Mostly because the internet wasn’t really a mainstream thing yet. There were early attempts at digital game sales, though. The first one I know of was Romox, from the late 1970s, which supported cartridge-based systems like the VIC-20 and Atari 2600. It worked through an in-store terminal - you could buy a blank cartridge, and the Romox machine would download the game over a phone line and write it onto the cartridge. There were a few other attempts as well. For example, Nintendo had a similar system in Japan for kiosks that wrote games onto floppy disks, called Disk Cards, for the Famicom Disk System. An interesting aspect of Nintendo’s version was that it was cheap, but the data was time limted and only lasted a short time before users needed to overwrite or replace them.

As for home digital distribution, that was not really a thing until the late 1980s and early 1990s. SEGA, for instance, had the infamous SEGA Meganet and later the SEGA Channel for the Mega Drive. Around the same time, shareware and demo distribution over BBSs was becoming more popular as internet access slowly expanded. I remember using Aminet in the early ’90s, I think it started around 1992, and downloading games via phone line. If I remember correctly, Aminet was distributed through USENET back then.

I'm quite surprised as it seems pretty clear cut the Digital Services Act precisely defines them as services in detail (along with stores like Steam, Microsoft Store, etc). Then again MEP = politician and, well, you know... ;-)

It's possible it could do. As with many interpretations, it depends on context. Eg, many "Goods & Services" acts in European countries require something (say a fridge-freeze) be "Fit for purpose" and last a "reasonable time". Even for physical goods, you will rarely see "hard time limit codifications" precisely because leeway is intentional. Eg, if the law guarantees minimum 12 months warranty and yours fails after 13 months, there's still a very good chance you'll win. 5 years though, less so. 10 years almost certainly not. But there may be some products where failing after 12 months + 1 day isn't unreasonable, eg, if you bought a domestic washing machine and heavily used it in a hotel almost with commercial loads, eg, 8x loads per day. This is exactly why laws don't try and and declare hard "one size fits all" time limits for everything for every law.

For online-only subscription games, expectation is "for as long as you are paying". For online-only video games that aren't subscriptions, you've got the problem that you expect 10 years of support yet you aren't paying anything towards 10 years worth of ongoing support costs, the publisher is footing all the bill. If they say "after a decade it's no longer economically viable and it would negatively affect sales of our new products", it's not legally unreasonable to end support at some point regardless of how disappointed some gamers are. Again, pulling the plug after just a few months and you stand a good chance of "unfairness". 10 years down the line, probably less so.

That the game then stops working is then less about "support time-frames" and more the nature of the game. Eg, if you bought a CD-ROM game, played the hell out of it for 8 years, thousands of hours of enjoyment, and then the disc broke, would it be reasonable to get a refund / replacement disc for free? Probably not. This is the kind of stuff they will start comparing it to if you start going down the road of wanting online-only service games treated as "goods".

There is no requirement, and trying to force one a decade or more in advance may be found unreasonable if the basis of duration of support changes over time based on changing economic conditions. See Brian's example of Windows support duration. W7 (6 Main + 9 ESU years) was supported for almost +40% longer than Vista (6 Main + 5 Extended) or W8 (4 Main + 7 Extended years) based on ongoing market usage patterns, and none of this stuff was reasonably known on each launch day.

Personally, I think it's very doubtful any software that stops working without an online service, will ever be seen as "goods" in any "It's exactly like a CD-ROM that works offline" substitute product sense, as they really are worlds apart, plus the DSA already defines them as services.

Oh I do realise what a mess it is. Believe me I do. :-) I think reality is a mix of both. There's certainly some aspects you can use Directive 93/13/EEC for for attacking EULA's as "unfair contract" (eg, "we can delete the game at any time" thing), but at the same time, I don't think you'll succeed in forcing publishers to make promises like "We'll support this for exactly 3,294 days" on launch day, as that really isn't how software support works. You can't force them to agree to a timeframe they just don't have enough data to make a decision about yet.

I think you'll succeed in pushing for better labelling on checkout pages (eg, bright red "THIS GAME IS AN ONLINE SERVICE" notice). I don't think you'll succeed in forcing under Copyright source code to be released against a publishers will. The initiative is advertised as a "light touch" to pushing for DRM-Free, but you will absolutely very definitely need to make major changes to Copyright legislation for that stuff. As mentioned, there's also very obvious defences against that, eg, reusing server-side code from The Crew 1 shutdown online servers in The Crew 2's online servers = the code is still being used in an "under support" game. Your proposal for getting governments to force clauses like "The government requires that the publisher must agree to..." in private contracts between publisher (eg, Ubisoft) and distributors / marketplaces (eg, Steam) also sounds like a minefield that may require significant changes in Contract Law and have huge ramifications to industries far beyond gaming. That's the kind of stuff that even sympathetic politicians will quietly back away from.

As said above, you've talked to MEP's but I think there's value in having a chat with a lawyer specialising in European IP law (who isn't a politician) as they're more likely to give you advice on what approach is more likely to succeed without "political question dodging" (that all politicians do).

There's a lot I could respond to, but we're talking past each other. This quote here is a perfect example since I stated in the same post you responded to:

"Also, I wanted to reiterate that precisely because we're focusing on the OUTCOME (a functional game) and not the methodology (source code, binaries, specific code, etc.), that allows us to sidestep copyright laws since we're not directly asking them to give up any specific IP."

So we have never once stated that they need to release source code (you can read the initiative, it's nowhere in there), yet you're framing this as us asking publishers to release source code. Ironically, after people being aware it exists, the largest problem we've faced is misrepresentation of what we're asking for. This is one example of several you gave (for example the initiative is not retroactive). I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this. If I say the sky is blue and others say "you keep saying the sky is green," there's only so much I can do there.

I know exactly what you're saying Ross. What I'm saying is - if your petition succeeds in gaining traction and then someone says "Hey Ross, we'd like you come over and describe what changes you want" as you're suddenly put in the spotlight, what would you say? I'm just encouraging you to have something ready beyond "I don't know" and understand the potential legal hurdles better.

Scroll this page up and see that quotes like "The second the customer has a copy of the server software, it ceases being a service", "now vote for the initiative" are actually coming from mrglanet who keeps quoting your videos and interpreting "here's what Ross is saying". You can't blame people for assuming that's part of your plan when people quote "I am not aware of any live service game that couldn't be converted to something you couldn't preserve forever if customers had access to the code" from your own videos. So a lot of misunderstanding are not coming from me wilfully misquoting you at all when your videos say this:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVBiN5SKuA&t=1205s

I think what's on many minds is this - Your initiative in many eyes seems to be "Ross is doing this so we don't have to do a single thing ourselves". But if this initiative doesn't succeed (or more likely it succeeds in a few areas (eg, advertising regulations) but gets watered down when it comes to forcing publishers to give up Copyrighted content), then what? Will gamers continue another 10, 20, 30 years of self-destructive habits?

A lot of people like what you're doing, but less so the fact that gamers view your initiative seems to give everyone a "pat on the head" to keep funding all the bad habits. You have a large enough online reach you should really be encouraging both approaches, but you even seem to be discouraging people from "voting with their wallets" just because it didn't work for you personally as an individual in the past. And yet the argument for supporting 'voting with your wallet' is exactly the same as your initiative isn't it - rally enough like-mind people together and then it does start to have an impact). Something to think about perhaps.

unfortunately that account is actively pushing wrong information and appears to ignore any facts that is presented.

for example this account keeps saying wrongly that the Crew was sold with clearly stated labels that the game has a time limited, when is a FACT that they sold the game like any other game at the time. Where there are real world examples of Crew physical package not having any warning on the labels about the game being axed at later time.

This entire "you all want the source code" nonsense is another example of this account pretending this false request is the campaign position and then proceed argument against it. It is called a "straw man" technique btw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, SKG never asked for the source code of games. This is ridiculous, obviously.

incidentally if these propaganda methods are new to you, the "is consumer fault" argument raised in this thread is also a propaganda techinqiue called "Scapegoating"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

No, is not my fault that I'm getting scammed by ubisoft for the crew game. I'm a victim, and ubisoft needs to pay for their illegal behaivour.

I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills and stop mis-quoting people. I said "the game DID have it clearly labelled that it wouldn't work without the Internet" which was and still is 100% true. I also said "There's no law that requires an exact close-down date be presented on the checkout page" (that you keep lying about being "criminally illegal" due to your persistent ignorance of the law) and that a game doesn't need to have "Game As A Service" to very obviously be one because the fact that it requires an online connection means the EU classifies it as a online service by default (also both true). Again, you need to calm down, drop the personal attacks, educate yourself on what the law says (not just crayon in what you want it to say) and deal with the facts.

Ross wanting gamers to have the code is is something that was quoted from Ross's own Youtube videos:-

"I am not aware of any live service game that couldn't be converted to something you couldn't preserve forever if customers had access to the code" - Ross Scott.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVBiN5SKuA&t=1205s

And given the nature of VMProtect, etc, left in many games like The Crew, you obviously will need the source code if you want to write your own custom community servers, etc, because the compiled release of the game is part encrypted. That's the whole point of "Anti-Tamper" DRM it stop you from just changing / reverse engineering a compiled program without the source code...

"That account" clearly knows a hell of lot more about the law than your endless bad car analogies and foot stamping.

As for "but NO ONE said anything about giving out the code", it's right there in the f**kcing video...

If you understand anything at all about video game development you know full well you can't take a Denuvo / VMProtect DRM protected game where sizable chunks of the code (particularly server code) are encrypted and obfuscated inside Virtual Machines (hence VMProtect) and have some magic wand that create community servers out of it without the source code...

I am well aware that Ross does not want open sourcing server software to be mandatory. I was just sick and tired of spelling it out because you would know this if you bothered to watch the WHOLE FAQ (or read/search the transcript) where he states this at least twice in his compromises.

"Instead of insisting that the game works on shutdown, have a "best effort" from the developers so that savvy users could "repair" the game. This could be server binaries, server source code, though again, this is optional, guys. That would not be the only option. I'm not mandating that.

...
Option 4: Make a best effort to let the customer repair or run the game after shutdown. So this could be server binaries, maybe server source code. Again, not mandatory."

You strike me as failing to see the forest for the trees too often with this. At best, I think you're being a little too myopic on things right now and how things can't change, but this Initiative is focused on future games and merely going back to a standard the industry had until the 2010s. Developers know how to make games with an end-of-life plan if accounted for from the beginning. This is not the end of the world for the games industry: https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxLwTNvTltKnPGH4E0mZ0y2ns42cNOtDoW

see also the minimum effort options

This would in no way require giving up IP whatsoever.

"'What you are proposing is outrageous, because it would require companies to give up their intellectual property and they cannot release their game without losing their trademark.'

Okay, I pointed out earlier that the perpetual license in no way entitles the buyers to the intellectual property rights. All they get is that single instance of it. I was never arguing that rights holders should lose their IP. That's actually the whole point, people with perpetual licenses have rights also.

As for trademark, companies can still protect their trademark, and release an unsupported game. They just have to be in front of it, and define the terms. As an example, Grand Theft Auto, a commercial game has been released for free, multiple times by Rockstar, and they no longer support that game. Do you honestly think Rockstar lost the rights and trademark to the Grand Theft Auto franchise because of that? I think they have some money invested into that one.

Using trademark as an excuse to kill a game, means the company is operating irresponsibly. That's the point here, if the company wants to solve a problem, they can if they don't, there's infinite excuses. Not good excuses, but, excuses nonetheless."

You legally own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

Anyway, I'm done here. This is taking up too much of my energy (emotional and otherwise) that I'd rather use elsewhere. This whole forum discussion reminds me of when Ross gave commentary on detractors 6.5 years ago on reddit

Have a public discussion with Ross or Daniel (Initiative spokesman) or come to the Discord server (linked on the SKG website) if you want to debate SKG, if you're so confident in your stance.

Addendum: Here are some discussions Ross had with (American) lawyers on this issue for those curious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUxnnMPxEu4&t=3348s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt2ar78R28o&list=PLheQeINBJzWaKyqwEEuRIlnDoDMMvQ0rb&index=4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggDUbkYQaIM&list=PLheQeINBJzWaKyqwEEuRIlnDoDMMvQ0rb&index=5
https://archive.org/details/youtube-ZfkwsM8tvmc

"Games are unique experiences. You can't replace them any more than you can replace books in a library with different authors. You can't replace Dracula with Twilight and say nothing was lost because they're both about vampires. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not going to spend much time explaining why saving art has value because for me, it's innate. If you don't understand why art or creative works have value, I probably can't reach you on that. Maybe a philosopher can field that one. For me, it's just an instinctive response.

Now of course we can't save ALL artistic works, that's just not practical. There's too many. Plus, some of them suck. But we can decide for ourselves what's worth saving, and what's not. Games as a Service denies that chance to everyone. When I see a game with obvious creative value being destroyed
this is what comes to mind: [book burning scene]"
-https://youtu.be/tUAX0gnZ3Nw&t=2620

Remember also that Ross is a moderate in all of this. It's the industry that has shifted so hard towards business rights to the detriment of consumers and the destruction of the efforts of developers and artists

Last time I've checked, which is 1 second ago, I still have internet yet the game doesn't work. How do you explain that? I've read and agreed to buy a game that requires internet, I have internet, why the game doesn't work?

yes, there are, they are called consumer laws. just visit blizzard store and try to buy a subscription. They have precise and exact date when what you are paying for will expire.

he was stating the obvious , that if you have the source code you can convert a dead game in one that will work again. He was not asking for the source code as you again wrongly on purpose try to imply.

As long as the developer publisher exists and owns the intellectual property of the game there is no reason that they can't keep the game online on DRM platforms like steam, uplay or epic. No one is asking for laws to force the developer to provide the source files of the game.

the stopkillinggames doesn't ask for this. is a lie you keep arguing against to create a fake impression that the campaign is flawed

what is obvious is that for ubisoft just by switching an option in uplay settings the game will work again. For now, ubisoft still exist, uplay still exists, my account with them still exists. so to give my game back is a matter of opening their setting panel and switch the game back on.

he understands it. I bet if stuff that he likes goes away he will get angry.

is normal for all of us to not care about stuff we don't like. for me if 90% of "modern abstract paintings" found in various museums around the world burn tomorrow in a fire, I would care less. But if I'm the one that notices the person trying to burn those "paintings" I will stop him, even if I don't care about the paintings at all.

that is the difference that makes us human, to realize that other people may like other stuff and that we should respect their love for these things and we should not agree with the destruction of this things they like just because we don't care about them.

"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." - https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007

There is no market solution: https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx2drIpqGXojRGRuOCCIOXErxmHQ7xnobO

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxlCICimBuRBjMuu3g3M0s-hbZ0x1fKbB0

A EULA is absolutely a "legal document". It is in fact a legal and binding contract between a software supplier and a customer or end-user (see wikipedia). Which could work in Ross' favor, if clauses clearly violate existing consumer laws. Then again, it is a legal contract – one unlawful clause does not make the whole contract invalid.

So, the question is whether one specific contract clause that's in basically all EULAs is in conflict with consumer laws (in the European Union, that is). You'd think somebody would have noticed these past 32 years, but for the fun of it, I've taken a closer look.

I've skimmed through Directive 93/13/EEC and eventually got to the amending Directive 2019/2161, Annex 1, points (a) to (q). You will find a rather detailed list of clauses they consider "unfair" to the customer. Not surprisingly, these are very obvious, clear cut and unmistakable descriptions of breathtaking customer exploitation (like, for example, continuously taking money from the customer without supplying goods/services).

But none of these provisions even comes close to be applicable in Ross' case.
[url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31993L0013]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31993L0013[/url]

So what this boils down to is that Ross as a complete legal layman thinks that customer rights of EU citizens are infringed upon. He thinks it should be illegal for software companies to grant licenses they can revoke. I can see the moral case he's making, but legally, he's on extremely thin ice.

From the perspective of the courts, forcing a company to do anything that requires continued investment into a product that has long ceased to be profitable infringes on the company's rights. Forcing a company to give up their digital rights for free is practically insane, no court will do that.

And, a personal note, shitstorms are always likely to achieve the exact opposite of what they're supposed to. We're all hobbyists in a love/hate relationship with the companies that fullfil our very dreams, then seem to take a flamethrower to them. These companies know that customer satisfaction spells in an entirely different alphabet. Maybe it's time to actually talk to them and ask for a reasonable and predefined number of years that they're keeping their games working.

The Killing Games Initiative will be around for a few months, maybe years, and it will achieve nothing besides overly long youtube videos in the legal fantasy genre.

I've no idea what you think a "fake stupid" act will achieve, but again I'll repeat - there is currently no EU that says unless someone writes "time limited" on a checkout page of a game with an always-online connection, that "must" mean it's some "criminal" law on par with rape or murder. Stop humiliating yourself with fake made up "criminal laws", get a grip on reality and end the mindless shit-posting and personal attacks.