-eu-law-despite-1-3m-signatures-3376431/
> The Commission's full communication said a legal obligation to keep games playable, as requested by the initiative, "would not be proportionate." It cited concerns about intellectual property rights, confidential business information, publisher costs, and potential cybersecurity or safety risks once games are no longer supported. The code of conduct could include more transparent storefront labeling about possible game discontinuation, along with more partnerships between publishers and cultural heritage institutions to preserve games. However, it would not legally require publishers to provide offline patches, private server tools, or other methods for players to continue accessing games after official support ends. The Commission also argued that existing EU consumer law already provides some safeguards, including requirements around transparency, contract duration, termination conditions, and possible refunds if a shutdown conflicts with the agreement or a consumer's reasonable expectations.
>
> [...] Despite the setback, Stop Killing Games has said it is not ending its push for legislation. In a response posted after the Commission's decision, the official Stop Killing Games account said the outcome was "not unexpected" and claimed the campaign had already prepared for the result. The group said it is now pushing for members of the European Parliament to amend Stop Killing Games into the Digital Fairness Act instead. "We can move on without the Commission and their non-decision," the group said, referencing earlier comments from Accursed Farms creator Ross Scott.
[1] https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/document/download/75d642bc-6ff5-4713-b1cf-14f4aaf15869_en?filename=C_2026_4110_EN.pdf
[2] https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/stop-killing-games-fails-to-secure-eu-law-despite-1-3m-signatures-3376431/
[3] https://www.stopkillinggames.com/en
[4] https://games.slashdot.org/story/26/06/07/198205/the-gamer-rights-group-fighting-to-make-the-industry-stop-killing-games-servers
Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry (Score:3)
Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry code covering end-of-life transparency and preservation which no one will bother with.
Has any voluntary industry code and self regulation EVER worked?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, often as a first step to legislation. In the sense that "we tried to let you self-regulate, you didn't, and so...".
I'm speaking here about EU and UK politics, can't speak for the US. It's actually quite usual to do it this way.
Re: (Score:3)
> When it's codified into the highest law of the land and doesn't work, and suggestions to do so voluntarily can't work to the point of being laughable, what options do we have left?
There's always Nancy Reagan's catchphrase: Just Say No.
Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. Games don't even have the network effects and lockin that you get with other types of software; it's a part of the economy where Just Saying No is easiest of all.
Don't like the quality? Don't spend your money.
Re: (Score:3)
>> When it's codified into the highest law of the land and doesn't work, and suggestions to do so voluntarily can't work to the point of being laughable, what options do we have left?
> There's always Nancy Reagan's catchphrase: Just Say No.
> Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. Games don't even have the network effects and lockin that you get with other types of software; it's a part of the economy where Just Saying No is easiest of all.
Except when it's not. It's not always clear at the time of purchase that the publisher has the ability to shut down the game at some unspecified future date. So "just saying no" requires some knowledge of the future that may not be available. In addition, on platforms like Steam, publishers can push updates that you *must* install to continue playing which remove features or add an online requirement that didn't exist when you purchased it, leading to it being disabled remotely when the publisher eventua
Re: Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary indus (Score:4, Informative)
> Has any voluntary industry code and self regulation EVER worked?
Yes. Good examples can be found the world over: Media advertising standards, financial standards, heck the entire engineering profession is self regulated by its own industry. Many reporting standards are as well. As are quite a few product safety standards (the overall "don't kill people" is law, but how to achieve that is mostly driven by industry self-regulation in many parts of the world).
Now there's plenty of examples where it also didn't work, and those often get followed up with actual laws, but there are still plenty of examples in industry where industry codes self regulated. For example when America shat itself in 2008 Australia was largely insulated from the same problems due to the Australian Banking Association's (industry body) governance code that effectively banned the kind of sub-prime finance dumb-fuckery in the country years earlier.
Want another example? It's not legally required in most of Europe to label vegan products, yet industry has adopted ISO 23662 despite it not being required by any law to do so. And while we're talking about standards, the harmonisation of electrical standards in the EU was almost entirely industry driven, and except for subtleties of specific wiring rules for examples in houses, most electrical standards maintained by CENELEC are entirely voluntary yet followed throughout all industry.
Re: (Score:1)
That point about vegan makes no sense.
Food is labeled, it is plain obvious if it is vegan or not.
Why would anyone need to be forced to put an extra sticker on it?
You probably mean, if something is made from "ersatz meat" that the industry is voluntarily putting "vegan" on it?
Well, actually: there is a special shelf for vegan products. It is usually not mixed with meat/cheese products.
Re: (Score:2)
ISO 23662 allows manufacturers to self-declare compliance so it's kind of useless.
I suspect many instances of industry self regulation were done on the threat of government intervention so I wouldn't really call those success stories.
Commissions position does not matter (Score:4, Interesting)
As it says on the summary already - the fact that we got a non-answer from commission doesn't matter here. It would have been *nice* to get a legislation from there, but in the end they don't matter.
Ross Scott explains it better at [1]https://youtu.be/CgoODQFrPgw?t... [youtu.be] but the point is that SKG already has majority support in European Parliament, and the plan is basically that SKG gets tacked on by the parliament as an amendment to Digital Services Act (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act). The DSA is already supposed to do things like rein in lootboxes, so it's already addressing issues for video games.
Commission's stance ultimately does not matter here at all. No need to be discouraged.
[1] https://youtu.be/CgoODQFrPgw?t=671
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, wrong piece of legislation in progress - meant Digital Fairness Act, not Digital Services Act. [1]https://digitalfairnessact.com... [digitalfairnessact.com]
[1] https://digitalfairnessact.com/
We gave up democracy (Score:1)
For ethics in games journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
the European Commission is not democracy sadly! It is actually a private elitist administrative body, mandate by country governments and simply vetted or not by the EU Parliament... if they care about the uses or the industry, will depend a lot of the person on charge of that area, we had good people, but also corrupt ones. The EU Parliament is a democracy and usually much easier to reach... and they can force the Commission actions if enough support is gather
Re: (Score:1)
Your cabinet is not democratic either.
It is appointed by the ruler who somehow got voted into his position, unless he is a king or dictator.
the European Commission is not democracy sadly!
The European Commission is the cabinet of the EU. Stupid idiot.
and they can force the Commission actions if enough support is gather
No, they can't. But they can vote laws into action the Commission disagrees with, perhaps that is what you meant?
Re: (Score:2)
You know Europe is a democracy right? And that you could just pass laws in the individual countries?
I am impressed somebody figured out what I was talking about though. They of course use the mod point to mod me down but I'm surprised it didn't go over their heads.
make it open-source instead? (Score:1)
What about a solution where discontinued games are opened up? An agreement where game companies post source-code or whatever in return for shutting down servers?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be more plateable, the trick is to get it going and establish it as an industry norm. A couple of big players doing it might create the momentum needed.
It might be easier to get them to open up just the netcode portion, as they may have legitimate concerns about protecting the game engine code. Especially if they're using someone else's engine (UE, Unity...). Which reminds me that they might not actually own the netcode either, that may be 3rd party as well. And we can't really expect them
Re: (Score:2)
> and quite another to spend more money on it.
And that's the core of the issue.
If it were profitable the companies wouldn't be shutting it down.
If it meaningfully impacted customer sentiment or business goals, they'd open up or release servers, or make that last-minute change to the game as a final update.
As games are, so much time has passed. The original dev team has moved on two titles, three titles, maybe even more since the initial development, especially for long-running games. The maintenance teams have also come and gone. The last teams who
Re: (Score:1)
Another solution to this is to fix IP law. Require all patents be for an actual tangible new invention, declare IP rights only for actual human beings, and limit copyright to 17 years. Enforce actual property laws for software like we did for cars.
Copyrigh (Score:5, Insightful)
was created so artists would release their work to the public and be compensated. So why do we offer copyrights on stuff that is not made available or removed from the market.
How about we change the law into something that removes copyright when it's not available, or no longer available.
We need to change the laws that allow lock in, or that change the terms after purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
> So why do we offer copyrights on stuff that is not made available or removed from the market.
Because the rights to products exist for potential market re-entry. E.g. if I create the new latest and greatest thing, and remove it from market I retain the right to use said thing a year later. Just because it's not on sale doesn't give others the right to the creation.
Now that's purely copyright / licensing issue. There's further questions of what constitutes a product and what constitutes a temporary license. But the copyright argument is barking up the wrong tree. Copyright is given for a (way too lon
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger problem, copyright was never meant to last so long. As technology has advanced it becomes possible to make more media more quickly, so if anything copyright terms should have been shrunk , but they've been extended instead.
The single most important thing to fix about copyright is reducing the terms.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of famous and incredibly valuable works of art that have been lost, stolen, or are simply off the market. What about those?
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Let People Enjoy Things [knowyourmeme.com]
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/let-people-enjoy-things
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until the subscription servers for the heated seats in your car are shut down to save tens of dollars in operating costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because your life is a shitshow of chaos that requires your focus doesn't mean others don't have the spare capacity to complain about these things.
> Maybe organize your life around something else than digital hoarding
Who said hording? Hording is the compulsion to accumulate things, especially things you don't use. Wanting to play a game and being unable to isn't hoarding. In fact it's the opposite, it's actively using the thing you bought for its intended purpose.
> ADHD
Speaking of opposites, people with ADHD typically aren't concerned about long term duration of an activity be
Always love the Cybersecurity angle!! (Score:2)
Yes those cybersecurity threats, that game companies are indemnified from when the game is supported ... The real threat is the game companies themselves and their shoddy data protections. This rejection was clearly written by game companies for game companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, they didn't even asked to be exempt of cybersecurity liabilities after the games EOL (which instead would be on homebrew servers providers). They just rejected the whole proposal altogether.
"Stop buying games" (Score:2)
Well, if that's the case then I suggest a new initiative: "Stop buying games." If the governing bodies won't help then vote with your wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, if that's the case then I suggest a new initiative: "Stop buying games." If the governing bodies won't help then vote with your wallet.
Stop buying games yhat require remote services in order to play.
While you're at it, stop buying cars that depend on remote services in order to work.
And thermostats.
Etc.
Ban violent games? Good luck with that... (Score:2)
Not being much of a gamer I haven't followed this story (at all!) so the headline and initiative name "Stop Killing Games" made me think it was 1.3 million signatures from people who want to ban games in which people are killed. "No way that's going to pass," I thought. People love virtual murder.
Then I figured out that it's the killing of the games people want to stop, not the games that include killing.
Vaguely related, I had a serious EverQuest addiction ~20 years ago (the reason I gave up on any bu
It's the beginning (Score:2)
I think you are reading the document wrong. The European Commission is not a legislator, it just proposes laws.
First for all there will the Digital Fairness Act presented and MEPs are free to put into it whatever they feel is suitable to protect consumers including stopping kill-games language.
Also, the MEPs could use the Cloud and Development Act to strengthen reverse engineering and interoperability rights for game servers.
The interesting aspect is here:
"Rightsholders remain in principle free to determine
Boycott (Score:2)
I guess you nerds will just have to actually boycott these game makers. I always found this movement funny because you still want to play the shitty games these companies put out despite knowing how shitty a company these big game makers are. There are plenty of really good indie games out there just waiting for your support.
online petitions mean shit (Score:1)
mean shit - who is really dumb enough to think thats a thing that persuades goverment.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a legal initiative. [1]https://www.europarl.europa.eu... [europa.eu]
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/citizensinitiative/procedure_en.pdf
Re: online petitions mean shit (Score:3)
It still has no teeth. You get to make a presentation to The Overlords, and then they get to ignore it.
Didn't get me wrong, it's better than nothing, but there's no obligation for the government to do anything as far as I can tell.
Re: online petitions mean shit (Score:4, Insightful)
The European Commission is the EU's civil service. Petitioning it was always a long shot, because for them to act you have to convince them that there is a good case within existing EU rules. They aren't there to make new rules, they are there to enforce the existing ones.
They have effectively said that existing consumer protection rules don't extend far enough to force publishers to make offline patches and server code available, but in their opinion do offer some of the things being asked for already and so the petitioners should contact their state consumer rights body.
To get a change in the rules, it needs to go through the European Parliament and the elected MEPs. That's how democracy works. Elected officials make the rules, civil servants enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
To pick an important nit, that may be how the EU works, but in the US and many other places, you also elect the people who enforce the rules. Thus ensuring that the civil service is never independent of the voter's control. So, elected legislators make the rules and elected executives carry them out.
But to your point, yeah, it sounds like this petition was doomed to fail because they brought it to the wrong body. If you want new laws, go to the people who write them, not the people who don't.
Re: (Score:2)
It was worth a go, but it was always a long shot. You could interpret the current rules as requiring some of this stuff, but it's a hard case to make. Either way, it was probably necessary to demonstrate that the current rules are inadequate.
Re: (Score:1)
Your Secretary of Defense is not elected, neither the Secretary of Justice, Education, or Finances ... and so on.
Re: (Score:1)
Democracy and the EU don't belong in the same sentence. It's one of the least democratic entities in the developed world.
Re: (Score:1)
Greetings Fox News viewer!
Re: (Score:2)
The perception of being anti-democratic is not that far off base, in practice, with the EU and other large democratic structures.
The best comparable example to help you understand might be the plight of smaller states in the US or western provinces in Canada. Yes, you can claim they do get a vote within their federal unions and smugly claim it is perfectly democratic, but when their votes are (and always will be) effectively a rounding error when lumped together with those of far-larger and far-off popul
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, the European Commission also has the responsibility to proposes legislation and send it to the European Parliament. The EC declined to do their exclusive duty according to the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) and unilaterally dismissed the required 1 million signatures in an anti-democratic fashion.
Next step is to go to European Parliament, which has a lower bar for petitions and is generally more willing to exercise its authority against other branches.
Re: (Score:2)
Petitions are a first step, and it also is a way to raise issues that the government may not even be aware of, and if it is aware of may not consider important in the belief not enough people care about the issue.
Democracy isn't simple, it's not a simple power game, it's a system that requires two way communications. There's a reason the first amendment of the US talks of petitioning the government.
If you don't see that, you probably don't see the value in writing to your elected representative either. Yet