Stop Killing Games (EU edition) - Moldman vs. Publishers

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Hermiöne Granger said:
SKG must be very close now to the goal, i cant load the web page either, i get the message 'Server inaccessibility' .. wtf is going on???.. are idiots ddosing the fucking EU web page??..
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are just F5'ing to see the 1 mil (or sign to be the 1 millionth), the tracker got stuck here and gave me this error
 

Attachments

  • 1751553440551.webp
    1751553440551.webp
    14.3 KB · Views: 4
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Eadred and The Tall Man
Will the whole thing be getting thrown out, if it reaches 1 million signatures but doesn't meet certain country thresholds? Last time I checked Cyprus and Luxembourg didn't meet theirs.

Screenshot_2025-07-03-17-07-12-29_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.webp

Yep, everybody wants to be the millionth signee lol
 
Last edited:
Eadred said:
Will the whole thing be getting thrown out, if it reaches 1 million signatures but doesn't meet certain country thresholds? Last time I checked Cyprus and Luxembourg didn't meet theirs.

View attachment 7594511

Yep, everybody wants to be the millionth signee lol
Click to expand...
No, the minimum number of countries to reach the threshold has been passed during the beginning of the campaign.
Iirc 7 countries need to reach the threshold.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Eadred
I've been refreshing on occasions this morning and I'm glad to see the petition skyrocket like it did. Good job europoors! You were not a faggot for once.
 
I'm just passing through. MrSlongDong, I suggest watching the video linked at the bottom (from which all of the following quotes originate from) if you wish to have a better perspective of your opposition.
As a preface, I do think your point on the EU's over-regulation with diminishing returns is interesting. I suppose that is the price to pay when the government errs on the consumers' side. I also don't wish to change your stance on this, but discussions here could benefit with talking points straight from the source. Emphasis and dashes (added to make formatting easier) mine. Ross also makes mention of points and concepts - they are featured in the FAQ video, so that's another reason to watch it for best context - I won't link them here for brevity.

1:
MrSlongDong said:
I think the immediate contradiction in the petition is the fact that they want games to remain "in a playable state" when the games are being shut down.
Click to expand...
Q: Isn't this initiative too vague?
A: There's a few layers to this question. (...) And it's not actually supposed to be final law. Like, did you know there's a word limit to it? It's supposed to be a basic explanation and your reasons for it. And you have to cite which EU directives apply to show that the EU has authority for it. Oh, yeah, that was a lot of fun doing that part.

Also, have you looked at any of the other initiatives? This one: "Tax the rich." This initiative does not give a number as to what qualifies as "rich". Or this one, creation of an "environmental authority". That's talking about creating a new agency. Do you have any idea how many rules and regulations that would take? That would be books worth.

So we could be more specific, but it wouldn't matter. That's not our job. That's the EU Commission's job. In some ways, this slide I posted is more important than the initiative itself, because this roughly reflects the views of the organizers, the people who would be going to Brussels to discuss this with the EU.

Another layer to this is the law itself can be vague or broad. Like, you know, police officers, they have to have "reasonable suspicion" to stop someone. And they need "probable cause" to arrest someone. What does that mean? Yeah, see, you have to use some common sense because the law can't cover every last scenario.

Like, say an officer sees somebody who he thinks has weed on him. But it turns out it's just a bag of oregano. Do we need to write a law saying that if you're holding a bag of oregano, then that counts as reasonable suspicion? Well, what if we forgot to write a law for a bag of dried parsley? See, it just doesn't work.

And it's the same for games. Like in the initiative, some were asking what is meant by a "reasonably functional" or "playable" state. Well, if it's a racing game, I would think that means you race cars in the game world. If it's an arena shooter, I would think that means you enter game maps and shoot at other players. If it's an RPG, boy, that could mean fight monsters, talk to NPCs, use items, manage your inventory, lots of stuff.

But what if we try to be specific and make the law race cars in the game world? Well, does that work for the arena shooter or the RPG? I mean, I guess a few of them, but not most. It just won't work.

Same goes for technology. What works code-wise for an arena shooter probably doesn't work for an MMO. That's why we leave it to the developer. Some were complaining about that. Well, the alternative would be to mandate exactly how every company writes the code that fixes their game. Not only is that unrealistic, nobody wants that. Specific rules do not work for all games, so you have to be broad.
-----
Q: Under your initiative, do all features need to work when the game is shut down?
A: This is another point a few members disagree on. Me, I'd say no, but it's kind of a spectrum. We have that phrase "reasonably playable state".

So let's say you have an online arena shooter, it shuts down, the company releases an end-of-life patch, and everything works except for achievements and matchmaking. Well, I think most people would say, "Yeah, good enough. The game's saved. It works."

But then let's say you had another game, it shuts down, and you can technically start it, but all you can do is get to the main menu and nothing works past that. Well, in that other game, I think most people would not consider that a "reasonably playable state".

So that game might face a higher chance of receiving complaints to the Consumer Protection Agency in that country.

So I can't tell you exactly where the dividing line is, but the more the game works, the more it's likely to be an acceptable solution.
Click to expand...

2:
MrSlongDong said:
It’s not that “you own nothing”, it’s that you did not pay for the game. Most modern video games operate under a free-to-play model that depends entirely on (1) active player base and (2) in-game purchases (which are optional) NOT upfront sale.
Click to expand...
Q: Would this initiative affect free games?
Well, that depends. Is the game truly "free", as in "freeware"? If yes, then no, it would be exempt. Do anything you want.

But if it's "free-to-play" and has microtransactions sold as one-time purchases with no expiration date, then you're not entitled to the game, but you are entitled to those purchased microtransactions, which need the game to function.

So... yes.
Click to expand...

3:
MrSlongDong said:
Expecting publishers to keep every server, license, and feature alive forever ignores this simple fact, that innovation and renewal always bring some level of closure for what came before
Click to expand...
Q: Do you expect companies to keep running servers forever?
A: No. They can end support and turn off servers whenever they want. But they have to do it in a responsible way, like Gran Turismo Sport, Knockout City, Duelyst, and so on.
-----
Q: I'm a developer of an online-only game. What options do I have?
A: Okay, first off, I can't answer this question 100%, because (...) things will change. So a lot of this depends on what the EU decides. We'll start with existing games. You may have several options, though most of them are not ideal. But remember point one and point three.

Option one: you can come up with an end-of-life plan to keep it working after shutdown. Though that may not be possible. See, you could have licenses and middleware that you don't have permission to distribute. Or you know what? Maybe you just don't want to work on the game anymore. I get it.

Option two: you could shut down the game before the law went into effect. Yes, that sucks. But you think it doesn't suck for the consumer every time every other game gets shut down? And the quick-to-react people out there might say, "Oh look, this proposal is going to kill games!" You mean games that were on death row and were going to get killed anyway? So yes, this would move the timetable up, but the aftermath would be everything gets saved.

Option three, maybe-- this one depends on the EU. You can move to a subscription model instead. Now this is probably a losing proposition in the long term, we know. But then at least customers are informed how much time they have left at any given time.

Option four, another maybe. Make a best effort to let the customer repair or run the game after shutdown. So this could be server binaries, maybe server source code. Again, not mandatory. Releasing packet documentation, I'll bring up that slide again. Removing DRM and so on. Something to give users a fighting chance.

And option five, another maybe. All games get grandfathered in and none of this applies to existing games. This would kill the most games, but this is probably the option most developers would want.

Now that's for existing games. For future games, it's everything I just mentioned, which have multiple maybes. Except for grandfathering and shutting down before the law is active, obviously.

I realize this is less than ideal, but remember point three. We have to break the loop of games being designed with no end-of-life plan. Otherwise, this excuse gets perpetuated forever and progress becomes impossible.
Click to expand...

4:
MrSlongDong said:
The petition (unless I misunderstood it) says that they want the right to play the game but none of the obligations attached to it. How are they going to run massive servers without monetization? How are they going to deal with licensing and IP within the game? How are they going to deal with personal data of the players?
Click to expand...
In addition to options for online game devs above:

Q: What about people who are banned from online games?
A: Well, as long as the company is still supporting the game, they still stay banned. However, as a customer, they would be entitled to an end-of-life patch, whenever that was. So, it might be a year. It might be 15 years. Could be a pretty long ban. To have anything else would create a loophole for developers, where they could just ban all customers at the end of life, and skirt around the requirement that way, so...
-----
Q: Wouldn't it be a security risk for companies to release their server software?
A: Mostly no, but there are some cases yes, this is a valid argument. Particularly when a company shuts down a game, but they have a new game that runs on the same engine. So if users find exploits on the old engine, they have them for the new one potentially.
I swear I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I have to call on points one and three again. So the question is, are these outlier cases where this is a problem, a good enough excuse to destroy all online-only games?
-----
Q: Doesn't this initiative intrude upon developer rights and freedom?
A: That is a valid argument to make, and we respect it 100% for free games.

But once you start taking money to sell or lease something, you enter the world of commerce. And taking people's money means you're assuming more responsibility for your actions. Every nation has rules on this.

So, technically, yes, but that's to balance with BUYER rights and freedoms. If a health inspector tells a restaurant it needs to follow certain procedures, does that intrude upon a chef's rights and freedoms? Yes, but as a society, we generally think that's worth it. Now, that's about safety. This is about preservation and consumer rights.

Of course, I'm going to land on "no". The cost is too high for everyone else.
Click to expand...

5:
MrSlongDong said:
I don't know what kind of gamer anarcho-communist utopia you think you have in mind but studios don't want to release their product for free
Click to expand...
Q: Under your proposal, when a game shuts down, does that mean everyone gets the game for free?
A: No, only existing customers will be entitled to their copies.
Now, that's less than ideal for preservation, but to have anything else would have to upend copyright law, and forget it. Besides, you never know. Some companies just release old games for free anyway, but it would be their choice.
Click to expand...
Apologies if I misunderstood this part.

6:
MrSlongDong said:
Vote with your wallet - the same way you’d pick a fridge that actually works offline. That’s market discipline.
Click to expand...
Q: Why don't you just not buy games that require an online connection, and vote with your wallet?
A: Well for starters, we prefer to vote with our votes. We think it's more democratic.

But the main reason is, this doesn't accomplish our goals. I mean, our goal is to save games we like. So if we buy the game, it gets destroyed. If we don't buy the game, it gets destroyed. So... I mean, why don't you not listen to music you like? Or why don't you not watch movies you like? What exactly are we doing then?

Of course, the real answer is, why aren't we boycotting games that do this? Well, that's easy. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not sure a boycott of a game has ever worked. Ever.

And if it has, then what I'm really sure of, is no game that's ENJOYABLE has ever had a successful boycott. Like, I think the one for "Modern Warfare 2" is a meme at this point. And boycotts have been tried. This is advocating for something with a 100% failure rate. I would bet money on that not working. What we're doing is trying something that has never been done before, so it MIGHT work.
Click to expand...

Video:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verpa Teutonica Ingens, Quioui and MrSlongDong
I have to admit, it's something I never really believed in. Mainly because of brand loyalism is rampant and because gamers aren't the brightest people in the room. I never expected much from the same kind of people that whale out for anime girls on mobile games.

I also believed that any initiative that didn't call gamers retarded for buying consoles on release or buying overpriced AAA garbage was never going to succeed, glad to know I was also proven wrong here.

All we needed was a malding faggot to make fun of. Funny how life works sometimes. Whether or not it succeeds after this, I hope that the ideas here get adopted by developers who care about them in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verpa Teutonica Ingens, Suikafag and Squawking Macaw
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back