Re: Video games Europe - Seriously?

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 08:27:59 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

This one came up in relation to the whole Stop Killings Games initiative
and content creator Pirate Software*. Something called Videogames Europe
- https://www.videogameseurope.eu/ - which presents itself as a champion
of the consumer. That's sound good, as do some of their polices, right
up until you look at the board members.
>
So we have Epic, EA, Activision, Mircrosoft to name but a few. Yeh right
because those companies are really champions of consumers and this isn't
just a lobbying group for some of the big players hoping that the EU
won't get involved.
>
*Fascinating stuff I must say, it seems to be based on Stop Killing game
are trying to get petitions signed with enough number that respective
governments are legally required to at least consider what they are
proposing - in a nutshell, all games (both single and multiplayer)
should be developed with a sunset plan so when the company decides to no
longer support them they can still be played in some reasonable form
without the companies involvement at all. I like the idea but of not
sure of the practicalities especially when it comes to live services games.
>
The internet drama seems to have come about as Pirate Software basically
called it stupid and he would actively being trying to get his community
not to sign up to it. It then all blow up as after many months Stop
Killing Games released a video explaining the Pirate Software had really
misunderstood what they were asking for. This is were it all got even
worse as Pirate Software pretty much doubled down on his position and
claimed to be completely right in what he had said. Then he played the
victim card.
>
Of course this being the internet people started digging into his
background and the funny one I saw is it seems on his streams he digital
manipulates his voice so it sounds deeper. There was a interview with
him at a games conference and all I can say is he must have smoked a lot
of cigarettes since then.

I saw all this in passing, but didn't really care to dig deeper into
the matter -Intenet drama bores me- but, in the name of keeping
informed, I appreciate the summary.

I've generally stayed away from Stop Killing Games just because -as
much as I agree with their goal- it's a lost cause from the start.
There's too much legal precedent and money against it ever gaining any
sort of traction, especially for as spurious a medium as video games
(which, given the age of the average litigator, is assumed to be
something only little kids play and thus lacking any and all artistic
integrity). Its end goals are too vague too; how, exactly, can you
prevent a publisher from killing games without overreaching
legislation?

     [Not that I'm entirely opposed to that sort of legislation;
      I'd love if there was a legal obligation to put DRM keys
      and source code into escrow, to be released to the public
      if a publisher goes defunct or doesn't distributed for a
      certain length of time. But we can't even get regular
      copyrights down to a reasonable term so I've no expectations
      that we'd ever see such drastic action taken for software]

All the signatures in the world won't matter a jot if Microsoft or EA
use their money to say no to the idea. The Pirate Software guy was an
ass to oppose it, but his actions didn't affect the outcome.
Publishers are going to keep killing games and we as gamers aren't
going to have anything to say about it.

Not legally, anyway.




(