This is what I concluded too: In order for this to make any serious inroads, you'd have to kill consumerism. Which is why I suggested instead an OSS imitative; if you want games that live forever, design them from the start for it.

Huh?

So, Oblivion remastered is out. So will Skyblivion which Bethesda recognized, gave free remasters to the creators and even advertised... and I'm pretty sure you can still play old Oblivion if you prefer? What are you even talking about? Sounds like you're just trying to see the worst in things, even if you have to make it up.

So it doesn't bother you that countless games are dead / will die, because "it's the consumers' fault"?
Personally, regardless of who's fault it is, it does bother me because I value games as an artform. To me, personally, the fact that consumers caused this problem is not of any solace, because it means games will continue to perish, and that's what I ultimately care about. I would feel the same way if this was about movies or books or paintings.

However, it just so happens that consumer apathy isn't the only problem here. As laid out in the EU initiative, there is a legal problem as well. Authorities should investigate it.

Don't you think the odds of such an initiative succeeding are miniscule? (F)OSS is a worthy cause- but not only would such an initiative be heavily lobbied against, but also; what are the odds of EU lawmakers irrevocably changing the course of the entire EU tech industry at the behest of some concerned citizens? Standardisation of OSS would require a far greater effort than a simple citizens' initiative.
SKG is simply aiming to point out that something happening right now is likely illegal, and that if if it isn't, consumer law should be clarified to reflect this. To me, it seems far more likely to make a positive change in the near future. Hence I support it.
I also support the FOSS movement (and any hypothetical citizen action for it), because of course these things don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think you should support both as well.

yeah maybe i am being too harsh on some points or using the wrong examples.
i'm also very tired so i could be talking out my butt because i'm so tired of having a hard time in general with everything.
excuse me while i go find peace and fix myself with a better outlook..

I was trying to come up with a better example of how buying games/software is actually not different that buying any other products out there.

Please if you have counter arguments to this example I would love to hear them

When you buy a car, you get a vehicle that has certain characteristics and also looks in a certain way. We don’t think about it because for most of us it would be impossible, but even if it is our car we can’t make a copy of this car and sell it. Think about it, by absurd, imagine you can work the metal, forge the engine, make electronic chips, find a cow and work the leather in that precise shape that form the seats. Then try to sell the car. Legally you can’t do this, because the intellectual property for that car is owned by a car manufacturer. And because is a complex machine many other intellectual properties had been included in the car, from engine oil to the gps satellite tracking or just a proprietary steel alloy. A car is a bundle of different intellectual property ownership.

The video game is the same, you buy your copy that has both the developer and publisher intellectual property included and many other intellectual property pieces included. Depending of complexity like there may be a lot. But you are not allowed to sell copies of the game. Because, while you own the game you don't own the rights to make copy of the game and sell them.Same like with the car.

Now imagine that the car seller had the rights to use a certain gps antenna in a car model for two years and you bought that model. When this period ends he can come to your house and take the car away? It sounds ridiculous isn’t it.

The car seller is not allowed to sell that car model with that gps antenna, but that doesn’t mean you lose the ownership properties on your car.

Well with games somehow, to the surprise of anyone here, is ok to lose a game because the certain parts of the game had a time limit on parts of the intellectual property included.

And you will find countless of gonzos out there that say: “Yes, off course the Crew needed to be deleted, ubisoft probably had the right on cars only for 5 years. Obviously they need to delete the game. Duh!”

Who cares they don’t have the rights anymore! I’ve paid for a game with a specific pool of cars, my game with that lineup of cars need to work for me, because I’ve paid for it. You as a publisher can’t sell that game with those cars anymore? Great, I mean tough luck. But what that has to do with the game I’ve paid for?

Not only is not ok to take my entire game away, is not ok to taken parts of the game, like a certain car. Nope, because is like the car seller letting me keep the car but taking away my gps antenna! Doesn’t sound ok, am I right?! You can’t come to my garage and break the door and take away my gps antenna, why you can then remove parts of the original version of the game I’ve paid for.

So there's this insane tractor company that turns out, did exactly what you've described. (Pick your source, it's an infamous story.)

There's a court case that's dragging/ongoing, and more to the point: Many cars have stupid subscription services that are fancy decorative gourds now.

And Apple would rather their computers become eWaste than let you keep upgrading them, even if there's nothing within the system capabilities that would prevent said upgrade; said upgrade is of course, purely software and often cosmetic.

So the choice is: A massive clustertruck of a legal battle that drags on for years until one or more parties are held to arbitration of the right to repair, or: Simply make/buy a reasonable alternative.

Instead of "The Crew", you could be holding drag races in I dunno, Stunts, or flying across the procedural roads of Slow Roads? Instead of a John Deere tractor, you could get a Hitachi.
I'm a little confused at your concern. Much like the Aforementioned FlightGear, it'd be a hobby project. What's there to lobby against?

Because they never ever sold you any ownership, not a tiny bit of ownership. All you ever got was a "i-am-able-to-play-it-license for a unknown period". The length of this period is not specified, it can end at any day or hour... at least this is how the industry mainly is seeing it and the shape they want you to sell their game along with their conditions.

Well... at least the ones you got issues with. Obviously, if some publisher is offering it on GOG usually you can make a backup, put the game in your "garage" and it would be very difficult to remove it. The only thing they could still do is "not to provide any new parts... no updates" anymore and to shut down any server (if there was any server access at all). Although, this could be done with any game on any platform, this is not a GOG only issue but the lack of updates may happen on GOG with a higher possibility.

I dunno why people buy a "rent-license" and expect any kind of ownership while in fact they never had any ownership and may be able to lose their account, and because of DRM (mostly) almost every single Steam game could be gone, along with their account.

If you want any ownership, at least a fraction of it... DRM free or getting one of the increasingly rare to get "true-physical-games" is the only way. Any other way is simply "rent a game for a unknown period".

wasn't online distro supposed to make games cheaper "Looks at AAA prices" yeah... we were lied to.
steams and alot of other platforms prices are mad in the head.

Examples can be found here, under "Digital planned obsolescence examples": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HasD_5PwyW2LbXvJVkoQ2IHmia7QWShsEmNziGyT_Go/

Feel free to share a similar car analogy around: https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkxly_O-3JxyBULIT283l5A1KOhnNsWC3Bj

when android was just coming out there were some good games made..
Nova 1, 2 & 3
Dead Space
and many more.

and what did they do... turn off the servers that let you download the data to play them.
so now.. you have no game... but the game is still sold on the store and was removed.. instead of updated when users complained.

"there you go now there's nothing to complain about"
.. yes.. i can see... thanks for that totally not what we asked for..

ps4 comes out and they delete the android SixAxis driver... so ps3 controllers can't be used on android anymore.

no refund..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8uMKrylfw
dlc or no game... yeah..

"I mean, GOG does support the initative. They made a promotional video on it, which I'll have in the description. But that [was] literally a hundred times less exposure than what the newsletter would have to be ... if it's as they say, because, that many people, that probably could have ended this entire thing, I mean in our favor."
~ Ross Scott in a video dated April 28th, 2025

I must say, I agree with BreOl72 wholeheartedly. The consumer basically signs a legally binding contract saying that the publisher can revoke the license as he sees fit. It's an industry standard that we accepted and amply financed, and for decades. This is an "us" problem that no lawmaker will fix.

But I'm afraid that in addition, Ross Scott has a way too optimistic view of GOG and their marketing efforts. I sometimes watch GOG's promotional videos, especially those promoting the wishlist and the preservation program. The newsletter, on the other hand, is drowned in gazillions of other promotional e-mails from GOG, and I really don't give a shit. In Ross' view, this most basic and most disappointing of GOG's marketing tools is the beacon of hope that could have "ended this thing in his favor". Most of the people here know that's plainly wrong.

I find Ross to be a charismatic speaker, and thankfully he doesn't misrepresent what has come to pass. What you find here in this thread is the usual childish drivel about GOG officials making "promises" that were then "broken". Believe me folks, there are no promises made in marketing. Not surprisingly, Ross does not use these words. He never got anything but vague assurances.

I'm sorry Ross, but an annoying newsletter among dozens we hardcore goglins are getting each week will not "end that thing in your favor". The newsletter is explicitly not "what they say". Take it from a 15 year GOG enthusiast: you got the long end of the stick already, now you want the short end too. In the newsletter, your initiative would have been one lame bullet point in five, or one in a dozen, and most receivers would have deleted the e-mail before even opening it.

Set your hopes on the 13,000 people who watched GOG's video (which even has the link to your website in the description). Because these people have demonstrated the willingness to actively engage with the subject – and that's worth more than hundreds of thousands who just sign a petition without knowing jack shit about the subject matter.

I am not bothered by these games, while they are still around...so why would the (foreseeable) end of their existence bother me?

And yes: every consumer who decries that system, should maybe start thinking about what, or rather WHO(!) keeps the system alive and kicking.
"As you make your bed, so you must lie in it."

I'll give you, that the consumers are not initially responsible for the existence of these games.
That responsibility lies with the game companies who started them as "test balloons", to see, what they can get away with.

But it's the consumers, who keep the system alive.

If consumers wouldn't continue to throw money at these games, the companies behind these games would stop producing them.

You view a new flat and the landlord tells you, that he never asked any of his old tenants to return the keys to the flat, after they moved out.

The first thing you think after learning that fact, is "well, I hope, nobody makes use of their old key and takes my stuff away!"

But that concern isn't bothering you to the point where you don't sign the contract and don't move into that flat.
You don't even bother to ask the landlord for a change of locks, before you sign.

So of course it happens, what has to happen: two years after you move in, someone makes use of their old key (of which existence you knew before!) and takes your stuff away.

Who is to blame here?
Besides the guy who used his old key?

And who is to blame, if you then move into yet another flat afterwards - where the exact same story repeats itself?
And then again...

Yes, it IS the issue. Aside from the increasing overlap between DRM & online anti-cheat, even Steam themselves in their own developer documentation openly state : "We suggest enhancing the value of legitimate copies of your game by using Steamworks features which won't work on non-legitimate copies (e.g. online multiplayer, achievements, leaderboards, trading cards, etc.)" on their own page about SteamWorks DRM, ie, Valve themselves spell out in their own words in documentation aimed at developers that online features are partly designed to do double-duty as "soft DRM". The "innocence" of "but online feature are purely about fun, nothing else I'm sure" may have been true many years ago, but doesn't get any clearer that the increased obsession with gating as much content online as possible over the past decade definitely has ulterior motives "synonymous with DRM".

You aren't going to win anything in any court until you get the facts straight - they WEREN'T told "they own it". No store said that. Quite the opposite - the reason Steam, Ubisoft, etc, haven't lost any class action lawsuits on this issue is precisely that they didn't say that. Beyond that, gamers are mostly telling themselves what they want to hear with that stuff. Pointing this out isn't "defending" it at all (the usual 'shoot the messenger' response), it's simply dealing with the facts that if you go charging into some courtroom with a "they promised me" claim for which you have no proof, you'll flat out lose. Believe me, I wish it were not the case that Steam, etc, weren't selling "services" but they are, and you guys aren't going to win anything claiming they said something they didn't that's as false as the other "Gabe promised if Steam goes out of business, I'll get DRM-Free copies of everything I bought" urban myth.

That's not really true though, is it?

Example 1 - The Crew (and Crew 2 & Motorfest) pages all have warnings on the checkout pages that 1. The game is tied to your online account & client, 2. The game needs BattlEye Anti-Cheat and 3. Permanent internet connect is needed to play.

Example 2 - Many game reviews at the time openly spelled it out. "Well, it's also an always-online, plot-driven driving game in which..." - PCGamer Dec 2014.

Example 3 - All the gamer forum threads dating back 10 years, where everyone seemed to know and accept full well you couldn't play it offline:-
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Crew/comments/6ww7ky/sooo_why_exactly_is_the_crew_online_only/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/1/5625567756212825907/
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/pc/194685-the-crew/answers/384581-is-there-an-offline-singleplayer-mode-at-all

I have sympathy for some very young gamers buying their very first game who doesn't understand what the means, but most of the rest who've been gaming for years knew that it's an online-only game all along and only started feigning ignorance after it recently went offline. Same with Steam - how many years have we seen "3rd Party DRM, contains Denuvo" sitting right next to the "Add to Cart" button, and how many gamers ignored it?...

Until gamers grow a pair and stop throwing money at every single thing they claim to hate, nothing's to change even if you put a f**king great red & pink flashing banner saying "YOU DON'T OWN SH*T HERE" on the checkout page, print that out on cardboard, drive round their house and physically beat them over the head with it, the problem will continue as long as they continue to respond with "Online-only? Who cares, I haven't had outage in years since dial-up. Me want, *click*,".

So I tell you what - I'll do a deal with you. I'll sign the UK petition on one condition - next time you, Ross, mrglanet, reseme, etc, see the next triple-DRM'd, hyper-monetized, very obviously disposable rental service (aka online-only game) you're thinking of buying, you refrain from buying it and instead e-mail the publisher telling them why you didn't buy it but will reconsider once they've made changes to it that allow it to be preservable (eg, work offline, promise to remove DRM on a certain date, etc), before you hand over any money. Deal? Because if you can't agree to that, then you absolutely are just as much part of the co-problem as Ubisoft & EA, as they certainly won't stop pushing the same things you claim to hate down the same rope that you won't stop pulling on.