'A game, once sold, belongs to the customer': Prominent EU politician stands up for Stop Killing Games

[Zed Clampet]

'A game, once sold, belongs to the customer': Prominent EU politician stands up for Stop Killing Games

Nicolae Ștefănuță, a Vice President of the EU Parliament, signed the Stop Killing Games petition.

www.pcgamer.com

Got to say, I love the consumer protection side of the EU. If we can eliminate this concept that companies can revoke your game license, I would write letters to every major publisher, including Valve, just to laugh at them.

Overall this Stop Killing Games movement is turning out great.

 

[Colif]

Well, to be fair, a purchase isn't the same as a rental, no matter how games companies want to spin it. We aren't saying we own the IP but generally if you buy any hardware, its yours once you get it home. Same with software, as long as the hardware exists to use it, it should work.
There are exceptions:

• Switch 2 if you don't buy it from Nintendo, might just stop working if Daddy Nintendo don't profit off sale. They also killing off the 2nd hand market at same time, for games and consoles.
• Features in Mercedes cars might stop working if you stop paying for the subscription
• Hardware makers not making drivers for hardware that is over 10 years old, they not making any money off that sale any more so why keep supporting it - I can understand this one.

Companies are pushing back on us owning anything that doesn't require ongoing payments. I am pushing away from all the ones who want to try.

Making games online only and then not patching them towards EOL so that they work without those servers is why that movement exists. Too many online only games that have no reason to be online apart from the fact you can kill it at end.

 

[Pifanjr]

The article has a mistake in it. It says

It has already cleared the 1 million minimum signatures required to become an official Citizens' Initiative, but still needs to meet minimum thresholds for some EU nations. After hitting those minimums, it will need to go through the process of verifying all those signatures before getting a meeting with the European Commission.

The initiative only needs to meet the minimum thresholds for 7 EU nations. It currently meets it for 24 of them.

It's also good to know that the 1 million minimum signatures requirement is for verified signatures. If after verification there are less than 1 million signatures left the initiative will still fail.

---

I do wonder if this initiative will just result in a slight reword of the terms and conditions and maybe a requirement that a studio has to stop selling the game at least a month in advance of stopping the servers. Or maybe we're just going back to monthly subscriptions so no one can claim they've bought the game when the servers are shut down.

 

[Frindis]

"If owning isn't keeping, piracy isn't stealing." - Internet.

 

[Colif]

a studio has to stop selling the game at least a month in advance of stopping the servers.

That would only work if the game doesn't have physical copies. Not many game do that now so there is that.
Three months is a more reasonable time period. One year would be better still. Then its only if entire studio closes before the year, that the players might suffer before getting some value out of purchase.

Or maybe we're just going back to monthly subscriptions so no one can claim they've bought the game when the servers are shut down.

They wouldn't want that, it potentially reduces the number of victims... i mean, players who might not pick up the game if there is an ongoing cost. I can see it working for games with both online and off-line choices. Pay to play online if you want that side of things.

 

[Pifanjr]

"If owning isn't keeping, piracy isn't stealing." - Internet.

I believe the phrase is typically "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing". Which is dumb, because piracy has never been stealing and there are plenty of things you pay for that don't result in you owning anything. Lifetime access with a one-time payment exists for other stuff as well.

 

[Frindis]

@Pifanjr True, but it is more edgy to say and to be considered more of a small jab at the industry than being particularly nuanced.

We also have the growing problems of owning something, but not really owning it, repair-wise. That is even more shittier in my eyes. Our phones is just a small example of this and it is a great way for the companies to hold our devices hostage. You don't have the right screw? Well, kakapo you (if you don't have Ifixit or similar tools), because we do, we made them, so you can't have them.

 

[DXCHASE]

Im all for this movement but this would never make it in the US. Too many lobbyists and money to keep that subdued. Heck, our government just struck down a law that would force apps with subscriptions to give us an easy way to cancel said subscriptions.

I would love to be wrong here though.

 

[BeardyHat]

• Features in Mercedes cars might stop working if you stop paying for the subscription

It's only a matter of time before that's the case in all cars. Toyota has even experimented with it.

Not to mention, cars are so complicated these days and everything integrated, that even a "simple" headlight change can cost a fortune. Companies don't want you owning your things, repairing them, using them again, because it cuts into their profits overall. Why sell you a thing once when it can be a recurring payment?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cREDsEsbAPo

 

[Zloth]

Heck, our government just struck down a law that would force apps with subscriptions to give us an easy way to cancel said subscriptions.

Wait, what? That got struck down??

 

[Pifanjr]

Wait, what? That got struck down??

The FTC rule was set to go into effect on Monday, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said this week that the FTC made a procedural error by failing to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is required for rules whose annual impact on the U.S. economy is more than $100 million.

The FTC claimed that it did not have to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis because it initially determined that the rule’s impact on the national economy would be less than $100 million. An administrative law judge decided that the economic impact would be more than the $100 million threshold.

The court decided to vacate the rule.

“While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission’s rulemaking process are fatal here,” the court wrote.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/ftc-click-to-cancel-30db2be07fdcb8aefd0d4835abdb116a

I would think they could just fix their error and pass it anyway, but apparently it doesn't work like that.

 

[Colif]

I love how fixing it would result in massive losses, almost like it was designed to be as hard to cancel as possible, on purpose. And I expect many were.
Its why I ignore free subscription offers that require a credit card to "register", so easy to forget and so hard to figure out how to stop it.

 

[Johnway]

As a supporter of SKG from the start, i welcome the news of people in power in favor of the initiative. The response from the gaming industry has been predictably negative and frankly pathetic. i wouldn't be surprised that they will implement negative actions to spite the consumer. You know bs things like:

- increasing price of games to factor in EOL development or loss of revenue from future development...
- ...resulting in firing of staff because of lack of revenue.
- popular game series not getting sequels, because AAA(A) can't keep releasing sequel after sequel and can't/won't spin new ips and diversify.
- Change the T&C to a subscription led gaming service. Kinda like what they're doing now.


The sad part is that there are people who are apathetic to the erosion of consumer rights and believe that SKG is NEGATIVE for gaming (i'm not talking about piratesoftware). Hell i wouldn't be surprised if someone blames the death of games on SKGs which is stupid. i

Anthem is getting shut down and this highlights the need for legislation/law to protect games. Lets face it, the industry aren't motivated/willing to save their games because of short term profit.

 

[DXCHASE]

Its why I ignore free subscription offers that require a credit card to "register", so easy to forget and so hard to figure out how to stop it.

That was definitely one of the reasons for this bill. These companies 100% rely on forgetting to cancel and make the largest part of their profit off it.

 

[Colif]

One company keeps wanting to give me a "free" upgrade from the regular service for 3 months, but naturally I need to put credit card details in to finish deal. Pass, I don't need it. Only want subscriptions to things I actually use every week.

 

[Frindis]

I love how fixing it would result in massive losses, almost like it was designed to be as hard to cancel as possible, on purpose. And I expect many were.
Its why I ignore free subscription offers that require a credit card to "register", so easy to forget and so hard to figure out how to stop it.

I often use a secondary credit card for "dumb" online purchases. So if I ever forget to cancel anything, they can't do much about it since there won't be any money on it. From time to time, I also renew my credit cards (which is free) before they expire. That way, I stay on top of any possible scams related to the card, and companies I forgot to cancel a subscription with will have a card that doesn't work.

To be honest, this is probably overdoing it just a tad because normally I remember to cancel the subscriptions. Far as I remember, I have only ever been charged for a new month of subscription, and that was with Amazon Prime some years back, so not that much of a loss.

 

[Charagma]

Sorry to fall into the topic here. Just need a bit of Clarity that you guys (or girls) might have more information on.

Correct me if I am wrong but the original "Law" says that we are only buying "playtime" and not the actual product. E.g I buy (lack of better term) a game on steam, but this only grants me play rights and not the actual title.

I had an Issue with steam a while back where I lost my login details and could not access my Gmail. I had to wait to get to my hometown (about 6 hours' drive) to get my old Sim card that was locked up to get the SMS from steam. During my no-play time Origin made an upgrade in their Portal and I was unable to access any of my Origin games. The response from STEAM was it is "not their problem if I could not access my games since I do not actually own anything". I took matters in my own hands, bypassed all the outside portals to games and downloaded the pirated version of them. Piracy but ......legally paid piracy (If that makes sense). I still have my games, and Steam still has their money.

If the law gets passed to that we do actually own the titles, would they just not start blocking on portal access? "You have your game, now lets see you try and play it?" kind of thing.

Just trying to get some clarity of what this law is currently and what it might become.

 

[Pifanjr]

Sorry to fall into the topic here. Just need a bit of Clarity that you guys (or girls) might have more information on.

Correct me if I am wrong but the original "Law" says that we are only buying "playtime" and not the actual product. E.g I buy (lack of better term) a game on steam, but this only grants me play rights and not the actual title.

I had an Issue with steam a while back where I lost my login details and could not access my Gmail. I had to wait to get to my hometown (about 6 hours' drive) to get my old Sim card that was locked up to get the SMS from steam. During my no-play time Origin made an upgrade in their Portal and I was unable to access any of my Origin games. The response from STEAM was it is "not their problem if I could not access my games since I do not actually own anything". I took matters in my own hands, bypassed all the outside portals to games and downloaded the pirated version of them. Piracy but ......legally paid piracy (If that makes sense). I still have my games, and Steam still has their money.

If the law gets passed to that we do actually own the titles, would they just not start blocking on portal access? "You have your game, now lets see you try and play it?" kind of thing.

Just trying to get some clarity of what this law is currently and what it might become.

As far as I know, Steam is only responsible for managing the license, they aren't responsible for making sure you get what you paid for. That's the responsibility of whoever is selling the license through Steam.

 

[JCgames]

Wait, what? That got struck down??

I was surpised it did not pass, but then agian they also pulled public broad cast funding which most covers rural communities with no other option so nothing surprises me these days.

But im surprised subs are such an issue. People really need to check their credit card statements. I double check every single payment but apparently that is not the norm. then agian i think there is an app that manages subs and has one click cancelations. Sorta like the credit company one that licks your creidit so people cant steal your identity and take out ccs in your name.

That reminds me i need to cancel nfl ticket, before it re-ups. If you cancel most places give you a discount to come back

 

[Johnway]

Sorry to fall into the topic here. Just need a bit of Clarity that you guys (or girls) might have more information on.

Correct me if I am wrong but the original "Law" says that we are only buying "playtime" and not the actual product. E.g I buy (lack of better term) a game on steam, but this only grants me play rights and not the actual title.

I had an Issue with steam a while back where I lost my login details and could not access my Gmail. I had to wait to get to my hometown (about 6 hours' drive) to get my old Sim card that was locked up to get the SMS from steam. During my no-play time Origin made an upgrade in their Portal and I was unable to access any of my Origin games. The response from STEAM was it is "not their problem if I could not access my games since I do not actually own anything". I took matters in my own hands, bypassed all the outside portals to games and downloaded the pirated version of them. Piracy but ......legally paid piracy (If that makes sense). I still have my games, and Steam still has their money.

If the law gets passed to that we do actually own the titles, would they just not start blocking on portal access? "You have your game, now lets see you try and play it?" kind of thing.

Just trying to get some clarity of what this law is currently and what it might become.

SKG is more interested in making sure the game is still playable after everything is shut down. its not really after ownership of content or any copyright (much as critics try to argue that as a reason).

All the initiative wants is that in the future, when you develop games and code the games, they have robust sunsetting strategies that allow for the game after the services are shutdown. This could be as simple as just removing/patching out online security checks or giving a way for the community a way to host their own games. just like the old days. if the game is still running, publishers and Developers can have all the DRM, security features etc all they want. SKG understands that its unreasonable to hold publishers to host services till the end of time, so they will allow games to be shutdown. But when they say at is EOL its not worth money running/selling a game, they leave it in a playable state instead of burning everything to the ground.

But you bring up a good point, Piracy does more to preserve games then the publishers themselves. as they make open digital copies of the game and they're available online and in a freely accessible state without constraints. SKG doesn't want that to be the only option and wants to work with the gaming industry to come up with a way that works for everyone.

At the moment nothing is set in stone. SKG is more to get the EU and the industry together to discuss the problem and work towards a solution.