Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Stop Killing Games (EU edition) - Moldman vs. Publishers
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
i watched the debate and most of it is the same thing that is pro initiative (comparing games to different media, destroying of art, debunking that its a problem of cost or technology)
however there were 2 people who stood out
27:55 a guy who calls himself a conservative politician tries to make an argument that the issue is lack of transparency between the publisher and the customer and whats to clear the confusion instead of trying to solve the problem with publishers selling licenses, since he believes that it is their choice on how to conduct business. And he wants to do that because he is afraid that he will put the European game devs at a disadvantage when it comes to a global gaming scene.
there were a couple of counter arguments thrown against him but their were kinda weak and i am frustrated that no one brought up the most obvious one. The law that you can introduce will not only effect the game devs originating in Europe but also the ones who will be selling games in Europe. That can either create a domino effect like we saw several times with changes like these or it will create European safe zone where you can actually buy games and the rest of the world will seethe.
23:29 some dude completely misses the point of the whole meeting and starts yapping about wokness in video games and ends up looking like a complete schitzo which is kinda funny
also the thumbnail is a clickbait
Ross wasn't present in the debate
What does stop the developers from cutting like 99% of the content just before putting the game into, let's say, self-host or life support? So basically non-refund option but keeping the game playable only symbolically? While it might have no reason, the publishers might think that old game could "steal" audience (does not matter true it is or not).
It sort of what Destiny 2 did over the years, even if they keep servers on the game lacks like 80% of released content.
"I was going to buy this game, but when I found out that the devs are European and they're legally forced to respect my consumer rights and are not going to rape my wallet and take away my game without notice I changed my mind"
"I was going to buy this game, but when I found out that the devs are European and they're legally forced to respect my consumer rights and are not going to rape my wallet and take away my game without notice I changed my mind"
to be fair his argument was more like
>europeans devs have to pay extra to implement the changes while the rest of the world doesnt give a shit, hence they are gonna be at the disadvantage
What does stop the developers from cutting like 99% of the content just before putting the game into, let's say, self-host or life support? So basically non-refund option but keeping the game playable only symbolically? While it might have no reason, the publishers might think that old game could "steal" audience (does not matter true it is or not).
It sort of what Destiny 2 did over the years, even if they keep servers on the game lacks like 80% of released content.
A consumer protection agency could sue them, which could lead to them having to refund a large number of consumers and maybe a hefty fine on top.
Ultimately it would be up to a judge if he deems it to be in a reasonably working state or if he thinks it's a case of malicious compliance.
to be fair his argument was more like
>europeans devs have to pay extra to implement the changes while the rest of the world doesnt give a shit, hence they are gonna be at the disadvantage
His argument was quickly rebuffed by the lady when she mentioned it would affect any dev that sells games in the EU, not just devs making games in the EU.
We finally have a huge win for gamers and consumer rights. The California State Assembly just passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act. It passed on the floor by a vote of 43 to 16. The bill would force video game companies to give players a heads-up before they shut down the servers for a game. It would also make them provide a way for people to keep playing afterward, like adding offline mode or letting community servers take over.
Quick recap of what the bill does:
>60-day advance notice before any server shutdown or major service change that would make a game unplayable in its “ordinary use.”
>Companies must then provide a workable solution so players can keep playing, usually an offline mode/patch, community server support, or (in some cases) a full refund.
>Applies to digital games first sold or substantially re-released in California after January 1, 2027.
>Does not affect subscription games, free-to-play titles, or games that are already permanently offline/single-player.
>Enforceable by the Attorney General or district attorneys.
In short: If you buy a game, you should still be able to play it even after the company moves on. No more “purchase” turning into a rental that expires when the servers die.
We finally have a huge win for gamers and consumer rights. The California State Assembly just passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act. It passed on the floor by a vote of 43 to 16. The bill would force video game companies to give players a heads-up before they shut down the servers for a game. It would also make them provide a way for people to keep playing afterward, like adding offline mode or letting community servers take over.
We finally have a huge win for gamers and consumer rights. The California State Assembly just passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act. It passed on the floor by a vote of 43 to 16. The bill would force video game companies to give players a heads-up before they shut down the servers for a game. It would also make them provide a way for people to keep playing afterward, like adding offline mode or letting community servers take over.
In short: If you buy a game, you should still be able to play it even after the company moves on. No more “purchase” turning into a rental that expires when the servers die.
Ok so does this mean that all of the America now has this rule and publisher who will disobey them can be sued? Or its just by someone who lives in California?
Im just worried it can be slap on the wrist kinda situation.
Ok so does this mean that all of the America now has this rule and publisher who will disobey them can be sued? Or its just by someone who lives in California?
Im just worried it can be slap on the wrist kinda situation.
Basically, it passed the floor vote and now it's going to the State Senate to be voted on, read the description of the video:
*If you live in California, or know someone who does:*Find your State Senator here and submit support for **AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act**: https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ *If you are not in California, you can still help:*Submit support to the Chair of the Senate Privacy Committee here:https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/Publ...
Letters of support help give the bill visibility as it moves through the Senate.
It still hasn't been solidified, from what I gather (I'm talking out of my ass from what limited knowledge I know), but if it does come to pass, companies would abide by it and make it available to everyone in America.
I mean, if youre making a game for the American market, you won't exclude everyone in California from it, you'll abide by California rules and just release it since it's the path of least resistance. Even if they try to be dicks about it and try to only give access after game closure to Californian's, people can still share their own copies and methods around.
What does stop the developers from cutting like 99% of the content just before putting the game into, let's say, self-host or life support? So basically non-refund option but keeping the game playable only symbolically? While it might have no reason, the publishers might think that old game could "steal" audience (does not matter true it is or not).
It sort of what Destiny 2 did over the years, even if they keep servers on the game lacks like 80% of released content.
I think that’s actually a perfectly fine initial outcome from initial legislation, we can’t let perfect legislation be the enemy of good legislation after all.
Just have to trust/hope that additional legislation and positive legal precedent from the inevitable lawsuits come afterwards to fill in those cracks.
As Russ said, these should be easy wins for politicians, and once the first legislative foot is in the door it should only get easier.
We finally have a huge win for gamers and consumer rights. The California State Assembly just passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act. It passed on the floor by a vote of 43 to 16. The bill would force video game companies to give players a heads-up before they shut down the servers for a game. It would also make them provide a way for people to keep playing afterward, like adding offline mode or letting community servers take over.
In short: If you buy a game, you should still be able to play it even after the company moves on. No more “purchase” turning into a rental that expires when the servers die.
California actually did something right for once? If they keep this up, I might stop praying for God for an earthquake that makes it collapse into the sea.
We finally have a huge win for gamers and consumer rights. The California State Assembly just passed AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act. It passed on the floor by a vote of 43 to 16. The bill would force video game companies to give players a heads-up before they shut down the servers for a game. It would also make them provide a way for people to keep playing afterward, like adding offline mode or letting community servers take over.
In short: If you buy a game, you should still be able to play it even after the company moves on. No more “purchase” turning into a rental that expires when the servers die.
According to Google Gemini, the bill must still pass the Senate and be signed by the governor before it becomes law. As for whether it'll be signed by newsom or whoever the new governor is come January 2027 is anyone's guess.
What does stop the developers from cutting like 99% of the content just before putting the game into, let's say, self-host or life support? So basically non-refund option but keeping the game playable only symbolically? While it might have no reason, the publishers might think that old game could "steal" audience (does not matter true it is or not).
It sort of what Destiny 2 did over the years, even if they keep servers on the game lacks like 80% of released content.
I mean, i'm pretty sure letter vs spirit of the law applies with that, and the company gets sued and any jury can see they're deliberately trying to fuck over the people who want to play.
A group of 45 Members of the European Parliament has formally called on the European Commission to introduce legislation preventing publishers from deliberately making purchased video games unplayable after ending support.
In a letter sent to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other senior EU officials, the lawmakers backed the goals of the Stop Killing Games initiative and urged the Commission to present a "concrete legislative proposal" before its official response on June 16.
The letter states that failure to act would "send a catastrophic signal to all EU citizens and discredit the instrument of the European Citizens' Initiative as a whole."
A group of 45 Members of the European Parliament has formally called on the European Commission to introduce legislation preventing publishers from deliberately making purchased video games unplayable after ending support.
In a letter sent to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other senior EU officials, the lawmakers backed the goals of the Stop Killing Games initiative and urged the Commission to present a "concrete legislative proposal" before its official response on June 16.
The letter states that failure to act would "send a catastrophic signal to all EU citizens and discredit the instrument of the European Citizens' Initiative as a whole."
*If you live in California, or know someone who does:*Find your State Senator here and submit support for **AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act**: https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
*If you are not in California, you can still help:*Submit support to the Chair of the Senate Privacy Committee here:https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/Publ...
