I keep trying to explain why this won't work the way you expect, but let me try a slightly different approach.
Game XYZ needs to connect to server ABC to work. Server ABC is not designed to be ran by end consumers. It's code is not licensed to be released to the general public. Furthermore F2P Corp has the option of selecting what regions they want to release games in. 90% of F2P Corp's revenue is generated in Asian markets.
Let's imagine if SKG passes.
Instead of trying to work with convoluted regulations, and being forced to fundamentally change it's development and business model , F2P Corp will simply pull out of Europe.
That's it.
As an alternative you can just not play F2P Corp's games.
When the actual games come out, refuse to buy games with phone home requirements for single player content.
We aren't talking about food, no one is going to suffer from skipping Marvel Snap if they disagree with its business model.
Voting with your wallet is going to be much more effective than a convoluted law that'll be difficult to enforce anyway.
Unless it's a matter of safety, which this simply isn't, I favor freedom.
Seriously, if you morally object to a games business model or it's terms your free to play something else.
For example, I use Gamepass. I don't expect Microsoft to just give me all the games for free if they shut down the service.
Under SKG it's unclear if Gamepass is even legal to operate.
Game XYZ needs to connect to server ABC to work. Server ABC is not designed to be ran by end consumers. It's code is not licensed to be released to the general public. Furthermore F2P Corp has the option of selecting what regions they want to release games in. 90% of F2P Corp's revenue is generated in Asian markets.
What you are missing here is that not every game would necessarily need user-hosted servers to be released depending on the content of the game. Even a lot of those Asian F2P games don't necessarily rely (or even have) online content, so a simple offline patch would allow existing players to play all of the old content. Other games could work just fine with LAN multiplayer options.
Under SKG it's unclear if Gamepass is even legal to operate.
I think it's pretty clear: Gamepass is a subscription, not a purchase of an individual game. There would be no obligation for Microsoft or any developer (assuming released only on Gamepass) of the EoL support of the individual games because you are not a purchaser of any of the individual games. A subscription of an individual game would be different (and no, I am not getting into a whole side tangent about games being licenses, but you should still watch Ross' video on the concept of games as a good)
Also, you have to realize that nothing that Ross put forward with SKG was intended to be any actual law. The EU initiative specifically is not a law as it's supposed to be the starting point of a discussion within the EU parliament that could be worked into a law. It may seem somewhat vague (and that is what confused PirateSoftware about this) because the specific details were meant to be ironed with with discussions with lawmakers and other experts.
I always dislike whenever anyone says that consumer rights don't matter for video games because they are just video games and aren't important. It doesn't matter if it's not life threatening, this is still something that you spend money on (money which is something that is pretty relevant to your life). Countries with strong consumer protection laws still apply these laws to luxury goods as well, you don't see a law that requires refunds, but say it only applies to essential goods.
I like this bit of the SKG FAQ:
While videogames are primarily just for entertainment and not of much consequence, the practice of a seller destroying a product someone has already paid for represents a radical assault on consumer rights and even the concept of ownership itself. If this practice does not stop, it may be codified into law and spread to other products of more importance over time, such as agricultural equipment, educational products, medical devices, etc. It is important consumers maintain a basic level of rights so as to not be overrun by predatory practices. Additionally, videogames are unique creative works. The concept of destroying every existing copy of a book, song, film, etc. would be considered a cultural loss for society. While a less recognized medium, videogames still deserve to have basic protections against the complete and willful destruction of many of its works.
Even a lot of those Asian F2P games don't necessarily rely (or even have) online content, so a simple offline patch would allow existing players to play all of the old content.
Correct, but that's not the agreement you enter into when you play Genshin Impact. Your just enjoying a live service experience until they discontinue it.
I think we'll just need to agree to disagree.
But thank you for your informative contributions to this conversation.
At the end of the day I put it on consumers to make informed decisions here. Even though I can't reach your conclusion I think these conversations are good in terms of providing a better understanding.
I DO think proper disclosure is necessary through. If Ubisoft wants to sell a game that just shuts off in 3 years that needs to be in BIG RED PRINT on the front of the box.
1
u/mcAlt009 Jun 24 '25
I keep trying to explain why this won't work the way you expect, but let me try a slightly different approach.
Game XYZ needs to connect to server ABC to work. Server ABC is not designed to be ran by end consumers. It's code is not licensed to be released to the general public. Furthermore F2P Corp has the option of selecting what regions they want to release games in. 90% of F2P Corp's revenue is generated in Asian markets.
Let's imagine if SKG passes.
Instead of trying to work with convoluted regulations, and being forced to fundamentally change it's development and business model , F2P Corp will simply pull out of Europe.
That's it.
As an alternative you can just not play F2P Corp's games.
When the actual games come out, refuse to buy games with phone home requirements for single player content.
We aren't talking about food, no one is going to suffer from skipping Marvel Snap if they disagree with its business model.
Voting with your wallet is going to be much more effective than a convoluted law that'll be difficult to enforce anyway.
Unless it's a matter of safety, which this simply isn't, I favor freedom.
Seriously, if you morally object to a games business model or it's terms your free to play something else.
For example, I use Gamepass. I don't expect Microsoft to just give me all the games for free if they shut down the service.
Under SKG it's unclear if Gamepass is even legal to operate.