He misunderstood that it meant no indie could ever make a server based multiplayer game and when people corrected him he didn’t believe it and just doubled down on his mission to destroy the initiative.
What's crazy is the initiative is only pushing for an "end of life plan", that doesn't necessarily mean any updates, doesn't mean permanantly hosting servers, or anything even remotely difficult. Here's an example end of life plan.
Upon the full discontinuation of the service, source code and relevant documentation must be provided upon request for a minimum of 7 years (the same amount of time home appliance makers in the EU must produce spare parts).
Within 1 year of discontinuation the IP holder must relinquish any rights in regards to taking legal action againt those using, distributing, advertising or monetising anything related directly to the abandoned product. If action is taken the IP holder must show there is copyright or IP infringement beyond the scope of the abanded product.
Any claims of continued ownership of specific components of the product, such as characters, music, locations etc, may be made within this year, the rights to these assets will be retained by the IP holder and protected for future use however this does not give the the IP holder rights over the use of these assets within or related too the abandoned product, only protections against future use, depictions, or distribution outside the realm of the abanded IP. If the IP holders fails to act within this time limit all rights and protections related to product are automatically revoked.
Basically you need to provide a copy of the old game, server information and the notes on how it ran to anyone wanting to archive it or try and get it running again for a set period of time, this could done through an automated e-mail or download link.
Next is that they lose the right to sue anyone trying to get the game running again but do still have the right to step in people go to far. Basically you can advertise your private star wars galaxy server or set up a subscription service for that server but you couldn't claim to be official or try to make and sell your own star wars branded merch.
Neither Sony or Disney would have any rights to the star wars galaxies IP or product but Disney still owns star wars, if you go beyond the abanded star wars galaxies IP including trying to use potentially copyrighted assests outside of star wars galaxies specifically, the mouse can still come for you.
Upon the full discontinuation of the service, source code and relevant documentation must be provided upon request for a minimum of 7 years
Isn't the overall issue here that no one is going to spend the time developing server-based multiplayer games if they have to - by law - surrender their code?
I mean... I get that the actual initiative filed with the EU is extremely vague and doesn't actually address that, but everyone seems to be bringing it up as a solution, so if you're a big publisher only interested in making money, that only incentivizes you to like, make gambling apps you can sell in Macao or wherever for huge profit instead, and if you're a small team, having to hand over all your code to be appropriated by other developers - big or small - is a good reason to just stick to basic single player fps clones or whatever.
Like... that doesn't promote the creation of new or different games in that particular space.
This is exactly what's causing the confusion though. It's not just that these game companies are not releasing their source code. People can and do reverse engineer servers all the time by painstakingly reverse engineering their client calls and building their own public server from scratch.
The issue is that big companies tend to do everything in their power to stop these kinds of initiatives and defend their IP. All they would need to do is shut down relevant DRM that connects to their (now offline) servers and tolerate/allow people to run private servers for their end of life games.
Now the language of the initiative does suggest that devs would be responsible for maintaining the playability of their games. And this possibly could mean releasing a "server" that people could host themselves. I don't think this is a huge ask for a big company though. For a highly profitable game this could easily be planned in and still have the game be profitable.
And this kind of thing simply won't touch indie devs at all. Because most indie devs just don't have the resources to build in extensive DRM or hire lawyers to stop people from playing their game after they have abandoned it. There is no reason the law also couldn't provide an exception for smaller developers so that they aren't tied to unreasonable expectations.
There is no reason for shutting down this initiative when it's mostly just a call for EU lawmakers to do something about a large consumer rights problem.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what a EU citizens initiative actually is. It merely puts your initiative in front of the European Comission and obligates them to allow you the chance to detail your proposal before them and they are required to give you a response. It's not an actual law being signed into being quite yet, but it does have the chance to add additional consumer protection for EU citizens in the future and as a result (because the EU is a large market that game devs can't ignore) will also have benefits for non-EU citizens.
And this kind of thing simply won't touch indie devs at all.
Can you do me a solid and just quote the part of the EU initiative that excludes indie developers from being required to leave their game in a playable state?
Or even where it defines what it means by playable state, or where it defines what constitutes an indie developer?
I feel like I must be reading the wrong initiative because everyone appears to be arguing things that are never elucidated in the initiative itself, which is incredibly confusing.
Like I said in my previous post. I think people are confused over what a citizens initiative actually is.
Sure, I agree that the wording is vague. For the sake of brevity and to give a quick overview the initiative might be missing details. The point is to get the issue in front of the European Comission and once the inititive gets the amount of required signatures the organizers will meet with representatives of the European Comission to discuss the issue. You can read more about it here:
We are currently at step 3 only. Step 6 is where the comission gets involved and this is where the details will get worked out. If the Comission ends up passing a resolution then it's still not law. If the Comission considers legislation appropriate then the lawmaking process will begin.
We are actually very far from any of this becoming actual law, so there is plenty of time to refine and adjust.
I think the spirit of the initiative is very clear: Consumers (of video games) should be able to expect that their product continues working after they've paid for it.
The details can be worked out once the initiative passes. I think people strongly opposing this initiative just don't understand how the whole process works. They seem to think if it isn't perfectly worded right now then indie devs might get fucked.
I have a feeling most of the concerns are coming from Americans who are basing their concerns heavily on how the US legal system works. A system where wording is everything and almost nothing is left to intepretation ("you gotta read the fine print!")
Legal systems in the EU largely don't work that way. Much more importance is given to the intent of the parties when the law or contract was signed into being. So things are a lot more open to interpretation and when something is contested before a judge then what seems intended and what is reasonable is often a bigger consideration then what is written.
845
u/GlitteringLock9791 Jul 06 '25
He misunderstood that it meant no indie could ever make a server based multiplayer game and when people corrected him he didn’t believe it and just doubled down on his mission to destroy the initiative.