We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws. Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position with policy makers and those who have led the European Citizens Initiative in the coming months.
  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    1·
    30 days ago

    protections we put in place to secure players’ data

    The player data that we are required to agree to share with 1643 trusted data partners in order to connect to your service? That player data?

    Go fuck yourself, you ghouls.

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    30 days ago

    People were upset when PirateSoftware was spreading disinformation about SKG, well get ready for incoming weapons-grade corporate Disinformation.

    Luckily it’s no longer in the hands of the public.

    • reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1·
      30 days ago

      even though there are enough signatures now, they still need more to be sure. Some percentage of the signatures will be invalid(people unable to spell their own names and fakes for example) so there has to be big enough safetymargin. Ross made video about it too.

      So until the time runs out, everyone should make sure the safetymargin is as big as possible.

  • Whitebrow@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    “many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only”

    So change your design? The corporate mind cannot comprehend this.

    • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      Why could you turn a battle royal game into a local only split screen game for 2-4 people?

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        Give players a copy of the server so they can host their own, or patch the game to allow direct connections like games used to have in the 90s and 00s?

        • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          That sounds like an online only title. I thought we were going to “change the design.”

          • pugnaciousfarter@literature.cafeEnglish
            0·
            1 month ago

            What do you mean?

            Changing the design happens during the pre-production. This will not effect any games retroactively. As unfortunate as it is, until the EU parliament decides on a law or regulation all games destined to die will die.

            Any games that are grandfathered in, would be done so by the good will of the corporations if they do wish to.

            • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 month ago

              I mean, taking a 100 person battle royal and changing it so dramatically would be quite odd to do.

              I picked an extreme example for discussion reasons.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    No No. NO! All of this is bullshit. Its not how any of this will work. Its all misinterpreted on purpose and then used as propaganda against the inititive because companies ARE afraid of it. They know this has the power to stop their predatory business practices. Moderation is the hosters responsibility so if anything, private servers would make it cheaper for companies to make games. This is also NOT RETROACTIVE as any other such regulation. Companies will only have to comply with future games. Having to remove proprietary network components from the server so they can release it at end of life IS A GOOD THING. It also makes development MORE ACCESSIBLE for small developers as everyone will have to use more open infrastrucuture. And at last this only affects the end of life of games which means it DOES NOT touch live service games DURING their life and only changes their last stage in their life cycle. For fucks sake this is getting annoying but i take this as a good thing because these stupid multi-national corpos are finally feeling the pressure.

  • Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    Here are the board members of this organisation in case someone is curious about their relevancy/neutrality on the matter:

    • Hester Woodliffe – Chair (Warner Bros. Games)
    • Canon Pence (Epic Games)
    • Kerry Hopkins (Electronic Arts)
    • Ian Mattingly (Activision)
    • Klemens Kundratitz (Embracer)
    • Qumar Jamil (Microsoft)
    • Clemens Mayer-Wegelin (Nintendo of Europe)
    • Cinnamon Rogers (Sony Interactive Entertainment)
    • Matt Spencer (Take 2)
    • Alain Corre (Ubisoft)
    • Alberto Gonzalez-Lorca (Bandai Namco Entertainment)
    • Karine Parker (Square Enix)
    • Mark Maslowicz (Level Infinite)
    • Felix Falk (game)
    • Nicolas Vignolles (SELL)
    • David Verbruggen (VGFB)
    • Nick Poole (UKIE)

    You know, the people who “ensured that the voice of a responsible games ecosystem is heard and understood” (direct quote from their website).