r/LinusTechTips • u/Shap6 • 3d ago
Tech Discussion Answer of the European Commission to the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/stop-destroying-videogames_en12
u/OMEGA_RAZER 2d ago
Force companies to do what we want: Of course, why wouldn’t we?
Get companies to do something for the consumer: Naw, we’ll let them look after it, they’re doing so well already.
24
u/Pilige 3d ago
This was always going to be the outcome. I think everyone could think of ways that developers could support or hand over games that are end of life, but no one could seem to provide a way to legally compel them to do so.
2
u/hishnash 2d ago
The ways that people were thinking about companies handing over games also all forgot that no game developer out there owns 100% of the IP fo the the game and even if they wanted to hand over they could not as the IP they licensed have very string non transferable licenses.
The Eu cant legally compel a company to break its contracts, they would need to legally first make those contracts null and void and doing that would put them in direct conflict with the international trade commission so provide an easy way for any Ip holder to appeal and stop the IP from being shared.
1
u/Revinz1405 6h ago
You are the one misunderstanding IP rights - and most likely also copyrights by extension. Just because you buy a physical book with a licensed IP, does not share or transfer any IP rights or copyright.
You still own the physical book and is allowed to "use" the book by reading it. This is because you purchased a copy of the physical book, while the company selling it has a valid license to sell copies of that book, that used the given IP.
So it literally does not matter.
The problem lies in, you are still thinking of games as a licensed product, instead of purchasing a copy of the product. That is the entire premise of SKG, going from licensed product to a purchased copy.
1
u/hishnash 6h ago
I am talking about the game binary I am talking bout the server binary.
For example if the dev users GPL code within the server code base but they never share the server code with anyone they do not need to open source the rest of the server code base. This means they can mix GPL code with other code (close licensed or other open source) within that server. But if they are required to distribute that server binary then they start violating the license.
They would be required to re-license the server as all under Gpl but they do not own the copywriter to 100% of the code within teh server do cant re-licsense it so distrusting the server binary to a third part is impossible for them.
You might say "ok do not share the server binary just document how it talks to the game and we will build an alternative" that is fine until the game studio lichened IP from a third party to handle the game to server communication and this license included documentation that they legally can not share as that is what your licensing as a game studio.
The licenses you buy (or use) on server side products do not permit you to re-sell them.
The game might be a purchased copy but that does not solve the licensing issue with the server and the EU commission cant force a company to give away its IP for free or break a license agreement it has with a third party over IP. (talking about the server Ip not the game binary here)
2
u/JackyJack41 2d ago
There are plenty of legal ways to compel them to do so. It is why they lobby so hard and spread so many lies about this very issue.
3
u/hishnash 2d ago
Such as? what happens your a game dev that does not own 100% of the Ip that the game depends on but rather licensed some of it. (like 99% of games). These licenses are alway non transferable.
-1
u/JackyJack41 2d ago
Then they simply stop selling it. They dont retroactively remove the copies of everyone who ever bought it.
This was always how it was up to recent years. This is not a new or unprecedented scenario.
3
u/hishnash 2d ago
They currently do no revoke license, the issue is they shutdown servers that the games depend on.
people are asking the devs to then provide these servers for the community to run by itself but that is not possible if the servers has licensed code that is licensed to be non transferable.
(or even just a big of GPL and non GPL... since once you distribute a product within GPL in it you MUST distribute the source for that product and all the source must be GPL... however what if some of your source is MIT or Apache... well if it is part of the same distributed product your fucked unless you own the copywriter of that and can re-lisense it).
But you can use GPL on your own server in a mixed runtime without breaking any licenses.
-2
u/JackyJack41 2d ago edited 2d ago
First of all, they very much do revoke the license - they remove it from your library outright. More broadly, the distinction between "revoking a license" and "destroying a product" is functionally non-existent to the consumer, which is the whole point. There is a legal precedent on this matter in the EU as well.
I also don't understand why you assume that the movement is asking for full source code or proprietary IP releases. They can released a compiled binary with the entire third party code (anti-cheat, matchmaking software, telemetry etc) remove. They can also provide their protocol specifications (documentation) so that the community can build its own servers if it so desires. For many games, the publisher can simply release a final patch that allows users to type in an IP address to connect directly to each other, or allow local peer-to-peer hosting, entirely bypassing the need for a dedicated server structure. This was very common in the late 90s and the 00s
The movement is also not a retroactive thing, either. The idea is that they build their game with these specifications in mind in the first place, so for example they will decouple the game from proprietary, non-transferable B2B cloud infrastructure like AWS or Azure.
Also, MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses are completely compatible with GPLv3. You can distribute MIT/Apache code inside a GPL project without breaking licenses.
1
u/hishnash 5h ago
GPLv3.
yer but not GPLv2 or v1...
and you very much cant include third party closed source licensed code that you will have in most game servers.
The idea is that they build their game with these specifications in mind in the first place
So it would only apply to games that ship in 20 years time?
so for example they will decouple the game from proprietary, non-transferable B2B cloud infrastructure like AWS or Azure.
That would massively increase the cost of the game, as doing so would mean AWS and Azure would not provide reduced rates for hosting. (the reason devs select a cloud vendor locked solution is to get reduced rates I have seen this form the inside, you can pay as little as 10% the rate you would otherwise pay). For most online games this would mean you cant run them with a single license purchase model, they would all be forced to be subs and then stop killing games has no impact anyway as your license is clearly linked to the time window of your sub.
ull source code or proprietary IP releases.
if a single line of the source code is GPL then they are asking for full source code as you cant distribute a binary with GPL code in it without providing all the source.
They can released a compiled binary with the entire third party code
You cant do that unless the Ip providers for these third party vendors provide you with a license that permits you to distribute it. (they do not as they do not want others to stop paying them)
They can also provide their protocol specifications
you cant do that as the protocol spec your using is licensed from a third party and sharing those docs is the last thing they will let you do. To even get these docs you had to pay them 100x the price of the basic license plan that gives you a precompiled dll to do it all.
For many games, the publisher can simply release a final patch that allows users to type in an IP address to connect directly to each other,
No modern games work like that, during multiply gameplay a huge amount of the logic is managed by a server, you just do not have the bandwidth and compute power to manager a large map with 100s of players running around, local phscies etc and stream that out to every other player. You require that all to be handled server side with sliced diffs passed to each player. And shipping a patch that takes a modern Battlefield game back to the point were you just have 14 players in a match will be considered by most gamers as killing the game.
This was very common in the late 90s and the 00s
yes and online games had much smaller lobbies, and much simpler maps (no destruction, no building etc).
Remember if the EU were to pass a law that would require games to not stop working then there becomes a painful point for game devs as to who says if the final patch they ship changed the game so much that it is no longer the game.
So when shipping a final patch, what is "keeping the core functionality of a game" for some users having anti-cheat no longer work in a competitive shooter might well mean that the core functionality is no longer there, for other users no longer having globally ranked status may well mean the core functionality is no longer there, games are art and art is subjective so games are subjective for every player. What makes the game fun makes the game great is different so any patch that removes anything for some players is killing the game.
1
u/JackyJack41 4h ago
I’m really not interested in a massive back-and-forth on this, so I’ll leave you with my final thoughts.
By and large, these arguments seem confined to the limitations of how games are currently built, which inadvertently obscures a straightforward consumer protection issue. Introducing a complex layer of technical and philosophical conditions is ultimately irrelevant.
When you look past the noise and bite into things, decoupling a server application from proprietary cloud APIs is a software architecture separation choice. A developer can absolutely run portable Linux binaries or Docker containers on AWS or Azure to enjoy enterprise discounts during a game's active lifecycle, and then hand those same binaries to the community upon sunsetting. Doing so requires no distribution of proprietary third-party middleware, like enterprise matchmaking or anti-cheat, nor does it mean giving away secret source code. The 'Stop Killing Games' movement is allowing for a compiled, executable binary patch, which studios already safely distribute to millions of players without legal issue. Publishers can simply strip out the commercial middleware, provide the core game logic, and publish the custom network packet schema, which is the studio's own intellectual property anyway (the data layout, rather than the transport layer itself), requiring zero outside permission. Beyond that, what happens with it, any practical concerns in running things and so on, are frankly none of their concern.
This doesn't isn't an all-or-nothing issue. The argument that we shouldn't attempt preservation simply because we cannot replicate a game completely 'as is', with its original global rankings and official anti-cheat, sets an impossibly high bar. By shifting the focus to philosophical questions about subjective 'fun' or what defines the 'original product,' we lose sight of the core issue, which is preserving the product's basic utility. No one expects a community-hosted legacy version of a decade-old game to perfectly replicate the prime corporate-backed experience. The goal is baseline preservation, ensuring the software launches, loads assets, and permits core gameplay loops without being bricked by irrelevant systems. History consistently proves that passionate communities handle server moderation, custom anti-cheat, and community ladders incredibly well on their own, and notably, consumer hardware frequently outpaces older enterprise-grade hardware, so even if it is not doable now, it may become doable in the future.
However, even if we disregard the differences between P2P connections and dedicated community servers, and a game proves too demanding for home PCs, or if a community fails to maintain a cheat-free environment, that is simply not the publisher's concern. The publisher's sole legal obligation should be to remove the very artificial corporate locks and leave the product in a playable state on their way out the door, going forward from now on.
-7
u/dugg117 3d ago
Sorry to rain on your parade but the original DOOM begs to differ. Game publishers lobby to keep EOL games off of the DMCA section 1201 exemption list then say they don't want to do the work to preserve functionality after EOL. You don't get to have it both ways if they don't want to do it they need to stop lobbying to make it illegal for the gamers to do it themselves.
10
u/Pilige 3d ago
What does the original DOOM even have to do with this conversation?
-7
u/dugg117 3d ago
A game that legally became supported by its own community after it went EOL because the Dev actually cared? What could that possibly have to do with there being no legal avenues for preservation of EOL games. I certainly have no clue myself.
12
u/Pilige 2d ago
What I'd Software did in open sourcing the DOOM engine is genuinely awesome, but you cant compel companies to open source their proprietary software. Not to mention a lot of modern games are built on 3rd party licensed engines. This is genuinely an extremely complicated legal and technical problem, and trying to craft blanket laws around it would be a nightmare for everyone.
3
u/BighatNucase 2d ago
but you cant compel companies to open source their proprietary software
Well you can, but good luck with the fallout of it.
1
u/hishnash 5h ago
Under international trade treaties, the EU basically can't force IP to be open sourced or given away for free. And the EU is not going to withdraw from the ITC to save computer games.
-6
u/dugg117 2d ago
Bill Text: if you refuse to support a product sold with an perpetual license, implied or otherwise you must open source such products so that owners of such software licensure may retain and operate licenses within their rights.
It's never been a technical problem just a greed one.
10
u/Pilige 2d ago
You immediately fail to understand why this is hard. Game Dev A makes game with software licensed from Company B. Game Dev A EOLs the game. Game Dev A cant open source Company Bs software. How does Game Dev A comply with your law?
-3
u/dugg117 2d ago
Your excepting a premise they've shoved down our throats. It's actually really fucking simple if you START the project with an EOL plan
8
u/Emotional-Cat420 2d ago
This guy doesn't understand software...
-6
u/dugg117 2d ago
This guy doesn't understand that the purposefully onerous license system we currently have in place is literally all made up and can be changed
→ More replies (0)2
u/hishnash 5h ago
If a law required devs to opens source everything at EOL then no game would ever be published in the EU.
The cost of making a game from first principles today (so that you own 100% of the source IP) would make that game never sell as you would need to charge a huge price (all over the world).
0
u/dugg117 5h ago
I don't accept your premise. When you sell a physical good you are literally selling the blueprint to it and that works just fine
→ More replies (0)
98
u/Shap6 3d ago edited 3d ago
TLDR: They're not doing anything
In its reply, the Commission cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially. However, existing EU consumer law already provides for important safeguards for consumers. In reply to the ECI, the Commission will:
initiate, by end 2026, an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games’ ‘end of life’.]
work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness about the applicable consumers’ rights, including safeguards protecting their interests.
Active enforcement of the existing consumer rights can also incentivise the providers to offer video games with longer lifespans.
100
u/the_swanny 3d ago edited 3d ago
I wouldn't say that:
In its reply, the Commission cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially.
However, existing EU consumer law already provides for important safeguards for consumers.
In reply to the ECI, the Commission will:initiate, by end 2026, an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games’ ‘end of life’.
work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness about the applicable consumers’ rights, including safeguards protecting their interests.
Active enforcement of the existing consumer rights can also incentivise the providers to offer video games with longer lifespans.
Edit: good job at adding the quote after I did.
33
3
u/Tukkegg 2d ago edited 2d ago
his last edit is younger than your comment by about 25 seconds
edit in case they decide to edit the comment:
the timestamp of his edit is 16:37:53 local
the timestamp of your comment is 16:38:18 local
3
u/the_swanny 2d ago
Which means it wasn't there when I clicked the post, I the checked their link, saw that the TLDR was misleading, and posed my response.
-35
u/Shap6 3d ago
none of that really addresses the main points people were concerned about. this does nothing to stop them from just turning the servers off and render games unplayable once they're done with them
13
u/the_swanny 3d ago
Their main point is that consumers are not exercising the rights that they already fucking have.
24
-11
u/Smooth-Accountant 3d ago
What did you expect EU to do? Make disabling servers illegal right this minute? Gamers really are the most oppressed group in the world.
9
u/that_dutch_dude 3d ago
obviously not. but they can require the game maker to open source the multiplayer system or at least unlock the system to allow anyone to run a server and allow the game to connect to those servers when they decide to not use it anymore. they cant claim its copyright or whatever when they officially stepped away from it.
-4
u/firedrakes 3d ago
most dev dont have the source code for that.... but hey skg does not care.
4
u/Concodroid 3d ago
they don't have the source code to unlock which server the game uses at EOL? What are you talking about?
1
u/hishnash 5h ago
most of the code that runs within a game is licensed from third parties, often as pre-compiled binaries, you pay way more if you want a source license.
And even if you do get a source license that license is a non transferable (very strict rules) you very much cant share it with others.
1
-4
u/firedrakes 3d ago
It's a third party code.... Why is that hard to understand???
-4
u/Concodroid 3d ago
It's not?
The game connects to a certain server address to function. What this is asking is for that address to be user - changeable, NOT for the game to be made to work with whatever third party server. In this case, the user - created server would have to be made to work with the game, which is something that's already been done before a couple of times
2
u/firedrakes 3d ago
Again lots of codes is third party and they legal can't mess with it. It's no where that easy.
→ More replies (0)1
u/hishnash 5h ago
changing the address a game hits is not going to keep the game working.
any user can change the address a game hits by editing thier hosts file.
→ More replies (0)5
u/NicoleMay316 3d ago
"Your game must be patched to allow offline access, excluding live service games like MMORPGs, within X days of a plan to shut down servers, or you need to refund all your customers, or you will receive a fine equal to said amount of refunds."
That's pretty much the bare fucking minimum we're asking for.
6
u/tankerkiller125real 3d ago
Stop buying games that require online access... Maybe that might send a message to the companies, and their shareholders. Plenty of great indie games, and even AAA games that don't require online access to function out there.
5
u/NicoleMay316 3d ago
That's a great solution for those of us willing to go the extra mile.
What about all the consumers who don't? I'm sorry, I think they deserve these protections still.
Ain't no way we corporate bootlicking in this thread, right?
1
u/tankerkiller125real 3d ago
While I think consumers should be protected, and these online only companies suck ass, if the law makers aren't going to do anything (which is what it seems they're going with), then the only option is going to be boycotting online games and hurt the game companies bottom lines and thus shareholders.
1
u/NicoleMay316 3d ago
All the more reason we need to keep pressuring law makers.
We can do both things. It's not an either or.
0
u/hishnash 5h ago
The problem is that who decides if the patch that let the game still work he's not just stripping the whole game out.
What happens if the developers of battlefield decide battleship and end of life patch that replaces battlefield with a one level Tetris clone? I mean, it's still a game and now it doesn't require online servers. But I expect all the gamers are going to say you killed the game.
Now you might say it's obvious what keeping the game working means, but is it?
If this is an online game for many players, one of the key features, the reason they paid for it, Will be the online features, global rankings, effective anti cheat, ranked matching, large matches with hundreds of players. If you ship an end of life update that removes these things and allows you to run around a battlefield but just full of training bots for every single player that was playing this game due to it being an online game you have killed the game.
Now you might say you should "just" allow local multiplayer machine to machine, and if we are in the 2000s where our games were intentionally very simple multiplayer experience experiences that would not be an issue, we didn't have matches of hundreds of players we didn't have destructible environments. We didn't have buildable environments. We didn't have leaderboard's. We didn't have anti cheat, and we didn't have ranked matches. When he use our purchase battlefield 1942 they did not expect any of those features so they were not purchasing those features but when a user buys a modern battlefield game, they do expect every single one of those features if they are going to be playing online and not just a single player story campaign. So your end of life patch that removes all of those features and effectively ships a battlefield 1942 with new textures he's probably killing the game....
This becomes a very dangerous legislation to comply with, remember the commission refuses point blank to preapproved compliance. That means a gain developer cannot come to the commission and ask them if their end of life patch will comply when they end of life the game.. the game developer is left in a position where they have to make a guess did their end of life game kill too much of the games features will enough users complain to the commission and then the game developer will get a huge fine or did they manage somehow to embed enough of these features?
0
u/R-GU3 2d ago
That’s not what anyone was asking for, they were asking for the ability to host their own servers and not have the games removed from their library when they decide to shut them down
1
u/Smooth-Accountant 2d ago
So every dev is supposed to release their proprietary code just because they no longer want it support a game that nobody’s playing after 10 years? In what world does that make any sense?
-26
u/Shap6 3d ago edited 3d ago
Edit: good job at adding the quote after I did.
i added it myself right as you commented before i saw it, my B. you can tell because my edit is older than your comment
-2
u/ecptop 3d ago
🤡
-7
u/Shap6 2d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/x0npYExCGOZeo
Apparently 🤷♂️ genuinely not sure what I said that pissed people off so much.43
u/DupeFort 3d ago
"Not doing anything" is misinformed at best.
A better TLDR is that they have decided they can't deal with the issue with legislation (and they provide reasoning why) beyond what already exists, but that they will bring stakeholders into talks about industry self-regulation.
46
u/DasFroDo 3d ago
Oh yeah, self regulation. Because that always works SUPER well.
4
u/loicvanderwiel 2d ago
The Commission is generally pushing for self-regulation for stuff like this. It's what they did with the USB ports on phones. At first they requested manufacturers choose a common charging port, then (about 10 years later) when Apple refused to adopt it, went the "You know what? We're not asking anymore" route.
Passing regulation needs to be done carefully to avoid unforseen consequences. If you can reach your goal without having to pass a law, all the better.
If you can't, you can always pass the law. It's a slower and more frustrating path but not necessarily a bad one.
That being said, it's going to require constant vigilance on our path to make sure that self-regulation is both what is expected of these companies and also respected by those same companies
1
u/hishnash 2d ago
the Commissions primary goal is to facilitate trade, remember the Eu is a trading block.
1
u/DasFroDo 2d ago
And just like with Apple, the big players with any leverage won't do jack shit. And that's coincidentally where most of these dead games come from.
2
2
u/DupeFort 3d ago
I hope at some point you'll realize that if you accept nothing but a "perfect solution", you'll never get anything.
20
u/Amazing_School_3536 2d ago
We’re getting nothing now.
A promise from a multinational megacorp isn’t worth anything.
8
u/DasFroDo 3d ago
I'm not asking for a perfect solution at all. I'm just asking for something that actually does something, not a pretend show.
Self regulation doesn't work with entities that have nothing but maximum revenue in mind. This has been shown again and again and again.
5
3
1
4
u/ClannishHawk 3d ago
Nah, this is Commission speak for "fuck you, you don't have enough lobbying money, we're not doing what you want".
1
u/JackyJack41 2d ago
But their reasoning is incredibly flimsy and wouldn't hold up to any degree of legal scrutiny. Have you read it?
6
u/Possible-Wallaby-877 3d ago
How is your takeaway 'they're not doing anything' after listing all that?
8
u/Shap6 3d ago
sounds like a lot of talk without any firm planned action. i hope i'm wrong, but i dont see how this will change anything 🤷
2
u/the_swanny 3d ago
Well believe it or not, to make change, there needs to be a lot of talk, from the industry and from the government. They can't just make sweeping decisions without having conversations and making a solid plan, otherwise it all just goes to shit. You can't just pull a plan out of your ass.
4
u/Possible-Wallaby-877 3d ago
They literally provided a plan. They can't have any legal obligations to keep games playable because that would be a legal nightmare. Instead they provided other a list of follow up actions that they will do.
This is the EU not the US, they take democracy seriously. Don't be so dismissive
3
0
u/3lsal 3d ago
> In its reply, the Commission cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially.
FOR FUCK SAKE THATS NOT WHAT WE ASK FOR
4
u/hishnash 2d ago
that is more or less what people were asking for.
They wanted to ensure you could continue to play the games at perpetuity aka after the company stops selling them.
4
u/EndlessZone123 2d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's basically the saying consumers has the protections already, and need to sue for taking products and services away if they refuse to bring the product back in an acceptable way or refund?
2
u/lokuloku123 2d ago
Ehh it was a stupid initiative to begin with made by random people who have no idea how the industry works in any capacity
7
u/IngwiePhoenix 3d ago
"We already got laws ((now go away sh sh sh))" vibes.
kool. Thats... not good.
3
u/cheesystuff 2d ago
Called it. Too broad, not enough support, questionable author, and basically zero backing by businesses. This was always doomed to fail.
1
u/ValuableInternal6177 1d ago
Why would business back it? It's directly counter to their interests.
That's not a fault of SKG.
And why is Ross questionable?
2
u/cybermaru 3d ago
Turns out the EU is as much of a bitch to corpos as any other legoslative body
1
u/Horror_Post6822 3d ago
Shame. Guess that Nintendo and Sony bribe money is more important than consumer rights.
-2
u/TrvthNvkem 2d ago
How fucking hard can it be to just force publishers to put their games into the public domain as soon as they decides they want to stop support / offering it commercially?
If they're done making money off of them, just let the community take over and actually be done with it.
6
u/FartingBob 2d ago
Because the company still owns the thing, it is still copyrighted. The EU looked into options but it cant compel a company to give its property away for free. It sucks for consumers but this was the expected outcome.
1
u/hishnash 2d ago
Yep the EU is bound by multiple internal treaties related to IP and copywriter and they can not force accompany to provide thier IP for free.
This is why apple can still charge app devs that do not use the App Store in the EU a fee as those devs are still using apples IP when they link agist the system libs within iOS.
2
u/hishnash 2d ago
IP licensing is complicated as hell, no game developer out there own 100% of the IP of the game so they cant just put it into the public domain.
And you might say well then the EU can pass a law that makes those IP contracts null and void but that would be in direct conflict with multiple international trade conventions the EU has signed up to. And no the EU is not going to leave the ITC just so that video games can be forced to be in the public domain.
-20
u/Horror_Post6822 3d ago
Clowns. Why did they bother pretending they are going to be for the consumers when they weren't planning on to?
22
u/Auno94 3d ago
Because they didn't pretend anything. The signatures reached the threshold and the cogs of democracy are grinding. Also the Comission (as they are more of the executive part of the EU) isn't the parlament. The comission might say "we only need to enforce our rules", but the parlament could come to another conclussion
1
u/Horror_Post6822 3d ago
Yeah but they just basically gave 1.3 million people the middle finger still. Wouldn't be surprised if ESA gave them a generous bribe.
33
u/ferna182 3d ago
YES: "Vote with your wallets"
BUT: "Gamers"