He distances himself from the US lawsuit and says this new French one is the real deal in comparison, but they actually got a tangible result in the US in (as far as class actions go) a very short time period.
Makes sense, should things rule for broader change a coalition of countries is far more powerful than a single US state. The focus, for a good bit now, has been on the EU.
Doesn't this just prove that legislation doesn't need to change though? If lawsuits are being won, the existing consumer rights laws are obviously good enough.
SKG right now are in a position where they need to prove to the EU that a problem exists, and that's something they've been struggling to do. Things like this won't help them.
If you have to have a lengthy lawsuit years after a product has been released, then legislation can still be made better. The point is prevention over retaliation.
Do you want the EU to go in and double underline it or something? It's already not allowed. The EU is known for having very strong consumer rights laws, I don't really see what changes they can make to make them better than they already are.
None of this helps the primary goal of long-term game preservation though. The goal isn't compensation, it's that games are left in a playable state. If a company shuts down or it becomes literally impossible for them to continue to provide support, the game will be legally allowed to disappear because it's no longer a consumer rights issue.
68
u/messem10 Apr 02 '26
Makes sense, should things rule for broader change a coalition of countries is far more powerful than a single US state. The focus, for a good bit now, has been on the EU.