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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
You know what. I'm going to do something I've never done on the internet. Admit I was wrong. At first I thought this entire thing was going to be a whole bunch of seething and cope from the usual suspects, but seeing Pirate Software's very obvious biased bullshit coming from on high and watch how it's now ruined him, and seeing Ross actually sit there and make his arguments, things might actually start happening. I admit, I'm still a bit cynical about boomers not exactly knowing how a lot of technology works and concerned more about piracy than actually people who bought the fuckin' thing online, there is part of me that's actually hopeful that there's a good sign coming.

Ross mentioned "Right to Repair" as well, which was something that needed to be said, 'cause allowing companies to have an effective kill switch on these devices we pay thousands of dollars for is something that definitely needs to be called out. I'm still a bit worried, but hopefully more people speaking out will prevent more of these titles from being delisted for virtually no reason at all.
 
Stop Killing Games has hit the US. California's AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, just cleared two committees in the state legislature. If it passes, end-of-life support for server-dependent games stops being optional.

 
Hermiöne Granger said:
Stop Killing Games has hit the US. California's AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, just cleared two committees in the state legislature. If it passes, end-of-life support for server-dependent games stops being optional.

Click to expand...
Fuck this better keeps getting traction because if this hits US land as whole, then gaming companies really must bend in their knees and I'm looking forward to see how many will double-down on their basis of the game must remain unsupported without any end-of-life alternatives for users to keep playing it.

They really going to grasp a lot of straws if this gets to be at the right place ´´Supreme Court Copium ARC´´
 
Looks like Brexit won't stop SKG.

StopKilingGamesUK.png

Following the launch of organised campaign vehicles in the EU and US, we are pleased to announce that Gamers’ Voice has launched as the NGO vehicle for Stop Killing Games UK. Around the world, Stop Killing Games is gaining momentum: the European Citizens’ Initiative, NGOs in the US and the EU, the California POG Act, and legal cases in France. And now, the UK has its own organisation to take the fight forward in Westminster, with regulators, and in the wider public debate.

Gamers’ Voice has been created to represent players, creators and developers in UK policy discussions around video games. Its campaigns will focus on digital ownership, the shutdown of purchased games, monetisation practices, online safety rules, and the fair treatment of players.

Gamers’ Voice will serve as the UK NGO vehicle for Stop Killing Games.

🎮 The UK faces its own version of this fight​

Millions of people in Britain play video games, yet gamers are often talked about rather than spoken to.

Whether the issue is game preservation, live-service shutdowns, age verification, loot boxes, online safety laws, or proposals that could restrict young people’s ability to access, stream or socialise through games, the people affected are too often left out of the conversation.

Gamers’ Voice exists to change that.

🗣️ Some words from those involved​

(funny quotes time for the press)

Ross Scott, founder of Stop Killing Games, said:

“While much of the SKG movement has been focused in the EU, the issue of game destruction is global, so the more governments that can achieve basic protections for customers and the medium, the better. We absolutely appreciate Gamers’ Voice pushing the issue forward in the UK.”

Tom Shannon, spokesperson for Gamers’ Voice, said:

“Gaming is one of the UK’s most popular cultural activities, yet there is no dedicated voice speaking for players and creators. We are seeking to change that.”

He added:

“Too often, conversations about gaming happen without input from the people who enjoy playing games. From questions of digital ownership and monetisation practices, to proposals linked to online safety laws that could require adults to show ID to access games or restrict younger people’s ability to stream gameplay or socialise online, we want to ensure gamers are part of those conversations.”

Gamers’ Voice has already begun engaging with parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, reflecting growing recognition that gaming policy and players’ rights deserve serious attention.

Tom Gordon, Member of Parliament for Harrogate and Knaresborough, said:

“Gaming is a hugely important part of how people relax, socialise and connect. Gamers’ Voice is doing valuable work to ensure that players are properly represented and that their voices are heard in decisions that affect them.”

🚀 We are not done yet​

We have some massive news coming up. Yes, you heard that right: we are not done yet.

Some words we wanted to direct to you all, the people who are Stop Killing Games:

Gamers, as a community, as a medium, and as a form of human expression, have been beaten down for so long and so massively. We all know very well the thousands of videos over the last years about how gaming, and the internet more broadly, have gradually been made worse. And we complained, a lot.

That complaining, that anger, has finally turned into action, and by the gods did it do that.

There is a lot more to come, and we have only just started. Next big one tomorrow!

For Stop Killing Games,
Moritz Katzner
Click to expand...
 
It's probably been asked a lot before, but why do publishers want the ability to kill games so bad? It just seems to fuck them over like Concord and that other one Highguard. Instead of making a few people happy they don't have a game anymore.
 
Part of it is reflex. You want no regulations, even reasonable ones, because it might be a problem 10 years later. Part of it is to force people to the new product. You want to sell your yearly COD, shutting down old servers forces migration to a new COD. Part of it is to make remasters easier to sell.
 
Waffle Iron said:
Part of it is reflex. You want no regulations, even reasonable ones, because it might be a problem 10 years later. Part of it is to force people to the new product. You want to sell your yearly COD, shutting down old servers forces migration to a new COD. Part of it is to make remasters easier to sell.
Click to expand...
I know it's just the example you used, but all the COD game's servers are still up. Even the completely unsuable ones thanks to hackers cheating, etc. Call of Duty is what you'd call peak capitalism in gaming, and they keep them up. It's surprising.
 
Gamergate Retiree said:
It's probably been asked a lot before, but why do publishers want the ability to kill games so bad?
Click to expand...
Beyond those mentioned, it simply isn't the industry standard. Once it doesn't become the standard, it takes effort to implement (and even argue in favor of during the design process) because everyone is used to a certain pipeline. You can see a similar problem in web development. The initial impetus to get servers in-house rather than P2P or allow self-hosting was probably from the early 2010's push for more moderation and from increased microtransactions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom