According to Louis Rossman (Not to be confused with the creator of the campaign Ross Scott), this should be the purpose, that is, to force it with lobbyists a new law to be discussed and passed. Its a real headache, but if well done, can really help to preserve games in the future, although people should understand that big gaming companies* will and probably already are doing their own lobby against this campaign.

From what I understood, In this video, Louis Rossman explains how he helped to pass a law in the past through a campaign he moved, what he learned, what he did wrong and what he did well and why it can work, if those involved are to follow an organized path.

-Edit:
Linked the continuation of the video by accident. Now both links correctly linked.
This is the video I talked about, and its continuation below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SgTf_ghiRU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF4zH8bJDI8
-Edit.

Its not that simple as it seems to some though "Get people involved - New law approved".
Gaming consumers =/= Gaming companies

Big players of the bloated gaming market are getting much money from such practices, even if they hurt gaming preservation and when they notice that this has a real chance of creating a discussion in the European Parliament with pressure enough from the public for a chance for it to pass, they will not be silent.

I personally think that its good that someone's trying to do that, but its an opportunity in a million, and if it fails, it might hurt game preservation with precedents from big players to use this as a tool to keep hurting games. Therefore, this must be done well and in an organized matter correctly so it has more chances of producing good results without hurting any parties.

Reality is way more complex than this as we know... so... Idk.

Giant FAQ on The European Initiative to Stop Destroying Games

"Here is a giant Video FAQ on all the biggest questions I've seen on the European Citizens' Initiative, part of the push behind the Stop Killing Games campaign. I tried to go over almost everything. This is long and kind of dry and is just meant for people who want more information on what it's about. For everyone else who can, go sign the initiative!

0:00 Intro
1:53 Concept 1 - Always ask "What's the alternative?"
3:17 Concept 2 - This is mostly about future games
4:03 Concept 3 - It's impossible to save games with disruption
4:56 Concept 4 - The ECI if not final law
5:11 Will this be retroactive?
5:20 Isn't this too vague?
8:18 Doesn't this go too far?
10:21 Do all features need to work?
11:20 Do servers need to run forever?
11:37 What about games that don't require online access on shutdown?
11:51 Are developers involved?
12:26 What options will developers of online games have?
15:27 What do developers need to change for future games?
15:46 What about subscription games?
16:23 Won't this cause games to go subscription-only?
17:49 Isn't it unreasonable to own a service?
22:38 Won't gaming get worse due to government?
24:20 Why not stop buying online games instead?
25:29 Don't EULAs allow games being destroyed?
26:03 What about free games?
26:33 Doesn't this violate developer rights?
27:20 Will everyone get games for free when they shutdown?
27:44 What about people banned from games?
28:11 Won't this make cheating rampant in games?
28:53 What if players try to sabotage a game to get an end-of-life build?
29:44 What about console games?
30:36 What about mobile games?
30:54 How long would companies need to host end-of-life plans?
31:04 Won't companies stop making MMOs / live service games?
32:10 Wouldn't this be a security risk?
32:47 Is this for single player or multiplayer?
33:40 Would devs need to convert multiplayer games to single player?
34:27 Wouldn't better labeling fix the problem?
35:13 How will this be enforced?
35:31 Why not petition companies instead?
35:58 What version of a game would devs need to release?
36:25 Won't games get more expensive?
37:58 What if a company goes bankrupt?
38:27 What if companies create shell companies to go bankrupt?
38:52 What about games too huge to be hosted by customers?
39:56 Don't some games deserve to die?
40:19 How does "The Crew" relate to this?
40:34 What are the chances of this passing?
41:07 Corrections
41:35 end

Link to sign EU initiative:
https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

Guides on how to sign EU initiative:
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci
"

I want EU legislation that bans FAQs in a form of 43 minute Youtube-videos, instead of a simple text file or a web page that you can peruse much more easily and faster too.

The guy says in the beginning that if you care about game preservation, this initiative is your only (and last?) chance to do anything about it.

I feel he got it wrong already there. From my point of view, the best chance to change things is not to buy online MMO games like The Crew but instead buy DRM-free single-player games (or multiplayer games with user-hosted multiplayer from the beginning).

Vote with your wallet. Money talks, EU walks. The silver lining is that once again, at least the awareness about these issues is increasing, and maybe some people see the error in their ways (purchasing habits), in case they care about game preservation.

Like many have said, expecting companies to keep, or even allow others to keep, online MMOs alive forever through legislation is naive and stupid and whatever negative terms you can come up with.

He already replied to that too lol.
He prefers to vote with his.. vote, instead of just with wallets.
(also, we already know gamers are bad at doing it collectively in a meaningful way)

Dude, your first part makes it sound like you didn't understand much about this initiative.
If the full video is too much, just use the timestamps to skip directly to the questions you have.

The idea of voting with wallets already failed long ago, since people don't simply follow it, except for a small minority.
That's even more naive and stupid than this huge and actually practical initiative.

Yeah, nice catchphrase that doesn't really mean anything.

Gamers don't have to do something "collectively". They just need to stop buying games and products that do things those gamers don't want them to do. If they buy, then they are allowing it to happen and can blame only themselves.

To me it is like people whining that Netflix removes some movies and TV-series from their service from time to time. Duh, that's the point of the service, they never promised they will keep everything available forever. If you don't agree with that, just don't subscribe to the service. Or should there be EU legislation forcing Netflix to keep all content available forever? Or if they want to remove something, they should let the users host such TV series and movies?

d00d, I have read the FAQ on their page, and their whole premise is overly stupid.

"What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary."

Why require that as some kind of EOL plan, why not require it from the start, and refusing to buy a game if it doesn't do that?

It is ludicrous to expect the publisher to do that kind of heavy development work at the end of the life of a game. The original development studio who made the game has been long gone, and that stupid suggestion requires the publisher to invest a new development studio to modify the game so that it can work on user servers, especially if the publisher is closing doors as well.

I still don't understand at all, why are they suggesting it is ok for a game to have dependence on publisher servers, but they should be removed or modified at the end of the game's life? That is just so stupid. It would be much clearer if the initiative simply stated that no one is allowed to publish and sell any games in EU that depend on publisher servers and are not usable without them, from day one.

Now, I don't believe that initiative would fly either, but at least it would be much clearer and less vague about what exactly the demands are.

It doesn't help at all that the FAQ on their homepages acknowledges that of course there are exceptions and not everything can be necessarily implemented without the official servers and live service... but they don't specify what those allowed exceptions would be.

This whole thing reminds of those discussions that it is ok that Steam games have DRM because Gabe has allegedly promised they have an EOL plan where he flips a switch and KAZOOM all Steam games suddenly become DRM-free. I don't believe in such fantasies at all.

Then it can mean only two things:

1. Most people are stupid and don't understand that an online game will become unplayable if and when the servers, on which the game depends, go offline. The stupid people should be informed about the consequences of buying such games.

2. If after that they still keep buying and playing such games, all it means they don't care enough about the consequences. Their choice.

Voting with wallet works, as long as there are enough people caring enough to vote with their wallet. Just ask Bud Light or the games which have entered the "SBI detected" Steam list.

The comments section in the FAQ youtube-video is interesting. People who are very strongly for this initiative and feel that "voting with your wallet does not work"... later admit that they e.g. buy their games on Steam.

They see absolutely no contradiction there, even if most Steam games use some sort of DRM, Steam CEG and/or third-party DRM and/or requiring to log into third-party online accounts and/or Denuvo and what have you.

Someone even went on to claim that Steam in itself is a great promoter for DRM-free because it "proves" that with a great service you don't have to care about piracy and use DRM. Oh and because allegedly Steam CEG is so easy to crack that it doesn't even matter it is there (so why does Steam keep using and offering it, if it is so ineffective in what it is trying to achieve?). Yet, so many Steam games do that, even on multiple levels like using also third-party DRM and Denuvo and additional online accounts on top of the Steam account.

So, yeah, of course "voting with your wallet" does not work for you because you are voting the opposite that you are demanding, and even claiming black is white.

I guess it is mostly a case of trying to have a cake and eat it too. They don't want to make any changes to their purchasing habits, yet they demand changes to the market. It is like whining if Trump becomes a president, while voting for him.

That's what phaolo was telling you all along. Today you have discovered the hypocrisy of humans. "Congratulations"

Have you considered the possibility that these people actually did vote right but indeed it did not work?

I have never bought a game from Steam, nor have I bough any online-only game. Yet Steam remains the most popular platform and online-only games remain a thing. Clearly my vote didn't work.

Do you understand why people give up?

It sure is easy to pacify some people with the illusion that their little pennies can do anything about a massive industry. Why even have democracy at all when we can all vote without our oh-so-thick wallets...

No because they don't seem to see any contradiction there themselves. They feel they are not voting against their own wishes by buying their games on a platform that sports pretty much any kind of DRM/third-party logins/Denuvo, and even claim it actually promotes their idea of less DRM and less games as a service (because allegedly Steam "promotes the idea you don't necessarily need DRM to fight piracy, but a good service", and "Steam CEG is easy to crack anyway").

As said, the reason I am against that initiative is that I am almost certain it will make EU gamers' life worse, not better. Meaning, more AA and AAA games will go to subscription services (at least in EU) because that would most probably allow them to avoid any ill effects that the EU legislation would pose on them otherwise. Be careful what you wish for...

Voting with wallet is the only sensible way to have less DRM and less games as a service. If it fails, all it means is that there was not enough interest in it among the gamers.

Come to think of it, that kind of "the majority doesn't care about this enough or is even against it, so we must try to force it through legislation on everyone" sounds so leftists and European indeed. The political leaders forcing on citizens ideas and policies that they know are unpopular.

The argument used to be that Steam actually reduced piracy massively (with or without DRM) because using the service is so much more convenient than e.g. hunting down and installing physical copies on disc, then manually finding patches, etc. This goes back to the eraly 2000s time when games on CDs and DVDs were bundled with rather heavy DRM.

The same argument works for streaming services: why bother with torrents and shady sites when you can pay a few bux to instantly and legally stream as much movies and TV shows as you can manage to watch?

I CBA to look up the numbers but I think statistics support these arguments.

So you're completely missing the point when you note that Steam "supports" DRM.

These people happen to be buying on Steam because that's where the games are, but the argument would be the same if a DRM-free store like GOG just happened to be the mainstream platform.

If you don't agree, then we have a problem: GOG's existence is largely predicated on the idea that as long as a high quality service for obtaining games is available, people will prefer to buy there over pirating. If this were not true, GOG should be having a hard time with all the piracy.

That's what they mean when they say piracy is a service problem. Popular quote from Gabe Newell.

The fact that some publishers insist on heavy DRM anyway -- and that Steam happens to allow it -- is rather unrelated. I wouldn't mind at all. So publishers will be forced to pick a side and clearly state whether they are selling a game or selling a subscription service. If they decide to pick the evil route, and people in full knowledge of what they're getting still choose to embrace that route.. well, I guess they get what they wanted. But I think such clear distinction would make people more likely to actually vote.. with their wallet or otherwise -- it could just pave the next step for legislation against corporate abuse. And I don't think publishers can just completely shaft the EU market, given its size. Most of us don't live in direct democracy so it may be hard to understand.. but the vast majority of progress in society happens because a small minority of the population cares enough to voice their concern. The rest of the population is too busy just living their lives to even notice problems around them -- and even those who pay attention and are principled have to choose their battles. Nobody's got enough time to turn every daily action into a political statement.

So if everyone's "vote" was counted, you could say there's not enough interest in fixing things in general. But thankfully that is not how democratic society works .. stuff gets done even when the vast majority of the population isn't aware or doesn't care.

That kind of thing doesn't apply to "voting with one's wallet" at all. The companies on the receiving end of your negative vote don't even know you're voting. And the vast majority's "isn't even aware or doesn't care" is counted as a positive vote. Effectively a company has 100% positive vote for their actions if you look at the money stream. They will never see on their balance sheet "7% of potential buyers voted no."

That makes wallet-voting extremely inefficient.. unless you're a lobbying as a megacorpo with deep pockets. So I don't think there's anything sensible in such vote. But it's a good illusion to pacify the gullible who think their pennies really count. Weird.. it's not like the political right is doing direct democracy? Is the USA? No, left or right or center, we vote for our representatives and then a small minority of politically active people influence the legislative direction while the silent majority focuses on their daily existence.

If you're bitter about leftists and europeans.. then maybe you should focus less on these horribly inefficient wallet votes and get into real politics, you know? Actually vote, and write to your representatives, take part in initiatives like the one being discussed here.. become a part of the small minority that actually cares about things enough to be a part of the process that makes the laws everyone will have to abide by. If you want to take a negative stance on this initiative, you can do that too! Good luck.

Yes, but completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is about how to fight "games as a service".

If anything, Steam with DRM just enforces games as a service. After all, it is such a great service that people don't even care for the DRM that will kill their games at some point? All they care is that the service is easy to use _now_. The only reason they seem to object to e.g. third-party online accounts in Steam games is because it can be extra hassle (to create such extra accounts the first time), not because they fear it may increase the likelihood of them at some point not being able to play those games anymore (which it does, as it adds yet another layer of DRM that may and will fail at some point, hence making the game unplayable).

Just like with The Crew. It was great and all... until it stopped working. Then then idiots woke up "hey what is this, why can't I play this game anymore?". Well, they got exactly what they paid for, they were just too stupid to understand it.

Actually they claim there has been a surge in downloading movies and especially TV-series as torrents because people are fed up with hunting them down (and paying) on many competing streaming services, and also because people started becoming annoyed of streaming services pulling out TV series and movies abruptly from the services.

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/10/piracy-is-surging-again-because-streaming-execs-ignored-the-lessons-of-the-past/

https://nypost.com/2024/01/07/entertainment/demand-for-pirated-tv-film-at-highest-point-in-years-heres-why/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-disney-and-warner-bros-are-causing-internet-piracy-to-boom

No, I am completely getting the point. They want to eat the cake and keep it too. They don't want to put their money where their mouth is, by voting with their wallet (= not buy games with DRM, which basically are "games as a service" even if you don't necessarily have to keep paying monthly for them).

Well, they are in fact voting with their wallets, but to the opposite way than what their demands are: they buy DRM and live games, showing the publishers that it is ok to release such games. And at the same time they whine those games give the publishers a power to control whether they can play their purchased games.

I just find it silly, no, retarded, that they at the same time vote for more DRM and more live games with their wallets... and then claim voting with a wallet does not work and have the audacity to whine that publishers have the technical power to disable their games. Duh, of course voting with your wallet doesn't work when you are voting the opposite, idiots!

For all we know, maybe they do. I haven't visited them but some people here have claimed there are pirate sites offering pretty much all GOG games online, even trying to look like the GOG site.

That is just something with which the publishers may have to cope, get over the uncomfortable thought that many people are playing their game(s) without paying for them, even if they still get good money from those who do pay for them. It is natural to feel that way, similarly like in the Napster times multimillionaire (or billionaire?) Metallica was eagerly after anyone who'd had the audacity to download their songs for free, even if I am sure they already had more money back then that they'd ever spend in their life, and the money would still keep pouring in even with the pirates around.

When a game developer/publisher gets over the anger of 20 million Chinese and Russian playing their game for free while 2 million legit users have paid and made them good money (partly even for the fact they don't use strong DRM with their game), that's a good start. In a way I understand many can't get over that thought, they are just appalled on the thought someone, even one, is playing and enjoying their game without paying for it.

Also, the main point of GOG's service isn't really ease of use. It is that you can rest assured your games don't have strings attached where the publisher or the digital store can decide for you whether you can play the game or not. "The Crew" problem couldn't happen with GOG games, then again it naturally means GOG couldn't carry such live service games, and still claim to offer that service with said game.

They mentioned it in the context whether Steam promotes the idea of games as a service, or not. Their claim was that it doesn't, and buying games from Steam does not in any way contradict with the wish of games not being offered as a service where the publisher or digital store can decide whether you can play the game or not.

While you could claim Valve is mostly agnostic about DRM, they still allow third-party DRM, extra online accounts, Denuvo etc. on the games they carry, and also offer their own form of DRM, Steam CEG. So while Steam does not force DRM on all games they carry, I don't feel they are really impartial about DRM either, especially as they offer their own DRM as well.

No, it is the whole point, and shows those people are wrong when they feel buying games from Steam does not contradict their demands of games not being offered as services that the publisher can inactivate at some point.

Only in EU. They could keep doing business normally in other parts of the world.

Maybe Valve would come up with their own streaming service, only for EU, where the publishers can sell their games as a monthly service in the EU zone. It actually wouldn't even have to be a streaming service, it could just as well be that you still install the games on your PC but there is so heavy DRM that Valve or the publisher can deactivate the games if one is not paying up e.g. a monthly subscription service.

There, problem solved. Publishers can still get money from the EU gamers, without having to abide to the new EU regulations of coming up with some stupid "exit plan" for their games. Would EU gamers be better off then? No, worse.

It might even lessen the amount of late DRM-free editions arriving years after release to GOG and elsewhere, if the publishers become too comfortable with that new subscription service. After all, the whole existence of GOG depends on GOG users voting with their wallets, ie. preferring buying their games from GOG instead of more popular sites, and the publisher feeling releasing also on GOG brings them enough extra money to make it worth it.

If voting with wallet does not work ie. it doesn't matter how many people buy their games from GOG, then I guess GOG and we, the GOG customers, are really screwed, aren't we?

Oh but they do pay attention to the negative votes, ie. people not watching their movie or TV series or buying their game or subscribing to their service. Here is one example:

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/third-person-shooter/oof-suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league-lost-warner-bros-200-million-which-is-25-million-more-than-the-original-2016-movie-cost-to-make/

So yeah, Warner Bros noticed that last year they made massive amounts of money with the Hogwarts Legacy game, while for some reason now they are making massive losses with Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League.

Whether they will fully understand why Hogwarts Legacy was such a big hit while Suicide Squad is a big bomb, that remains to be seen. They have top men trying to figure that one out. Top, men. Either way, they certainly have now noticed the "negative votes".

It seems we understand the term "voting with your wallet" very differently.

What has made Steam so successful? People have voted with their wallets. It didn't need EU legislation to become a success.

Why did the Suicide Squad game bomb? Because people voted with their wallets, by not playing and paying for that game.

See? Voting with your wallet works great. Now, of course, your one wallet vote may seem insignificant... but so does your "real vote" in elections and shit. For instance, the last time I voted in the EU parliament elections, my MEP didn't get through. Wow, clearly voting with a vote doesn't work, right?

I am European, but quite critical towards the ongoing shift of power from national European countries to EU. Even though back in the day I actually voted for joining EU, but in hindsight we should have done the same as Sweden, keep our own currency while joining EU.

One of the reasons I don't want EU to meddle with my gaming. They'd probably fuck it up anyway.

Fortunately I am pretty confident this initiative will not fly. EU commission and parliament will be like "WTF is this initiative anyway? About video games, something about publishers making some exit plans for... live service games, whatever those are? Erm, right, moving on...".

Videochat August 2024

"Here's the August videochat. There's discussion of SKG-related questions for the first portion, then the usual random questions after that.

European Citizen's Initiative:
https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home
"

Nothing new. And nothing absolute. I remember when, due to unadressed compatibility issues in file format (only rationale here) the typical basic user to "are you using Microsoft Office?" was just "What else?"

You mean far far away in ye olde land of the Mule (which is very close to the High Seas)?