idbeholdME: People bought into these games, knowing full well their lifespan was limited. When "the end" finally arrives, you don't get to go back on a deal, the conditions of which you agreed to 10 or more years ago because you suddenly realize "Hey, this actually affects me. Thought it'd never happen. MUH RIGHTS!!!". That's just not how it works.
Unless the "end date" was written on the box, then the publishers are the ones who are robbing their customers.
If they want to get away with destroying games, then the end date must be placed on the box and / or the game must be subscription-based with no initial fee (box price). Then they could argue that it's a service and not a product.
Publishers have gotten real comfy blurring the lines between products and services and using whichever definition whenever it's suitable for them. EU must put an end to this.
============================================
timppu: To me this initiative is still as silly as an initiative to "force" streaming services (like Netflix) to somehow let people watch the movies and TV-series that they plan to remove from their streaming services. Should Netflix allow users to host those movies and TV-series, or what?
If you don't like such practices, vote with your wallet.
Netflix is a rental service that clearly markets itself as a rental service and charges a monthly fee like a rental service. There is no item that we have to buy. We cannot buy any movie or an episode individually. This is an almost-intentionally bad comparison and that is why it sounds silly to you.
Compare it to video services that actually operate the same way as digital game stores. Take Google Movies & TV or PlayStation movie library.
They SELL videos as products. We pay a one-time fee for each video. That is a purchase and that must be treated like a purchase. If they lose the license, that should only affect new sales and not existing owner libraries. Most game stores do not yank games from user libraries once delisted, so why should Video stores be allowed to do that? If they do not want to stream that content, then they should allow users to download the actual video files. Streaming is a problem that they themselves created and forced upon us.
If you sell a product, you do not get to take it away. If you cite technical difficulties, then change the technology you use. DRM is used for greed and paranoia. There is no legitimate reason for using it. Pirates will pirate anyway, Trying to combat that is laughable and it hurts paying customers.
Same with games. Did your car and / or music license expire? That's YOUR (Publisher) problem! That is no MY (Consumer) problem! How DARE YOU, pass this problem onto me and rob me!? It was not a problem before. I can still play Need For Speed Underground years after it stopped being sold. Licensing is just an excuse. The real problem is always-online DRM. Make the campaign work offline.
Piracy is not theft. Piracy is copyright infringement. The only ones engaging in actual theft (depriving people of legally-purchased products) are the publishers of needlessly-online-bound games. How ironic.
(I would like to think that this is obvious, but since I know the internet I will state the obvious regardless: Copyright infringement is illegal and I do not promote it). ============================================
Cavalary: Just that this particular initiative is just plain wrong because of that one phrase.
What's the alternative? I don't see anyone else lifting a finger.
Whatever phrase that you dislike is irrelevant. This is an initial proposal that will change dozens of time before (if) it becomes law.
Genuinely ask yourself if NOT supporting a game preservation movement is worth it, because you dislike the initial draft of the proposal.
If you do not support it and you do not provide an alternative, then through your inaction, you become a member of the opposition. That's just playing right into the greedy publisher's hand.
