The European Commission released their full position now on the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, and it's not the response many will have been hoping for.
  • Chee_Koala@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17 days

    “They say that existing EU consumer law “already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers”, and note that video game publishers have to inform about “the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game”.”

    Well that would be cool, but anything about the duration and conditions for terminating the contract i’ve ever read on boxes or terms of service is: " We can do whatever we like, whenever we like, just so we’re clear’ (im slightly paraphrasing). So it sound to me like the EC says: " Well these sellers said fuck you up front so they’re immune to any responsibility". Cool, cool. I saw a digital fairness act, but maybe we can hang something up in the mandated warranty tree? So if a game shuts down in 6 months barring you from playing, you would be entitled to some form of restitution instead of hoping the dev has morals.

    Still doesn’t solve that corpo’s have their fingers over the killbuttons on our cultural heritage existence, so, you know, there’s a lot of work to do still.

    • Patrikvo@lemmy.zipEnglish
      16 days

      o it sound to me like the EC says: " Well these sellers said fuck you up front so they’re immune to any responsibility"

      Upfront? As in the UELA you get to read after opening the box, at which point you can’t return the game anymore?

    • ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      17 days

      Its not the eu’s job to protect cultural heritage. What kind of nut job comes to conclusions like this?

      • Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        17 days

        here is a quote from the european commision:

        the EU is committed to safeguarding and enhancing Europe’s cultural heritage.

        • ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          17 days

          Well that’s a broad interpretation of a translation into a language no EU country officially speaks. So…

          • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
            16 days

            Out of all “internet commenters who could not admit they were wrong,” this is quite high ranking in my memory.

            I will remember you, friend.

          • BastingChemina@slrpnk.netEnglish
            16 days

            L’Union européenne a pour mission de soutenir et de compléter les actions menées par les États membres pour préserver et promouvoir le patrimoine culturel de l’Europe.

            Better ?

            • ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              15 days

              Well you can’t really argue video games are culture except the ones that are but they don’t count.

          • Azzu@leminal.spaceEnglish
            16 days

            Dude, it’s ok to be wrong sometimes, no one would judge you :) In fact, it’s a sign of strength to be able to admit you’re wrong, and people will like you more for it. It’ll also be good for you personally as you will be more effective in more things :)

          • MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
            16 days

            How fragile is your ego when you have to say “nuh uh” to something so unambiguous?

  • Err(()).unwrap()@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17 days

    I see a lot of defeatist commenters are content to lie down and let this be the end result. I’ll let the man himself explain why this isn’t the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgoODQFrPgw&t=734s

    tl;dw: There is a much broader support for SKG in the European Parliament, the other legislative body besides the EC. They can’t introduce new legislation, but they can modify existing legislation; specifically, SKG is targeting the Digital Fairness Act.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      17 days

      There is a much broader support for SKG in the European Parliament, the other legislative body besides the EC

      Ah, the one that’s actually VOTED for (rather than appointed by “The Council”) is more responsive to the will of the people! Imagine that!

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17 days

      Definitely not the end of the movement, but it’s still disappointing that they reached anything other than the obvious conclusion with so much grassroots support.

      • Jesus_666@lemmy.worldEnglish
        17 days

        Expected, though. The EC is not exactly known for having sensible opinions.

  • Hond@piefed.socialEnglish
    17 days

    As it is the tradition in the sector, I hope the industry will listen to player communities and agree on better sunsetting standards so communities can continue to meet and play together.

    lol. lmao even.

  • Mordikan@kbin.earth
    17 days

    Well, I called that one.

    It’s not even a matter of corruption, it’s basic intellectual property rights and asking for those rights to be eroded. I’m not saying these companies aren’t evil, they are evil as fuck! But to ask the EU to make a bunch of illogical changes doesn’t make sense. Enforcement of existing consumer rights is what I said would likely result and hopefully that is true. You can do a lot within the existing framework without having to use some poorly thought out nuclear option.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17 days

      I know of no examples where people rose up to demand enforcement of existing laws and rights and something changed, but I’d love to learn that I’m wrong. The lack of enforcement usually shows a gap where the law didn’t cover the real world scenario diligently enough.

      • Mordikan@kbin.earth
        17 days

        I can think of tons:

        1. The entire US Civil Rights movement
        2. Women’s Suffrage
        3. South African anti‑apartheid movement
        4. #MeToo etc, etc.

        I think the idea of govt needing to “cover the real world scenario diligently enough” isn’t the issue here. Its a matter of non‑justiciable demands. My biggest issue with SKG was the lack of real goals. They needed clearly defined actionable demands from the beginning because groups like the ESA were going to come in swinging hard on them. They didn’t do that.

        It’s not a matter of law failing to cover real world scenarios, its a matter of making real world demands that can be addressed by law.

        • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldEnglish
          17 days

          Those are terrible examples. We needed affirmative action policies to get past people’s biases, and women’s suffrage needed an amendment to the Constitution. MeToo was more the destruction of “catch and kill” tactics by social media for powerful men committing crimes that rarely leave evidence beyond corroborating witnesses.

          Plus, there was zero danger of eroding intellectual property rights here.

          • Mordikan@kbin.earth
            17 days

            I’ve never heard anyone say that the Civil Rights movement was a bad example of people demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights. That’s kind of the hallmark of that exact thing.

            And the EU commission outlined exactly why this is eroding intellectual property rights.

            I honestly don’t know what to say to you at this point. I’m not going to debate your bad faith arguments, so that’s where this ends. Much like SKG.

            • ebber@europe.pubEnglish
              17 days

              The whole intellectual property rights arguments boils down to the fact that publishers and their suppliers don’t want restrictions to tell people they’re actually buying a license and not a copy. Yes, as a property holder you enjoy complete control of how those properties are used, but if they decide to sell a copy you don’t get to take that sale back, unlike with a license could be termed.

              So then the industry is using all it’s power to avoid that designation, including lots and lots of bad faith. My opinion is that at this point the offenders need some form of punishment.

              In the case where you have a legal copy, you as a consumer are free to keep that copy and keep it running.

              • Mordikan@kbin.earth
                17 days

                That is a huge part of the IP issue. Even Value has tried to argue that Steam is a subscription service and that you don’t own Steam games but rather licenses to games on Steam. And it was for the exact reason you mentioned: a user was banned from Steam but wanted access to the hundreds of games he purchased.

                That is the practical side of the problem. The logical side of the problem is the erosion problem. For example, SWTOR was planning on being retired and eventually offlined when the new SW title releases (thereby replacing it). Under SKG, the new title would effectively be forced to compete with the old despite the fact that the IP holder doesn’t want that. They would have limited power over how their IP is being used. A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way. The IP would in essence be fighting the IP. That is erosion. You have the rights but those rights become more limited.

                Honestly, most people here are commenting with their feelings (not you, just in general) and anything that isn’t fanatical level support for SKW is instantly attacked with absurd ideas how things “should work”. There is legitimate reasons to support SKW and there is legitimate worries to how SKW is handling things.

                • missingno@fedia.io
                  16 days

                  Under SKG, the new title would effectively be forced to compete with the old despite the fact that the IP holder doesn’t want that.

                  chad_yes.jpg

                  Publishers shouldn’t be able to erase existing games consumers have purchased so that new games don’t have to compete with them. That’s the equivalent of Disney confiscating all DVDs of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and destroying them so that the new MCU movies don’t have to compete.

                  If their new products aren’t good enough to compete with the old, tough shit. Not an excuse to confiscate and destroy what consumers already paid for.

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
    16 days

    Hey, maybe it’s not that EU is a failed and totally corrupt state but they simply don’t care about video games that much? You know, with global economic crisis on the horizon, new war in the middle east, growing threat from Russia and the collapse of NATO? Is that possible?