It is at 361,826 out of 1,000,000 signatures with the remaining trickle after the initial spike nowhere near the pace needed to hit the mark before the 31st of July 2025.
I interpret the state of Ross Scott’s SKG campaign like this:
It’s pretty clear that democratically speaking, we do not object to companies arbitrarily removing access to purchased video games. Only a minority objects to it.
While it will stay up and get more signatures, there will ultimately be no follow-through to this campaign. The reality is that it’s not politically sound, it’s not built on a foundation of a real public desire for change. In other words, voters don’t want it. You might, but most of your family and friends don’t want it.
Or maybe the vast majority don’t even know this campaign exists
That’s a bit doomerist of you. Why leap to the assumption that voters are against it rather than the far simpler explanation that people are unaware of its existence, or don’t feel they understand it well enough to have an opinion?
In which case what’s needed is a much stronger social media effort, preferably headed up by the organisers themselves, or someone else who can make it their entire thing, from where it can hopefully radiate out to other interested parties.
It’s pretty clear that democratically speaking, we do not object to companies arbitrarily removing access to purchased video games. Only a minority objects to it.
It’s more like “people don’t know about the issue, or how it affects them, as they’re busier with their everyday lives”. This happens a fair bit.
Additionally, the graph shows that the movement had huge fervour at the start but then lost steam. So:
- Is the movement well organised?
- Are there people actively asking others for new signatures?
- Is the movement able to recruit more people to proselytise it?
- Which areas of the EU have proportionally less signatures? And why?
- What’s the public image of the movement? And what about the cause itself? (People do realise that legislation to not kill games makes it easier to pass legislation to not screw with customer goods after they were bought, right?)
- What caused that peak in the 7th of September, and how to replicate it on purpose?
EDIT: can someone convince PewDiePie to at least talk about the campaign?
Percentage wise, I’m sure support is very high. But for a petition like this, I’d be shocked if even 0.01% percent of people have even heard of it.
Personally, I support the petition (obviously) and wish it could have succeeded. But even I think that in the grand scheme of all the problems in the world, this is very far down my wishlist.
That said, it’s very close to other, higher-ticket items. For example:
- cloud service support for older cars
- digital purchases on platforms that go bankrupt (e.g. Redbox)
A mechanism for transitioning a service to user/community support when a company is no longer commercially interested is a common issue across sectors.
Y’all have to push and campaign for this.
I don’t think so. It’s dead.
Even in the opening pitch, Ross acknowledges that things like this come in waves. The first wave was his call to action. The next ones, if we’re so lucky, will come from other influencers giving it a bump. And honestly, 1M is an absurd benchmark to clear. That’s one signature out of every 450 citizens. They need to know this campaign exists in the first place and care about it.
They should have made it a bit more broad.
Yeah, game preservation is important, but there are so many other services that have similar issues. What happens when your phone drops out of support? Should you be able to find an alternative OS instead of just tossing it out as e-waste? What about your car’s cloud services? Farming equipment repair for older equipment? Digital purchases when the provider goes bankrupt?
There’s a broader movement here, and they can probably keep the focus pretty narrow, but they do need to appeal to that broader market so they can demonstrate that this is a foot in the door for future legislation. Right to Repair is a very related movement in the US, and they’ve been targeting medical and farming devices because those have broader appeal than laptops and phones, and the important thing is to get that foot in the door.
In my opinion, where this “movement” failed was in the messaging.
“Stop Killing Games” is a great slogan written by a young person without much experience.
No company or government will pass a law that says, “you must indefinitely support every game you ever release”. Now, I understand that this isn’t what the group was calling for, but this is the message that comes across. Because of that, it immediately loses support from anyone in any type of software industry and likely many other industries as we know it isn’t realistic.
The movement is two months in to a year-long campaign, and that’s just the EU. Ross Scott’s also likely pushing 40, if I had to guess. The clearest messaging of what they’re asking for is to prevent remote disabling of games, which is right in the petition.
Well I can’t do anything because it’s EU only. I did do the France thing in the beginning which any person could do, but this is a situation for those outside of the EU only being able to watch.
What a silly take.
Ignoring the issue, or not even being aware of it, does not mean that people don’t want to fix the problem.
It’s sad, but I think the only way to preserve video games is through piracy and emulation. The companies do not care, states do not care, and most people do not care until it’s too late (and the games are seen as consumables by most people, which imo explains why they are « happy » to buy the same games again and again).
If California can pass their law about what counts as “buying” a digital good, then I hope we can take that as motivation here in the US to try for similar. I wrote my representative about it (she’s an R, so she didn’t care), and I’ll see who I can write at the state level.
It’ll become a partisan thing and then the Republicans will start killing more games just to make libs sad.
From what I remember of the past posts about this I did not sign it because it had some stupidly amateurish phrasing in there that did not make any distinctions between companies doing something actively to sabotage continued use (e.g. DRM), simply not selling it while copyright prevents anyone else from archiving it, simply turning off the servers for some multiplayer title, forcing always online for singleplayer titles and companies not doing something actively to change it to run on new hardware and operating systems. The way it read it was basically demanding companies do the last one forever which is never going to happen.
Forcing companies to do what forever? The scope of what the petition can ask for is limited, and it’s up to EU parliament to find a solution. The problem statement is that you bought a game that can be remotely disabled. If you agree that that’s a problem, I’d encourage you to sign it.
Forcing companies to update their games for any new OS or hardware forever. Which would be an insane demand, thus, no signature from me. If you want support, spend some effort phrasing it properly before you present it to non-experts in the field.
I agree that that is a problem but unfortunately this petition wasn’t phrased in a way to deal with that problem.
No, that is not something the petition aims to do, stated clearly in their FAQ, and I don’t think I could arrive at that interpretation even without it. From the petition:
Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher. The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.
And in the FAQ on the Stop Killing Games site:
Q: Aren’t you asking companies to support games forever? Isn’t that unrealistic?
A: No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way. Additionally, there are already real-world examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way, such as:
‘Gran Turismo Sport’ published by Sony
‘Knockout City’ published by Velan Studios
‘Mega Man X DiVE’ published by Capcom
‘Scrolls / Caller’s Bane’ published by Mojang AB
‘Duelyst’ published by Bandai Namco Entertainment
etc.
while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.
This, right here, is the insane bit that shows no understanding for the complexities of either hosting servers or programming. Now if they had limited that in any way to games that require the online component only for some sort of license check that would make sense but they haven’t. They expect the publisher to somehow turn a game from a state that requires online servers into one that does not and 99% of the comments in this thread and others on the initiative show that gamers do not understand the amount of effort that requires.
Now if they had demanded a removal of any online license check/DRM mechanism from games that only require the online connection for that, sure, that would have been fine.
Or, more aimed at the cultural preservation aspect, if they had demanded that game publishers should release all source code and assets before killing off a game so the community can develop some solution to keep it running, that would have made sense, even if it would have been hard to achieve politically.
However none of that nuance is in there, the whole initiative seems to be developed and supported by gamers who have never written a line of code or run a server that wasn’t specifically designed to be run by laymen.
This is a completely different position than saying that it expects games to be forced to be updated forever, so I’m not sure why you said that unless you heard someone else summarizing it incorrectly, like Thor, and didn’t verify it yourself.
First off, this is not a piece of legislation. They’re not allowed to do that. They’re petitioning for legislation and stating the problem. More specificity is for parliament to decide.
Second, legislation like this is basically never retroactive. If it does apply to games that have already been made, there would be a grace period for actively supported games. There always is.
Third, Ubisoft sure seems to find it to be worth the effort for The Crew games they haven’t killed yet, as they’re staring down the barrel of this potential legislation. And if you’re building a game with this requirement in mind from the beginning, it’s substantially less work. This used to be how more or less all online games worked, until they found out that a dependence on their servers was potentially more lucrative.
Allow user hosted servers or fuck off.
No company in history has ever not done so because of technical limitations. It’s literally always exclusively about control.
And that’s fair. If we can’t figure out how to write this regulation properly, people shouldn’t sign it.
It sure looks properly written to me, and I’m struggling to figure out how this person misinterpreted it.
