Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 626 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#games#commission#skg#parliament#movement#still#those#intermediary#already#said

Discussion (16 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

hodgehog11about 1 hour ago
As is stated in the article, but is not clear just from the headline, this was not an unexpected outcome from the initiative. The Commission did not seek discussions with SKG, and spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups.

SKG was prepared for this, and their intention has been to join up with the group putting together the new Digital Fairness Act, since the objective there is very similar, but much broader in scope, and most of the groundwork is already there. Much of the earlier recorded Q&A sessions in Parliament had representatives commenting on this already, so it's the natural approach. This way, legislation will almost certainly be put forward and voted on, and the lobby groups will likely have a harder time trying to wrestle with a larger movement and a parliament that seems sympathetic to the cause.

Basically, this is a battle lost that never really mattered. The climax of this war is yet to come.

HDBaseT32 minutes ago
This sounds like cope.

The SKG Movement has been hyping up both the EU and EU Commission from the get-go as a possible target for change.

This is a major blow to the movement.

TheTaytay4 minutes ago
As written, wouldn’t this result in fewer online games? Maybe dramatically fewer?
madanparasabout 1 hour ago
The ECI process forces the Commission to respond formally, not to legislate. The Commission said no, which SKG anticipated. They had already secured a legislative call signed by 45 MEPs and are pushing to amend the Digital Fairness Act through Parliament. The headline frames this as a defeat. Finishing the ECI process shifted the venue to Parliament, where SKG says they have majority support.
bombcarabout 1 hour ago
Don't look so smug! I know what you're thinking, but The Commission was merely a setback!
kuerbel35 minutes ago
Did you honestly believe I would trust the future to some Commission? Hahahaha… Oh no, no, no, it was merely an instrument, a stepping stone to a much larger plan! It has all led to this…and this time, you will not interfere!
dopa42365about 2 hours ago
Well, it's a million signatures for something to be brought up, not for something to definitely become law.

A decade or so ago I (among millions) signed to abolish daylight saving time. Still waiting for that heh.

Volundr18 minutes ago
Trump's said he wants to end it. That's something I'd back him on. I wish he'd sign that executive order and tilt that windmill in the courts instead of the stuff he is pushing. I'd be rooting for him!
pull_my_finger32 minutes ago
I'm curious to see if this will embolden game corps to continue mistreating consumers or if they will acknowledge consumers are aware of that ethereal state of their "ownership" of games and start selling more complete products instead of "clients" to servers that can be rug-pulled at any time. I think we all can guess the answer as consumers continue to buy, unfortunately, but this movement is at least a step in the right direction.
yndoendoabout 2 hours ago
I would say lobbyist are continuing their take over of the EU. Copyright law is the excuse but 90's games proves this to be invalidated.

None of the games from the 90s and early 2000's required authenticating with a launder. They just worked and this is why those games are still playable to date.

Those same games that had multi-player allowed for downloading a self-hosted server.

Enemy Territory is a prime example. The game would still be playable even with out ID Software releasing the source code.

GOG is built upon legacy games that don't require a launcher. Politicians in the EU have been bought and paid for. President exists and is not being applied.

NooneAtAll3about 1 hour ago
makes me envy of Switzerland's "enough signatures causes referendum which actually does create a new law" system
Symbiote10 minutes ago
Proportional to the respective populations, this would have needed roughly four times as many signatures to get to that level in Switzerland.
Barrin9240 minutes ago
the Swiss can only propose new constitutional amendments, not statutory laws. And precisely to avoid having what is supposed to be a technical decision into an overly broad popular vote, because those are still supposed to belong into parliamentary debate.

Because if people voted on every single regulation you'd be at the ballot box five times a day.

EarlKingabout 1 hour ago
If only those 1.3 million signatories pledged to never buy from a company that Kills Games again...
yieldcrv41 minutes ago
> In its official response on June 16, the Commission said it “cannot propose a legal obligation” requiring publishers to keep games playable after they stop being sold commercially.

Control behavior by regulating the intermediary. Figure out what the intermediary publishers rely on is, and regulate the intermediary or transactions to that intermediary

This works within any legal system anywhere and just requires a little inspiration

at least, I can do it anywhere, so just reach out

w4yaiabout 2 hours ago
They are too busy passing freedom-stifling laws.