Agreed. We have to remember this is an initiative and if enshrined into law, will have to go through several revisions first years later.

We have to remember people expecting it to abolish all online DRM, downplaying the significance of this, and criticizing this have never done anything more significant on a grander level than what Ross Scott and his team is doing.

I want less regulation overall. Sure I am glad EU is making e.g. phone chargers interchangeable etc., but this is one of the cases where I don't want EU to meddle.

I am almost certain if some kind of regulation is formed, it will not make gamers' life better, but worse. In the simplest form, it will mean many games will be region-locked in EU, just because it has DRM and the publisher is not willing to put a rope around their neck promising to remove the DRM at some point, not knowing if they are even able to do it anymore when the publisher is dying or whatever. Like, say, Elden Ring wouldn't have been sold in Europe at all because the Japanese publisher just doesn't want to deal with vague EU regulations.

Or alternatively, in EU the game will be "sold" only through digital streaming services like Amazon Luna and such, if that is the easiest way to avoid having to come up with some silly "EOL exit plan" for the game just because of EU. Other parts of the world can buy the game normally through e.g. Steam.

Also, I feel the initiative is too unclear, vague and raises lots and lots of questions. Like, what makes games so special that they must have that kind of "exit plan"? How about movies and TV-series, should they have similar exit plans as well, also if they are removed from streaming services like Netflix? If streaming services are an exception that don't have to come up with an exit plan... then as I said, I guess in EU many games will appear only through streaming services.

Nah, I don't want that crap, too many pitfalls and risks for gamers. EU will fjuck it up like they do with 90% of stuff they touch, like how cars are becoming dangerous to their drivers because EU has decided cars must have all kind of lane watchers, speed limit checkers etc. in place that may or may not work correctly in winter etc.

For instance, in Youtube you can either rent or "buy" (=rent for infinite views) movies. Should Youtube come up with an exit plan so that if you buy a movie from them, you can watch it infinitely also after Google closes Youtube, or wants to remove the movie from their service? What makes digital games different from buying a digital movie from Youtube?

The RIGHT way is to raise awareness about perils of DRM, streaming gaming etc. to gamers, and let them know there are alternatives. Like GOG. It is good The Crew once again raised many gamers to ask "are the games really mine?", but this idea of extra regulation in EU is the wrong, and possibly the worst, approach to try to tackle it.

In an optimal scenario, yes. But that would require normies, e.g. the masses, to start thinking about their consumption habits. And we all know that's not going to happen any time soon, if ever. Most would rather sign away the next ounce of rights for their next "fix", than apply any self-limitation or principles.

It doesn't have to be 100% either or, but simply that they are at least aware. Then maybe they start preferring buying DRM-free games, even if they still buy games on DRM stores as well. If they care about game preservation, then they start shifting their purchasing habits, at least a bit.

Or I don't know really, maybe they already are aware but just act stupid: "Huh? What? A 10 year old online racing game becomes unplayable when the publisher pulls the plug on the online servers?!? It isn't even physically possible, is it?".

I understand many don't care, but I am surprised by the amount of whining coming from The Crew case, as if so many people who cared, really didn't see it coming? What did they expect, that the publisher will keep it online forever, or that the users can easily keep it alive without publisher support?

Yes, it is, because supporting it includes supporting something that literally states that DRM is fine in itself. Don't think for one moment that if something like this goes through (which is highly doubtful, but for the sake of argument), the industry won't latch on to that one sentence to shoot down any future initiative against DRM.
Alternatives? Oh, I don't know, maybe one that's been around since 2006?
And, of course, supporting archive.org, and maybe libraries in general, and their fights to be allowed to store and make available everything no longer available or functional otherwise.
I do want such "meddling". Lots of it. Of course, as long as it's done in the users' interests, but "meddling" it must be. Under no circumstances should, well, anything relevant be left to "the market".
Hey, if they're not willing to sell DRM free, as far as I'm concerned those games aren't available anyway, and that should be the case for anyone who is strict about the no DRM stance, so what's the difference? At least in that case they'd be open about it, AND they will take one hell of a financial hit for doing it, so it remains to be seen whether they'd actually be willing to do it, or if their shareholders would let them.
And hey, if the developer or publisher goes away, who'd still be selling that title in the first place? I mean, if someone would, they'd also be able to remove the DRM. Or, if not, they'd be able to grant the license to do so to someone who can, and I'm sure there'd be plenty willing to go for it.
All right, that's one loophole. But they'll still take one hell of a hit and still doubt they'd be willing to do it.
Fair. And yeah, should be for those as well.

PS: https://blog.archive.org/2024/08/08/coming-this-october-the-vanishing-culture-report/ Includes call "to share your stories about why preservation is important for the media you use. Whether it’s a website crawl in the Wayback Machine, a rare book that shaped your perspective, a vintage film that captured your imagination, or a collection that you revisit often."

Agree with this. Even though not specifically/outright stated (and this is what should change), it should have been obvious to anyone with even a basic level of tech knowledge, that anything that is always online/calls for verification to some server, implicitly has limited lifespan. It's not a question of if, but when,

Well uhm okay :)

with all the explanation going on i won't respond to your comment other than. 'I hear you Bro'

Honestly, I see your point for much of this, except that it's the right of the creators or rights holders to remove their art from the public. They shouldn't be able to destroy copies already sold, but there is NO reason to force someone to allow someone else to fix their work and resell it. Ever at all. And what level do we consider fixing? Patching bugs? Sure. Upgrading the engine to work better? Adding in texture packs? Some of this is simply fixing issues, and some of it is murkey and changing the original work in doing so.

As an artist, I have a right to stop my works from being reprinted and sold after a time if I so choose. Stop trying to take rights from the artists, because you know that's who this proposition would affect the most.

the small man.... yep

Stop it from being sold, yes. But make it no longer available, hell no. And I'd also say no to stopping others from working with it as long as they credit the original author and don't monetize the result without an explicit agreement with the original author.
Basically a BY-NC default.
There's also a BY-NC-ND, but come on... (Though, in this case, would distributing the unaltered work and the fix, so a patch in case of software, separately, suit the terms?)

"standardized approach to game design" lol.

I don't believe in a nanny state especially in the EU level where the citizens are considered as mindless children who can't decide themselves what they want, and must be protected from themselves.

well i don't know..... i wouldn't be surprised if drm for example and uhm a certain level of uhm lifespan to be set in stone at a certain point.... as customer protection creating a certain 'standard'

I'm actually on that same line of thought. . . On the other hand, a little experiment with Luna, Gog's collaboration with Amazon for streaming service did reveal the point that I am a sucker for luxury commodities and ease of use. Not having to install games anymore is quite attractive as a selling point.

anyhow.... for some reason i can't connect to GoG fully atm, it feels like somehow my posting rights are with hold, ongoing investigation of sorts.... I like to imagine... subversive element ... Yeah!!! of course i'm taking this fact quite personal, so i won't be posting anything any more until the matter is solved or not....

If they did that, at least it would force them to be honest about it and claim upfront that the game is a service and not a good. For me, that's a step in the right direction. Honestly, the thing that pisses me the most about the whole situation in the gaming industry is the bs.

I don't have a problem with Netflix. They are honest about what they are. Do note that content creators make a whole lot less on a mass-subscription model like Netflix than with pretend ownership. They might not be as warm to the idea as you suggest here. You have to look at the result. Atm, platforms like Steam make online drm super convenient for devs, especially smaller ones with not a lot of resources.

Easy peasy, no blowback. Finally, if this passes, there will be some blowback and headaches. The "if Steam cannot guarantee its service for my game at some point in the future, am I getting sued? Does it means I'll have to re-implement Steam's service apparatus at a possibly really inconvenient time later in the future if I make my game dependent on it?".

Also, once that door is open, other countries outside the EU can jump in. Its a precedent. And they might go further.

Not everything we could hope for, but it is progress. If we can't ban drm outright, lets make it increasingly inconvenient and risky.