170
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.
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.
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.
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:
And in the FAQ on the Stop Killing Games site:
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.
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.
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.
So you didn't sign it because you have no idea what it actually says and didn't look into it at all?
I love democracy
What I read was the actual statement on the EU petition site. If that is not representative of the actual demands of the lawmakers maybe they should have iterated a few more times before posting it there.
There's a whole FAQ which I'm sure also clarifies your problems with the initiative.
Is there a way without watching a 40 minute video?
39 questions sounds like a 5 minute read at best.
There's also FAQ that on the initiative page but the video is more comprehensive (43 questions instead of the 17 on the site) because it's made after the initiative FAQ and goes more in-depth concerning the specific grievances people brought up. And I didn't expect anyone to listen to the whole video, the video is timestamped so you could find whatever specific grievance you might have.