There is an EU Initiative for the 'Stop Killing Games' movement

[_JP_]

Hi.

So I guess the other post got deleted because it was just a link to a YouTube video.

tl; dr: Ubisoft took The Crew out of the digital storefronts and also flipped the bird on those that bought the digital license, citing licensing shenanigans, forbidding people that purchased it to play as well. Those with a disk, IDK, I guess a part of the game works.

So, a group of intrepid gamers sought to start petitions in the US to put Ubisoft in a position to reverse track and also have other publishers stopped from trying similar actions (i.e. "You'll own nothing, and be happy" trend). One of such intrepid gamers is Ross Scott, of Accursed Farms, to create the platform that would move gamers to create the content to raise awareness.

That has now evolved into a European Citizens' Initiative, essentially a petition, to have the EU courts add to the laws that this media cannot be taken away at will, unless its a subscription. Plus adding some goodies like give tools to the community after the games become unsupported. Any EU resident with an eID can sign with a pair of clicks and 2~3 minutes of their time. The initiative for EU citizens is here: European Citizens' Initiative - Stop Destroying Videogames
(other Countries' initiatives , check here: Stop Killing Games - Countries)

Explanation here:

Spoiler: YT Video by Ross Scott

Now, I've been boycotting Ubisoft since Driver: SF, because of...well, really the same reason except at the time any person that bought it, even in the digital format alone, got to keep it and play the single-player mode fully. Back then, the fears of how this would escalate already existed and I guess that to nobody's surprise, Ubisoft delivered. The fear is now that all of the other publishers will follow-suit and the biggest target is obviously games with licensed content, be it playable or not, like BGM or brands in in-game ads/items.

Like any other art form, that benefits society, in a developed world where rule of law exists, it should have some sort of protection. Then there is the notion of propriety, which for software has been a topic for as long as you can compile something. But the basic rule of exchange of wealth for a good still means that the provider of the good cannot come back and take it away, when the sale was stated as final (that is my understanding for how it works, even if it is a digital license). If I can do anything with the good or not, after a few years, that is another topic and caveat emptor applies.

Sure, right now, the World has bigger issues and '1st World issues' are not the biggest threat to human survival, but considering this forum, and the fact that games are or were at some point in time a medium that you consumed and must have brought you something good, I wager 2 minutes won't ruin it for you.

 

[BSim500]

tl; dr: Ubisoft took The Crew out of the digital storefronts and also flipped the bird on those that bought the digital license, citing licensing shenanigans, forbidding people that purchased it to play as well. Those with a disk, IDK, I guess a part of the game works.

So, a group of intrepid gamers sought to start petitions in the US to put Ubisoft in a position to reverse track and also have other publishers stopped from trying similar actions (i.e. "You'll own nothing, and be happy" trend). One of such intrepid gamers is Ross Scott, of Accursed Farms, to create the platform that would move gamers to create the content to raise awareness. That has now evolved into a European Citizens' Initiative, essentially a petition, to have the EU courts add to the laws that this media cannot be taken away at will, unless its a subscription.

Nice initiative but he seems very naive in several areas. The "kill-switches" he's talking about is essentially 'I just found out what the DRM I've been ignoring for a decade actually meant in practise' that GOG has been saying for +15 years. To answer his question "Is this even legal?", yes Ubisoft shutting down The Crew's server after a decade is legal. So too was Microsoft closing the whole Games For Windows Live platform. Sh*tty for fans, but legal. Read the Ubisoft EULA and Steam "Subscriber" Agreement and you pretty much agree to use the service through which any acquired 'subscription' is an unowned privilege. Read the GOG EULA, and the word "subscriber" or "subscription" doesn't appear even once, just "your content / your games". The difference in wording has been there all along at least 10-15 years.

Demanding governments force Ubisoft to bring back The Crew isn't going to work though. Read the UK Govt response to see why ("Those selling games must comply with UK consumer law. They must provide clear information and allow continued access to games if sold on the understanding that they will remain playable indefinitely. Consumers should be aware that there is no requirement in UK law compelling software companies and providers to support older versions of their operating systems, software or connected products." They can't force them to bring it back for the same they can't force Microsoft to keep W7 alive for the next +20 years. All they can do is force them to honestly advertise what it is. So all this will result in is a more prominent banner on Steam / Ubisoft Connect for online-only games like Diablo 3 and The Crew clarifying that the games won't be supported indefinitely and can be removed at any time, and governments will be happy with that. Not what The Crew fans a want to hear, but it's far more truth than wishful thinking.

Being able to actually backup DRM-Free games locally solves what the guy is complaining about as well as other other related issues like time-limited licensed soundtrack expires = it can't be force removed from your local backup (as happened with GTA IV soundtrack on Steam). Or you want and buy an original classic game from Store A, that store goes out of business a few years later, you lose the game and look to buy same original classic game from store B only to find it's been 'bait & switched' out by a low-effort remaster (that you don't want) and the original is 'digitally unpurchasable'. The equivalent of looking for classic movies like Total Recall (1990) only to find only the crappy new remake by a studio that wants to 'erase' the original from all streaming / broadcast services, and only DVD / Blu-Ray owners get to watch it today. A far more prevalent problem for video games given the current "Remasteritus" trend.

So really, what this guy should be pushing for is normalizing removing DRM after a certain period of time (say 1-3 years post launch), or even releasing on GOG the same time as Steam as some AAA's have done, not just leaving the DRM in and trying to persuade governments to issue dictacts that try and tap-dance around one inevitable symptom of service-based online-only games having their plug inevitably pulled a decade later. Those always-online games were and always should be treated as the open-ended rentals they are. Same is true of "Freemium" games on Google Play that exist only in the cloud - you'll never own anything like that.

 

[Ruru]

Read the Ubisoft EULA and Steam "Subscriber" Agreement and you pretty much agree to use the service through which any acquired 'subscription' is an unowned privilege. Read the GOG EULA, and the word "subscriber" or "subscription" doesn't appear even once, just "your content / your games". The difference in wording has been there all along at least 10-15 years.

Who honestly does read any EULA/TOS?

 

[_JP_]

To answer his question "Is this even legal?", yes Ubisoft shutting down The Crew's server after a decade is legal. So too was Microsoft closing the whole Games For Windows Live platform. Sh*tty for fans, but legal. Read the Ubisoft EULA and Steam "Subscriber" Agreement and you pretty much agree to use the service through which any acquired 'subscription' is an unowned privilege. Read the GOG EULA, and the word "subscriber" or "subscription" doesn't appear even once, just "your content / your games". The difference in wording has been there all along at least 10-15 years.

You wrote a lot so me parsing this bit isn't me saying I ignored the rest (quite the contrary, good read!), but that I want to counter-argument that the initiative as I read it just means to have publishers "release" the game DRM-less and without support, so that the community can "continue" it, not to bring it back fully-featured.
Windows 1.0~8.1 is unsupported, of course, but you could still find the installer officially for a good while after being discontinued, and right after that it didn't become that much harder.

But yes, also to the notion of "arbitrary finite ownership" of the license to play a title gets thrown away as well, as a principle.

Additionally, to have games fulfill a requirement that they are sold firstly in a way that allows for offline copies of the files/executable and allows for the community to continue support after the publisher has stopped.
For consoles, just keep making CDs or <insert a physical medium here> and have the patches hosted on a SFTP server with a bandwidth cap for downloads. Then, do not seek legal action against re-hosts.

As for MP, nothing new, dedicated servers were a thing before quick-joining a (cloud) session became the only option.
Alternatives like Burnout Paradise's (not-remastered) sort-of peer-to-peer net code to enable MP meant that no actual servers had to run the lobbies and the games, just the 'home address' to which broadcasts were sent. This could also be perpetuated by any community driven effort (security-wise, who knows, but I mean the game will be unsupported and it's not like the supported ones are not a cybersecurity risk already).

 

[BSim500]

You wrote a lot so me parsing this bit isn't me saying I ignored the rest (quite the contrary, good read!), but that I want to counter-argument that the initiative as I read it just means to have publishers "release" the game DRM-less and without support, so that the community can "continue" it, not to bring it back fully-featured.

Additionally, to have games fulfill a requirement that they are sold firstly in a way that allows for offline copies of the files/executable and allows for the community to continue support after the publisher has stopped.

I get (and agree with) what he's pushing for, but he's left it way too late in the day. Remember the huge sh*tstorm in the late 2000's with Securom PA where games bought on CD-ROM like Mass Effect 1, Bioshock 2, etc, with the expectation they'd work offline with simple disc checks like not that much older Oblivion (2006) but instead came with online-only DRM + activation limits, essentially giving the games a finite lifespan of 10-15 game reinstalls? People pushed back against that hard back then (I know, I was one of them ) and it was quickly dropped by 2011 with only around 82 games ever using it, and many of those were re-released elsewhere with less invasive DRM (and none on GOG). The Crew was released barely 6 years after that (2014), and after just that short period people already grew way too complacent than was ever healthy. If people had pushed back similarly hard in 2014, then Ubisoft would probably have made some changes to at least make the single player part more offline friendly from the beginning during the time they were still actively developing the game. Hardly anyone said a word for +9 years though. The biggest problem with "must have AAA's" with hostile DRM = people lower their standards to get them, then it becomes normalised. Same with the "softening" vs Denuvo, kernel based anti-cheat rootkits, etc. In fact the petitioner even wrote in his petition...

"An increasing number of publishers are selling videogames that are required to connect through the internet to the game publisher, or "phone home" to function. While this is not a problem in itself..."

If you're serious about Game Preservation, then it obviously is a problem in itself. All many governments will do with complaints about decade-old products is look at it from an advertising regulatory stance, ie, if you sell an online-only game with intent to close the server 10 years later, at no point can you advertise that the game will be supported longer. Problem is, most publishers never actually said that about such games, people just assumed on the back of complacency. Look at Diablo 3's page. There's simply nothing there that "promises" the game will be around forever. If they shut down the Blizzard servers tomorrow (rendering even single-player games useless) there is no legal recourse to that in most countries. I do agree with the guy's intentions but I think he's both wildly misunderstanding his own legal stance, and also left it 9 years too late to complain about The Crew's DRM to make any difference. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money most other governments petitioned will response the way the UK did - they won't force Ubisoft to "bring it back", they'll just require better clarification in advertising on storefronts like Steam / Ubisoft for future similar games.

 

[Vayra86]

Signed. Even just the signal to the industry is positive. We've seen them move before, they will again, and definitely think twice about taking things offline. On the other side of the coin, we still have piracy. Twin pronged action like that is great leverage.

 

[Steevo]

Almost every company has been guilty of this and they should be forced to provide physical media for any licenses they sell, and at the end of life provide a way to activate for life.

 

[Ruru]

Signed. Even just the signal to the industry is positive. We've seen them move before, they will again, and definitely think twice about taking things offline. On the other side of the coin, we still have piracy. Twin pronged action like that is great leverage.

I even didn't realize that this was a petition. Signed as well.

 

[Easy Rhino]

When you introduce regulation that would "solve" this "problem" you introduce a whole new set of issues that you cannot possibly foresee. Gamers are mostly weak minded underdeveloped lamers who refuse to vote with their wallets. Hey soyboys, nobody owes video game support. Read the contract when you buy the game you dope. The best thing I think game companies could do is open source and release the server code once they have milked the IP for all it is worth and let people self host servers.

 

[_JP_]

Gamers are mostly weak minded underdeveloped lamers who refuse to vote with their wallets.

I think the term is 'fanbois' or 'shills' and it applies to everything, not just games. The whole feeling of finally belonging and stuff. And speaking about sociocultural , I think 'brand loyals' already evolved to criticize the brand, just not the loyalty, though.

Hey soyboys, nobody owes video game support. Read the contract when you buy the game you dope.

The best thing I think game companies could do is open source and release the server code once they have milked the IP for all it is worth and let people self host servers.

That is precisely one point that initiative is trying to move. At least make it DRM-free, even if not open-source, but always release the server code for MP self-hosted (or just plain use open-source netcode to begin with). Two decades ago, because developers and publishers did not have the resources to self-host themselves and sell it as part of the "whole experience", they counted on us and our measly Pentium 4s/Athlons or early Xeons to host everything. It's not new, but "ahh, muh monetization strategies".

 

[PLAfiller]

Hey soyboys, nobody owes video game support.

No support is one thing, taking it off the grid, is a different animal IMO. I got stinged with Dead Space on Android. EA dropped support for newer android releases, especially if audio will work in the game. That was their excuse. However, that is one thing, taking it off Google App store is a whole new story. I paid for that game amount I haven't for even full-fledged titles....ain't right IMO.

 

[Easy Rhino]

I don't think this will achieve anything of value. If you are worried that a video game you play will no longer have servers in 5-10 years then don't buy the game. That, or you know, move on past video games in your life. I don't mean to be rude, but I can think of 1000 more important things to worry about in this life than a video game I play being supported or available in some form a decade from now.

 

[Splinterdog]

I never understood why Ubisoft didn't do what Microsoft did with Forza Horizon 3&4 when they delisted those games. Those who bought the games can still play them and download them ad infinitum, but it's too late if you never bought them. I can live with that and a few more games I bought on Android which have now been delisted.
Then there is the modding group working on an offline version of The Crew. I wonder how that will go down with Ubi?

 

[Vayra86]

When you introduce regulation that would "solve" this "problem" you introduce a whole new set of issues that you cannot possibly foresee. Gamers are mostly weak minded underdeveloped lamers who refuse to vote with their wallets. Hey soyboys, nobody owes video game support. Read the contract when you buy the game you dope. The best thing I think game companies could do is open source and release the server code once they have milked the IP for all it is worth and let people self host servers.

On the one hand I agree with the sentiment, on the other, people need guidance and regulation is great guidance. It isn't just regulating what's allowed and what's not, its about raising awareness, too. That is sorely missing lately in terms of tech related stuff from governments, but its valuable.

And I think the regulation most people ask for is what you say you'd want too: relelase the code and let people host their own stuff. They bought the product, don't waste it away. It will probably have an adverse effect on the industry: now, a key driver to kill off part 1 and release, say, Destiny 2 instead of just updating what they had going on from 1, is gone. Games will become a lot more honest and most likely, the positive effects of giving players more persistence in online gaming worlds over the years will win the day in online service based gaming. That's a positive, I mean, part of the reason I don't do much online service stuff is because all of that progression, which is made tediously slow and grindy, is likely to not amount to anything a year or two later. Consider a title like Warframe; its actually a good sell because you get to keep all that progression over all these years. If they'd release a Warframe 2, nuking all of that, I think the game would be pretty much dead.

 

[Easy Rhino]

On the one hand I agree with the sentiment, on the other, people need guidance and regulation is great guidance. It isn't just regulating what's allowed and what's not, its about raising awareness, too. That is sorely missing lately in terms of tech related stuff from governments, but its valuable.

And I think the regulation most people ask for is what you say you'd want too: relelase the code and let people host their own stuff. They bought the product, don't waste it away. It will probably have an adverse effect on the industry: now, a key driver to kill off part 1 and release, say, Destiny 2 instead of just updating what they had going on from 1, is gone. Games will become a lot more honest and most likely, the positive effects of giving players more persistence in online gaming worlds over the years will win the day in online service based gaming. That's a positive, I mean, part of the reason I don't do much online service stuff is because all of that progression, which is made tediously slow and grindy, is likely to not amount to anything a year or two later. Consider a title like Warframe; its actually a good sell because you get to keep all that progression over all these years. If they'd release a Warframe 2, nuking all of that, I think the game would be pretty much dead.

Perhaps. But IMO the best way to raise awareness and show corporations that they are moving in the wrong direction is to stop supporting them with your hard earned money. If you expect government to solve your problems you are in a for a life long world of disappointment. In all honesty, if needing game servers in 10 years for games people play now is truly something people need then I would suggest no longer playing video games and putting that energy into something useful. Stressing about something like this is just is not productive. Especially for young people who should be spending their time developing useful skills.