The European Commission released their full position now on the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, and it's not the response many will have been hoping for.
As a reminder on what Stop Destroying Videogames is all about - the idea behind it was to stop game publishers just completely removing your ability to access games you've purchased when shutting servers down. It's all part of the wider Stop Killing Games movement.
In the statement the European Commission mentioned they "cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially". Why? They say that's thanks to "existing intellectual property rights" as "rights holders enjoy exclusive rights over their creations" and that "In addition to copyright, other intellectual property rights may also be relevant as they may protect different visual and technological aspects of a video game".
They say that existing EU consumer law "already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers", and note that video game publishers have to inform about "the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game".
That's not completely the end of it though, they do plan to "initiate 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'" and work directly with consumer organisations and authorities to "raise awareness about the applicable rights that protect consumers, including on safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers".
Sounds like they might be boosting actual enforcement of the existing consumer rules, to have some publishers rethink how long their games are online for. But still, a bit of a kick in the teeth for anyone hoping for actual real change from this.
Source: European Commission
With this result, it clearly opens the doors for other countries to point to this so they don't have to do anything either. Realistically though, it can be quite a complicated situation. One I've written about numerous times before. Servers behind the scenes can be incredibly complex, especially when it comes to games that have DLC and micro-transactions. And then you have to add to that the licensing on music and other things. Plus various other things I'm not thinking of right now.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
See more from me
You can also find comments for this article on social media: 
Quoting: devlandMy take is that northern European social democracies have the best system so far. They are always governed by multiple parties working together to reach compromises and never one single entity that ends up pissing off everyone else.If you like it that way, more power to you. Everyone has a reason for choosing their favourite distro 🫡.
Mountain Man 2 hours ago
seflasporin 2 hours ago
Quoting: Mountain ManI was not expecting this to go anywhere. You can't reasonably legislate to a company that they must guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.That's not what they're trying to do, like at all. The most they would have to do is allow the community to create servers like Marne and Tonga did for Battlefield 1 and V.
Mountain Man 41 minutes ago
Quoting: seflasporinWhich is just another way of saying that a company should be legally mandated to guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.Quoting: Mountain ManI was not expecting this to go anywhere. You can't reasonably legislate to a company that they must guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.That's not what they're trying to do, like at all. The most they would have to do is allow the community to create servers like Marne and Tonga did for Battlefield 1 and V.
seflasporin 31 minutes ago
Arehandoro 30 minutes ago
Patreon
PayPal