Not that i really agree with those "insane" copyright laws, as, it does not pay tribute to the sometimes very short living nature of any software and in fact many of the source codes may already become eliminated by companies not taking sufficiently care of, and there was no other instance able to do this job. Of course, there are a few companies who was releasing this source code way before any law may put any obligations on it. But the big pool of companies either is never revealing it and in many unfortunate cases even is losing the source code... which will make the game for any future generation a "hard nut to crack" if they want to preserve it.

So, i do neither consider the current law perfect nor truly adequate considering the pretty short living circumstances of many software but fact is, as long as there are no changes this is how the law has been set up. So, customers are pretty much at the mercy of the companies if they want "some preferable conditions, including preservation" handed out to them.

i just want to point out that every game that ever shared it's source code.. sold more copies and created thriving modding communities and helped future versions of their games with idea's, content and a lot more.

their just shooting themself.. their IP is theirs.. no one is taking it away..

take system shock 2.. once the source was secured.. great things happened.

and protecting the source for a dead game is barbaric, it's past it's time and childish to hold on to.

most fun i ever had Was porting Descent 1 and 2 to a psp.. it was great and ran with all the effects at high.
and then i played both games again to ensure they were bug free.

Keeping my example, a car can be acquired in different ways. Same with acquiring videogames. Car rentals for example, which is like paying for world of warcraft. What I'm talking about is direct payment like in the case of the Crew that had no information of "game as a service" at purchase time and that "it will be deleted from your account". Nothing of this kind that I've "agreed" to when paying for the game.

So pardon my insistence, information is important, advertising and information when buying the game.

What you are saying is completely illogical, you are saying that, yes, I've bought my car but there are also car rentals out-there and I should had imagine that at some point my car will become a rental. So I should have nothing to complain. No, my car doesn't become a "rental car" just like that, because the company that sold my car decided it is a rental now.

No I've not agreed to anything when buying that game. You are just inventing stuff. This entire campaign started because ubisoft sold The Crew as a normal game, even as physical copies, without informing the buyer that the purchase is tied to a time limited.

You are either not paying enough attention because you think you are too experienced and you don't need to study the case. Or you are just lying to muddy the waters.

No, they don't want this.

ok so your entire post is full of this nonsense. why should EU do this? why Eu should ask a company to remove the codes or whatever are you trying to say? nonsense

there are a lot of people asking for stuff. doesn't mean is the goal of the campaign.

what the campaign is asking for is for the law to be applied in cases of games sold as normal products without any strings attached. as stated here in the first paragraph

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

the request is quite simple and by design is simple. politicians brain capacity is limited and they have the mentality of eel. They will search for any contradiction to not do something for the citizen and protect the corporations.

the request is simple, I've paid for game that you sold with no information of a time limit. I need to have that game.

You want to keep the game online behind a drm platform? I can't force you to not use the drm as long as I have access to the game. If you go bankrupt then the game needs to be kept online by the people that will own the IP after. If no one owns the IP then I need to have access to the game. How? You need to give access to the game without your drm. You sold a game, made a profit then thrown away the copyright you had on the game saying you don't care anymore and you cut the access to the game for the people that bought the game? That is called fraud and you go to jail.

Think about it. I can create a game, sold it on my website for one month then just shut down the game and the website while posting tiktok videos of me sleeping on a big mattress of money like they did in breaking bad, how many of you will be ok with this? And don't you think this is illegal?

No one forced the publisher to make the game open source but even if he decides that he doesn't want to hold the copyright anymore, even if he release the code for free as open source, it doesn't matter. The game I paid for needs to work on the system was intended to. I don't care about the source code because I may have no knowledge to build the game from source. Yes, is great for fans and mods, but as a buyer I need the game to work.

These are laws we already have in Europe. They need to apply them. Ir all makes sense if you think about it. There are obligations and safeguards for both the seller and the buyer. No one gets ripped off if we apply these laws instead of pretending the laws doesn't exists because the videogame industry decided now that they are not honest anymore.

If you add a game to your Steam shopping card that you already own, it shows the warning "You already own this game". When you buy, it says "Purchase". You pay tax on it. If you buy a steamkey directly on a developer's website, they will likely say you "own" what they sold you. All the language is there. Call it what it is: Deception. Abuse. Acknowledge the solution: Laws that say people own the games they bought. EULA's aren't international law either and Steam's never been challenged with a class-action suit on this matter. What happened when they got challenged over refunds? This whole part comes across like discourage-campaigning people away from questioning things.

Feels like you have more issue with Steamworks than games being shut-down. I think a large part of what is going on in this thread is desires to see a movement fail because it isn't single-issue GOG-aligned. It could help some Steam shoppers, or players of multiplayer-only games, and that bugs some here. I think some jealously don't want things to get better for those users.

Notably, you take issue with games using Steamworks for matchmaking, but seem to be ignoring that many GOG games connect out to external services for multiplayer. Seem unaware that a large number of GOG games connected to Gamespy network, now defunct. Or that many GOG games use Epic Online Services to connect to multiplayer in their games. Or that GOG has its own Galaxy API it encourages in its own dev docs.

I agree that centralizing features is kicking the can down the road, but that's besides that online features have their place. An online leaderboard where I can sort and compare my score against friends? That's fun. Item servers that give loot/stats some legitimacy are the backbone of MMO play. Mesh networking allows larger numbers of players inhabit a single session.

Maybe those things are off-putting to you but the thing is, these are all things users could have custody over, and should have custody over when a publisher ends official support. None of that has sh*t to do with Steam or a false dichotomy being pushed that you can't have these things and remain DRM-free or agnostic. And even if you hated Steam it's not like this initiative would be good for them.

I've been reading posts about "The Crew" for some time and you definitely see many saying they always just assumed they'd be able to always bring out their console disc and play. Instead of blaming the customer, maybe ask why no publisher is required to fairly say "this game will expire on THIS date" on their packaging. Because some online games last for decades, some forever, some for weeks. Some have completely different backends. There's absolutely no consistency but you're still eager to blame the customer. And note: bunch of gamer forums is not an accurate sample of everyone buying games with fast cars on the cover. Just like Twitter polls are not accurate sample of what regular people think.

I'd happily take you up on that, note I've been railing against Denuvo for a decade. I've put in my time getting myself banned for talking it too much. I continue to avoid the typical FOTM service games. Let me ask this. Have you ever played a game on a private server? Like a retired MMO, or patched/redirected a connection request to connect to an unofficial network so you can play online? I suspect you already know how much raw effort that takes to reverse-engineer, and how only a fraction of games get the luxury of someone mentally insane enough to do all that to some of those games. If so, then maybe you owe a signature out of care to the people who've gone through that drudgery for others. Or to acknowledge how a movement like SKG would save them much agony in the future.

If everyone who ever posted asking if someone else could make a private server or revive a game they miss, then the initiative would be finished several times over. I wonder how many dismissing the initiative have done that at some point.

You can run your own WotLK WoW server with hundreds others on a regular PC. That has server-side enemy behavior, loot-tables and all of that.

They don't need to re-write things to be local. People just want the means. No one is asking for it to be easy. Just the means to do it, even if it requires some serious hardware. A means to access what was bought. How they organize and decide if they self-host or join someone else's server is us to anyone.

If someone sells a game, but then claims they have an obligation to a different licensor over essential components that are needed to HAVE THE THING THEY SOLD SOMEONE, then why should they get exclusive luxury to exclude one party after they pulled them into the transaction? And with no notice or clear duration.

The point is questioning if that's legal. It's sub-licensing but with no actual license and under terms that are abusive.

The funny thing is though, usually its nothing to do with licenses. It's just they don't want to bother. They're more in the business of trying to push for as much legal privileges as possible, and they don't like even the lightest push-back. Somehow they still have shills that argue for their sake and for free even.

This sounds incredibly naieve. That's never going to be the result. If they ever get forced to change that language then the result is obvious. It'll change to rent, or subscribe, or 'buy access', and people will keep doing it, because it doesn't change how they've been doing it for the last 20+ years already. They pay once and then have it for however long it lasts. For some people that's the rest of their lifetime already at this point.

Nothing says a developer/publisher is required to sell ownership of a game to you. They are perfectly within their right to only allow you to temporarily use it. If you disagree with that you can make your own game and sell ownership of it. If enough people do that then the market might change.

Given people can already do that today, I somehow doubt anything will change even if the language changes. And no, not even GOG offers 'ownership' of a game imo, because part of the value is tied to the web license you have. If you buy a game, and download it, and they take away your license at best you own a part of your purchase, unless it was really old. But most likely you lost a part of what you paid for. Zero updates, can't even buy expansions or DLC for it since you don't 'own' the game anymore on the website. Can't even play online if it uses GOG galaxy for multiplayer because they do an ownership check.

The BBS, Teletext, ARPANET, and USENET beg to loudly clear their throat.

Please don't try to rules lawyer the person who opened their appearance in the thread with, "I work in the legal system".

Addendum: Even open source projects, unless they are deliberately placed into public domain, have software licences which should be followed, and can be legally enforced.

As I explained above though, there's also no legal requirement for that any more than "Microsoft should be forced to open-source Windows because when I bought a W10 it didn't specifically say 'Windows is a Service'" (despite Microsoft saying that elsewhere). Virtually all online-only games but also games that use online-DRM are services. That's not my personal opinion or that of a Youtuber, it's the EU's own classification under their European Digital Services Act:-

"The European Digital Services Act imposes certain obligations on businesses providing intermediary services. Intermediary services are defined as any remote, electronic service requested by a user, to provide that user with:-

- A conduit – being the transmission of information;
- Caching – being the transmission and temporary storage of information;
- Hosting – being the storage of information; and
- Online platforms – being a hosting service that lets the user disseminate information to the public;

These intermediary services are pretty much everywhere in the modern video games industry. Any game with multiplayer messaging is a 'conduit' service. Any game hosted online is a 'caching' service. Any game with user generated content is a 'hosting' service. And any distribution platform could be one type of 'online platform' (hosting service), depending on the specifics.
https://www.michalsons.com/blog/video-games-and-the-digital-services-act/72531

So we've established that even the EU agrees that all online games, the online services they use, the service providers that provide the servers, and the stores (Steam, etc) that sell / host the games download services are all absolutely services on multiple levels. Up until now, it was almost given common sense acceptance that "doesn't work without the Internet" is very obviously an online service to some extent, (though apparently that doesn't seem to be common sense for many gamers). Now this petition may (and I agree it should) force better advertising in that area, ie, more visible ("This is a service-based game that may not be playable after x years") banner at the checkout page, but it won't forcibly open-source anything in the sense of completely tearing down Copyright law. People are very much mixing up two completely separate issues there (advertising standards regulations vs Copyright).

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the game DID have it clearly labelled that it wouldn't work without the Internet (ie, an online-only service), as does its sequels. That's 100% not-mis-selling. Ubisoft's right to delete is also in their EULA. Now that latter in particular (that I agree with you & Ross is shitty) may be something to push for being an unfair contract, but "The terms I agreed to were unfair" is the legal angle you should be pushing there, not "I didn't agree to anything at all" that you absolutely did agree (because if you didn't, you wouldn't be able to create a Ubisoft account required to play the game). Just like if you didn't agree to Steam Subscriber Agreement (which literally starts off as "Steam is an online service offered by Valve") you can't play Steam games. Claiming you "still don't know" Steam, etc, are services after 10 years of agreeing to them being services, or saying "but unless it specifically said 'service' I thought it would run offline like an old floppy disc" when it specifically says "online-only" right on the checkout button isn't going to win anything legally.

So there's some leeway there for arguing the Ubisoft platform service EULA reserving the right to delete games to be an "unfair contract", but it's mostly denial that "No-one told me that online-only games or even Steam / Uplay themselves were services", when they literally spell it out at the top of their EULA's and it's literally on par with arguing "No-one told me water is wet". Ranting at me for explaining how the law works won't change that. You need to focus on the "unfair contract" side of things rather than keep pleading ignorance of "not knowing" online-only games are the obvious services that they are or that you "didn't agree" to stuff you agreed to (not liking what you agreed to is a different issue).

In most countries you pay tax on services too, and many developers websites will just say "Thank you for your purchase" so that word-game stuff doesn't mean anything.

I don't think that's true. A lot of people here would love to stick one in Ubisoft's eye. What comes across as "weak" is when the ones most impacted by server-shut downs (online multi-player gamers) are also the worst offenders for continuing to throw money at the problem *after* they've been made aware of all the anti-consumer issues, and that do the least for game preservation in practise, compared to the many people here who "Walk the walk":-

"Bet you didn't expect this news, but here we are - Betrayer is now available on GOG for FREE, as we continuously work on making games last forever! We'd also like to take a moment for a big thank you to Tyler, also known as tfishell – one of our fellow gaming enthusiasts, who helped us bring this gem to our catalog. We couldn't have asked for a more passionate and awesome community. Let's keep making games last forever, together."
https://www.gog.com/en/news/release_betrayer_available_to_play_for_free

Compared to the above, when half the people who signed this screaming at the moon over The Crew, end up queuing up to buy The Crew 2, etc, with "more of the same", then it just gets hard to take being talked down to about Game Preservation seriously...

You just answered your own question there (as did ListyG yesterday). The answer is they don't know how long support will be on launch day until the sales figures come in it gets decided based on that. Look at Windows 10. The 14th Oct 2025 EOL date wasn't put up on launch day 15th July 2015, it was only added during the second half of its life (post 2020). Had W11 completely flopped, it would have been extended (as W7 was). If 100% of the market had upgraded to W11 in 2022, they'd have brought it forward a year (as W8 was). Welcome to the real world where you AREN'T going to get a fixed static shut-down date a full decade or more in advance, even with this initiative (not just for games either). How long an online service lasts obviously depends on how popular it remains, not on launch day, but years after that too.

It's hard to take that seriously when consoles themselves have increasingly been going online for years to the point the latest ones are quite literally disc-less...

The forums still hate me, so here's a pastebin in response to calling live service games services under EU law:

pastebin.com/y8vDmji0

The short answer is that's currently unestablished by the EU Commission, after we got an MEP to ask them directly.

EDIT:
Anyway, I'm not really seeking to have a long debate in a forum where I can't post most of the time (if I'm debating this, I want a much larger audience, since I'm trying to get signatures), I just wanted to clear up the biggest misconceptions on it. We're not asking for endless support, the current situation in the EU on this is a legal grey area, the way the initiative is worded it would not require changes to copyright law or companies to specifically give up IP, this would normalize far more companies removing DRM at end of life (which is to GOG's benefit), the ECI itself does not target any specific companies (like Ubisoft), and GOG has publicly supported the initiative, the controversy was from them retracting their earlier commitment 5 months after the fact.

It's clear to me many here won't have their minds changed and are big believers in buyers changing their habits as the solution. In my eyes, that's not only ineffective (I personally practiced this for about 10 years only to see the situation get worse and worse. Even now I try to minimize it), but to me that's not a justification for art being destroyed for profit and represents a broken system which we're trying our damndest to fix, or at least be told in no uncertain terms that it's impossible. Right now we're in an in-between phase where the legal basis for this destruction of games is not well established even though it's become an industry standard. Since that legal opening currently exists, to not at least challenge it strikes me as insane for people who care about games, but I can't convince everyone.

Which, in my eyes, is a clear indicator, that the vast majority of gamers out there, who "buy" and enjoy these games, don't share your view on the issue.

So, why not simply forego these games and be happy with those that nobody will take away from you?

Let these others pay for something, that they will lose again.
Why does that bother you?

If you truly "voted with your wallet" for the last ten years...then why are you (still) upset over this?
At this point it's clearly a problem, that doesn't affect you, anymore.

Btw: the "all games are art and therefore deserve to be preserved like any other art" argument, is BS.

Sure. There was the Meganet, there was GameLine for Atari, there was the Super Famicom Satellaview, the Family Computer Network System, Habitat by LucasFilm & Quantum Link...and the list goes on.