Stop Killing Games Fails To Secure EU Law Despite 1.3 Million Signatures

Stop Killing Games Fails To Secure EU Law Despite 1.3 Million Signatures (dexerto.com) 27 The European Commission has declined (PDF) to propose a law requiring publishers to keep discontinued video games playable, despite the Stop Killing Games initiative collecting nearly 1.3 million verified signatures. Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry code covering end-of-life transparency and preservation. Dextero reports: The Commission's full communication said a legal obligation to keep games playable, as requested by the initiative, "would not be proportionate." It cited concerns about intellectual property rights, confidential business information, publisher costs, and potential cybersecurity or safety risks once games are no longer supported. The code of conduct could include more transparent storefront labeling about possible game discontinuation, along with more partnerships between publishers and cultural heritage institutions to preserve games. However, it would not legally require publishers to provide offline patches, private server tools, or other methods for players to continue accessing games after official support ends. The Commission also argued that existing EU consumer law already provides some safeguards, including requirements around transparency, contract duration, termination conditions, and possible refunds if a shutdown conflicts with the agreement or a consumer's reasonable expectations. [...] Despite the setback, Stop Killing Games has said it is not ending its push for legislation. In a response posted after the Commission's decision, the official Stop Killing Games account said the outcome was "not unexpected" and claimed the campaign had already prepared for the result. The group said it is now pushing for members of the European Parliament to amend Stop Killing Games into the Digital Fairness Act instead. "We can move on without the Commission and their non-decision," the group said, referencing earlier comments from Accursed Farms creator Ross Scott. [...] Despite the setback, Stop Killing Games has said it is not ending its push for legislation. In a response posted after the Commission's decision, the official Stop Killing Games account said the outcome was "not unexpected" and claimed the campaign had already prepared for the result. The group said it is now pushing for members of the European Parliament to amend Stop Killing Games into the Digital Fairness Act instead. "We can move on without the Commission and their non-decision," the group said, referencing earlier comments from Accursed Farms creator Ross Scott. online petitions mean shit (Score:1) mean shit - who is really dumb enough to think thats a thing that persuades goverment. Re: (Score:2) It's a legal initiative. https://www.europarl.europa.eu... [europa.eu] Re: online petitions mean shit (Score:3) It still has no teeth. You get to make a presentation to The Overlords, and then they get to ignore it. Didn't get me wrong, it's better than nothing, but there's no obligation for the government to do anything as far as I can tell. Re: (Score:3) The European Commission is the EU's civil service. Petitioning it was always a long shot, because for them to act you have to convince them that there is a good case within existing EU rules. They aren't there to make new rules, they are there to enforce the existing ones. They have effectively said that existing consumer protection rules don't extend far enough to force publishers to make offline patches and server code available, but in their opinion do offer some of the things being asked for already and Re: (Score:2) But to your point, yeah, it sounds like this petition was doomed to fail because they brought it to the wrong body. If you want new laws, go to the people who write them, not the people who don't. Re: (Score:2) It was worth a go, but it was always a long shot. You could interpret the current rules as requiring some of this stuff, but it's a hard case to make. Either way, it was probably necessary to demonstrate that the current rules are inadequate. Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry (Score:3) Instead, it plans to develop a voluntary industry code covering end-of-life transparency and preservation which no one will bother with. Has any voluntary industry code and self regulation EVER worked? Re: (Score:2) I'm speaking here about EU and UK politics, can't speak for the US. It's actually quite usual to do it this way. Re: (Score:2) There's always Nancy Reagan's catchphrase: Just Say No. Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. Games don't even have the network effects and lockin that you get with other types of software; it's a part of the economy where Just Saying No is easiest of all. Don't like the quality? Don't spend your money. Re: (Score:2) Has any voluntary industry code and self regulation EVER worked? Yes. Good examples can be found the world over: Media advertising standards, financial standards, heck the entire engineering profession is self regulated by its own industry. Many reporting standards are as well. As are quite a few product safety standards (the overall "don't kill people" is law, but how to achieve that is mostly driven by industry self-regulation in many parts of the world). Now there's plenty of examples where it also didn't work, and those often get followed up with actual laws, but ther Commissions position does not matter (Score:4, Interesting) As it says on the summary already - the fact that we got a non-answer from commission doesn't matter here. It would have been nice to get a legislation from there, but in the end they don't matter. Ross Scott explains it better at

[youtu.be] but the point is that SKG already has majority support in European Parliament, and the plan is basically that SKG gets tacked on by the parliament as an amendment to Digital Services Act (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act). The DSA is already supposed to do things like rein in lootboxes, so it's already addressing issues for video games. Commission's stance ultimately does not matter here at all. No need to be discouraged. Re: (Score:3) Sorry, wrong piece of legislation in progress - meant Digital Fairness Act, not Digital Services Act. https://digitalfairnessact.com... [digitalfairnessact.com] We gave up democracy (Score:2) Re: (Score:2) the European Commission is not democracy sadly! It is actually a private elitist administrative body, mandate by country governments and simply vetted or not by the EU Parliament... if they care about the uses or the industry, will depend a lot of the person on charge of that area, we had good people, but also corrupt ones. The EU Parliament is a democracy and usually much easier to reach... and they can force the Commission actions if enough support is gather make it open-source instead? (Score:1) Re: (Score:2) It might be easier to get them to open up just the netcode portion, as they may have legitimate concerns about protecting the game engine code. Especially if they're using someone else's engine (UE, Unity...). Which reminds me that they might not actually own the netcode either, that may be 3rd party as well. And we can't really expect them Copyrigh (Score:5, Insightful) was created so artists would release their work to the public and be compensated. So why do we offer copyrights on stuff that is not made available or removed from the market. How about we change the law into something that removes copyright when it's not available, or no longer available. We need to change the laws that allow lock in, or that change the terms after purchase. Re: (Score:2) So why do we offer copyrights on stuff that is not made available or removed from the market. Because the rights to products exist for potential market re-entry. E.g. if I create the new latest and greatest thing, and remove it from market I retain the right to use said thing a year later. Just because it's not on sale doesn't give others the right to the creation. Now that's purely copyright / licensing issue. There's further questions of what constitutes a product and what constitutes a temporary license. But the copyright argument is barking up the wrong tree. Copyright is given for a (way too lon Re: (Score:2) Bigger problem, copyright was never meant to last so long. As technology has advanced it becomes possible to make more media more quickly, so if anything copyright terms should have been shrunk, but they've been extended instead. The single most important thing to fix about copyright is reducing the terms. Re: (Score:2) Let People Enjoy Things [knowyourmeme.com] Re: (Score:2) Wait until the subscription servers for the heated seats in your car are shut down to save tens of dollars in operating costs. Re: (Score:2) Just because your life is a shitshow of chaos that requires your focus doesn't mean others don't have the spare capacity to complain about these things. Maybe organize your life around something else than digital hoarding Who said hording? Hording is the compulsion to accumulate things, especially things you don't use. Wanting to play a game and being unable to isn't hoarding. In fact it's the opposite, it's actively using the thing you bought for its intended purpose. ADHD Speaking of opposites, people with ADHD typically aren't concerned about long term duration of an activity be Always love the Cybersecurity angle!! (Score:2)