stop killing games Petition

[michael205]

Hi, I want to ask everyone in EU or UK to sign a petition

You must be registered to see the links

.

"Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers. An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends. This practice is a form of planned obsolescence and is not only detrimental to customers, but makes preservation effectively impossible. Furthermore, the legality of this practice is largely untested in many countries."

 

[anne O'nymous]

Hi, I want to ask everyone in EU or UK to sign a petition

You must be registered to see the links

.

The previous thread seem to have disappeared, and I'll not starts again so I'll make it short:


This petition is what will kill games, period.

It is customers' responsibility to read the game description and requirements, then to understand that what they buy can possibly end at anytime.

This kind of games are a service, what you buy is just the elements needed to access that service, nothing else. And like all services they can be ended at anytime, this in all legality.
By buying such game, you implicitly agree that the service can end and that you'll not have a say on this.

This is perfectly legal, this is covered by the EU regulations and national Laws, and not only there's no reason to change this, but there's also no way to do it.

Neither publishers, nor authorities, are responsible for the lack of understanding of the users. And this petition just demonstrate that many among them have absolutely no idea what they talk about.

 

[baneini]

Obviously theres a need for new laws that govern games so publishers dont start making every game with always online drm so they can remove access later. Some games are absolutely predatory with gambling mechanics and the consumers buying digital items that can be taken away from them at any point for nothing in return is a bit insane. Why have a gacha game that accepts thousands from a player, it gets surprised shut down after a year and no refunds? Its not in the same sphere of fairness as other media people can interact with.

If publishers didn't want anything new happen to regulate them they should've maybe done the bare minimum to ensure games get to keep their games. Like not have drm for single player games, not make diablo into mmo lite, enable private servers for various online games instead of removing access to them after the central server goes down. It's mostly motivated by mtx and anti-piracy, not the games being inherently better for it.
I question some imaginary indie titles wanting to make a future games that rely 100% on a central server that cannot be made to work without their server, it sounds like some fantasy of them having absolute control over their art when it could playable forever with a different mindset.

 

[Hagatagar]

so they can remove access later.

Like the newest update of the Ubisoft EULA.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[anne O'nymous]

Obviously theres a need for new laws that govern games so publishers dont start making every game with always online drm so they can remove access later.

It's not what this petition is about...

DRM platforms are shared, either among a publisher games, or more globally (Steam, Epic Store, etc.). The games will stay playable as long as the platform exist, and if the platform stop to exist it's all the games from this publisher that will stop to be playable.
Legally, if such thing happen, publishers are required (not an obligation, I know) to provide an alternative. And if prosecuted, they would be sentenced to do so.


What the petition is about isn't games that need an online connection for authentication purpose, but purely online games (Call of Duty by example). And as I said, those games are services, there's law regulating them, and the fact that the service can end on day is implicit.

Don't limit to the front page, take a look at

You must be registered to see the links

, they speak better about their intent. So far they targeted only one game,

You must be registered to see the links

, published by Ubisoft.
Ubisoft authentication platform is still online, Ubisoft games requiring online authentication are still working. But this particular game is an online cooperative game, therefore as I said, a service. When the server have been shutdown, after 10 years, yes, the game became unusable.
And this is perfectly legal, do not hurt videogames, and fully rely on the consumers ability to understand what they bought.

Some games are absolutely predatory with gambling mechanics and the consumers buying digital items that can be taken away from them at any point for nothing in return is a bit insane.

And this too isn't what the petition is about, it don't even address the issue, not even in its new phrasing.

[...] not make diablo into mmo lite, [...]

This, and only this, is what the petition is about.

 

[baneini]

It's not what this petition is about...
This, and only this, is what the petition is about.

My examples are things I see as reasons why some sort of legal intervention is prudent. Publishers are predators and consumers are exploited to the maximum extent the law allows. Any single game mentioned is irrelevant as it's just an example. No one really cares about the crew.

The petition also isn't about anything concrete, it's vaguely worded pushing for a pro-consumer action. If the petition somehow is put in front of lawmakers it would be weighted against all other parties interest, the game publisher lobby and technical consultants would say "this and that potentually bad undesirable thing will happen if X is required" and anything truly destructive would be blocked from happening.
Lots of elected individuals would have to then vote yes to the compromise proposal, they wouldn't agree if they thought it'd lead to game publishers refusing to release games in the EU or something.

The hope is they at least do the most reasonable, easy to achieve thing to protect consumers and not assume they're responsible for publisher actions when they pick up a copy at a store and fail to read the entire ToS beforehand. The most likely option is that literally nothing will happen as too many signatures are spoofed or unverifiable.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

The initiative is just about getting companies to release some way of letting players who already bought a game to play said game after the servers go down. Removing DRM if necessary, releasing the tools to make private servers, etc. Things many companies have already done, or have already built into their games. The only people I've seen against it are the big AAA companies themselves (because they hate anything pro consumer), Pirate Software (who is an idiot) and a few boomers.

 

[_user]

And this is perfectly legal, do not hurt videogames, and fully rely on the consumers ability to understand what they bought.

They're effectively killing a game because they won't support it anymore. And no, consumers don't really understand that fact, most don't even realize that you can't buy games, you can only ever buy a license to play the game.

Consumer protection has been lagging a lot on the digital front these past few decades, the fact that you can't even resell the digital products you "buy" without getting banned is insulting. The fact that you can get cutoff from products you "buy" without getting refunded is theft. The fact that publishers can unilaterally remove your access to the game you bought whenever they feel like it needs to change, and yesterday.

 

[EricBauman]

The fact that this petition is seen as "controversial" and some consumers are even fighting against it just leaves me dumbfounded.

What this petition is advocating for was seen as COMMON SENSE until recently.

Let's pretend they didn't have single player modes: if you bought DOOM in 1993 or Warcraft 2 in 1995 you can still play them online by hosting games yourself, every Valve source game (Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2...) has Valve servers but also allow players to create and connect to community servers, so even if Valve were to close all their servers tomorrow those games would still be playable, etc...

Of course corporations don't like that because it means they have to compete against themselves on top of their actual competition but that's no excuse to give them the power to unilaterally cut you access from games you legally purchased when there's the possibility of alternatives.

 

[Fzeren]

The fact that this petition is seen as "controversial" and some consumers are even fighting against it just leaves me dumbfounded.

What this petition is advocating for was seen as COMMON SENSE until recently.

Is it common sense, though? Were people really expecting digital/live services games to be hosted forever?

But I must admit I was pretty surprised about the bit in the ToS claiming a player is obligated to 'destroy' their copy if the services are discontinued. It just seems so randomly petty.

 

[Saerwen]

This is what happens when you don't buy movies, music and games in physical edition. When you buy a CD, you own the game. No one can force you to destroy it since only copying it and distributing it(pirating) could get you into trouble. I don't watch nothing on subscription services like Netflix etc, because they put movies and series for some time and then remove it.

 

[Hagatagar]

Were people really expecting digital/live services games to be hosted forever?

That's not even remotely what this petition is about.

The petition wants publishers to allow players to continue playing the game after they have discontinued it, and no, not by forcing them to keep running their servers, but by letting players run their own servers AFTER the support has ended.

 

[Morgana Le Fay]

Saw some Youtubers talking about this on my feed today and yep, signed.

 

[Raksha17]

This is what happens when you don't buy movies, music and games in physical edition. When you buy a CD, you own the game.

Sadly even that is no longer true. You could buy the physical copy of "The Crew" but are no longer able to play it since last year.

 

[Saerwen]

Sadly even that is no longer true. You could buy the physical copy of "The Crew" but are no longer able to play it since last year.

Ah, the good old times when you could just install the game on your PC without needing the internet. I rarely play online games.

 

[Fzeren]

That's not even remotely what this petition is about.

The petition wants publishers to allow players to continue playing the game after they have discontinued it, and no, not by forcing them to keep running their servers, but by letting players run their own servers AFTER the support has ended.

Is that the petition, or your interpretation of it?

"An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends. "

Either way I was not talking about the petition, I was criticizing one of the common talking points around it.

 

[Hagatagar]

Is that the petition, or your interpretation of it?

No, it's the whole original meaning. Go on the FAQ of the linked website.



And this has always been the case, the founder of this petition talked about exactly that in his video when he was about to start the petition.

 

[Aqwaa]

This petition is what will kill games, period.

I respect your opinion, but I do not share this view.

If what the petition is asking for is implemented, neither the publisher nor the game developer loses anything.
Making a game, not a service, playable after support ends is not "killing" anything.
Nothing in the petition says: "Keep the servers up," "continue updating," or anything similar.

Take software as an example: support for Windows XP has ended, yet you can still use it.


Also, for the love of God, please treat each other with respect. I hate to see this thread get nuked just because some people cannot behave or like to simp out on Asmon/Pirate < this will happen, trust me. This is actually a matter worth discussing.

 

[anne O'nymous]

The hope is they at least do the most reasonable, easy to achieve thing to protect consumers and not assume they're responsible for publisher actions when they pick up a copy at a store and fail to read the entire ToS beforehand.

Protect consumers against what?
"The Crew" is an online cooperative game, one don't need to have a degree or a high IQ to understand that the day the servers will be closed, you'll not be able to play the game anymore. They bought it knowing that soon or later they'll not be able to play the game anymore.

And, no, the publisher have no obligation to permit people to open private servers. It would imply the release of the sources (what is property technology and is protected as it), or at least to open the specification, and to provide (partial) support for the servers. And, obviously, they'll never be legally forced to do so, because it would goes against the laws regarding property technologies.

The most likely option is that literally nothing will happen as too many signatures are spoofed or unverifiable.

It's alas not the most likely option.

If there isn't enough signatures, it will comfort editors (because publishers aren't even the ones responsible here) in their decision to make such games; since just a small minority complain about them. And if there's enough signatures, like it will fail once in the hands of lawmakers, it will comfort some publishers in their thought that they can do whatever they want.

They're effectively killing a game because they won't support it anymore.

And?

Phillips and so many others, do not support anymore 8 tracks readers, this since so many decades, like the do not support anymore VHS readers. Iomega do not support Zip (2005) and Jazz (2002) drives. Computers manufacturers do not support floppy disk readers since more than a decade, and motherboard manufacturers don't even provide IDE ports for them.
We are millions to have games legally bought that are on floppy disks. Legally we are not allowed to transfer them on another support. And obviously, like there's no more floppy disk readers, legally we can't play them anymore. Do you see us starting a petition to change this? No, we act like responsible adults. We knew, when we bought them, that their life time was limited to the life time of the technology used to store them, and we bought them because we agreed with this obviousness.

Technologies disappear, and everyone see it as the logical result of the time passing. Why should it be different when it's not even about technologies potentially affecting billions of peoples, but about a particular service that affect only few thousands?

And no, consumers don't really understand that fact, most don't even realize that you can't buy games, you can only ever buy a license to play the game.

Well, then educate them instead of giving them the false hope that they are entitled to everything.

Consumer protection has been lagging a lot on the digital front these past few decades, the fact that you can't even resell the digital products you "buy" without getting banned is insulting.

Consumer knowledge have been lagging a lot on the digital front there past few decades... The fact that you don't even know that all rulings say that you can resell the digital products you "buy" and that it's illegal to ban you for this, is the proof of this.

The fact that you can get cutoff from products you "buy" without getting refunded is theft.

You can get cutoff your hairdresser shop, and you'll not be refunded for your previous hair cuts... Something that is both perfectly legal and perfectly natural.
Why should it be different just because it's an online game? You played it for years, there's no reason why you should be refunded when the service end.

The fact that publishers can unilaterally remove your access to the game you bought whenever they feel like it needs to change, and yesterday.

It's a service, you bought it knowing that it was a service, and like for any other services, when it end, you're unilaterally removed from it, period.
It's not specific to video games, and video games are the less impacting situation where it happen.

 

[DSSAlex]

Software as a service is bad actually and should be viciously regulated. There should be consumer protection laws to protect consumers from predatory practices in software as a service. As it is now software companies unilaterally control what they can do and consumers have no power. This petition can only be a good thing.