this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
136 points (98.6% liked)
Stop Killing Games
286 readers
24 users here now
[EU] Stop Killing Games:
The consumer movement to stop game publishers from intentionally destroying older games with kill switches.
The goal is to reach 1 million signatures in the EU so that the european parliament will respond to the initiative that then leads to regulation that requires end-of-life plans for games to stay playable.
Progress Tracker:
EU Final Day: 31/7/2025.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
EU at 873k out of 1m, we can do it! Fuck those misinformation spreader cough cough like PirateSoftware
What'd Pirate do?
Edit: search terms were 'pirate software kill games' and found a pretty good article. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/esports/news/what-is-going-on-with-pirate-software-and-stop-killing-games/articleshow/122207917.cms
From watching the first 5 minutes of the first video: Thor is saying game developers can't be forced to share their server code with gamers, even though Valve does it. Terrible argument. It's a solved problem, also it has to be distributable so they can manage servers across the planet.
Edit 2: "We might miss out on some cool games that we won't be otherwise able to have if live service is a removed practice" is a legitimate argument. Can games be reengineered so that this isn't the case? Should developers be forced into making it that way? I might watch some criticism videos after work. I think there's points on both sides but it seems really easy to clarify what Thor wants clarified. Personally I don't think what's on the SDK website would be what gets put into legislation but if he really wants it clarified that's easy.
From the SDK FAQ:
And even considering that, SKG is not writing a law. In the EU, if they go through with this, the law would be written by a group of politicians, lawyers and experts in the industry (including lobbyists from publishers) based on the proposal
Yeah he either doesn't understand the process and hasnt decided to work out what's happening, or he's intentionally deceptive. Either way, I think it's very stereotypical American thinking to presume everything is binary and no nuanced conversations can happen. "You asserted a thing, but didn't specify x while doing so, therefore you're against x". It's letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Another thing is that law can and should be left open to interpretation in many cases. That's not always the best thing, see financial law etc, but you can't set up a framework for every scenario. However, you can define a list of obvious things and if someone does something against the spirit of the law, it can be amended and/or someone can prosecute to further define. Laws can be changed and judges make rulings that set precedent.
Idk, I'm coming into this late but it's arguing in bad faith so im frustrated.