This one came up in relation to the whole Stop Killings Games initiative
and content creator Pirate Software*. Something called Videogames Europe
- https://www.videogameseurope.eu/ - which presents itself as a champion
of the consumer. That's sound good, as do some of their polices, right
up until you look at the board members.

So we have Epic, EA, Activision, Mircrosoft to name but a few. Yeh right because those companies are really champions of consumers and this isn't
just a lobbying group for some of the big players hoping that the EU
won't get involved.

*Fascinating stuff I must say, it seems to be based on Stop Killing game
are trying to get petitions signed with enough number that respective governments are legally required to at least consider what they are
proposing - in a nutshell, all games (both single and multiplayer)
should be developed with a sunset plan so when the company decides to no
longer support them they can still be played in some reasonable form
without the companies involvement at all. I like the idea but of not
sure of the practicalities especially when it comes to live services games.

The internet drama seems to have come about as Pirate Software basically
called it stupid and he would actively being trying to get his community
not to sign up to it. It then all blow up as after many months Stop
Killing Games released a video explaining the Pirate Software had really misunderstood what they were asking for. This is were it all got even
worse as Pirate Software pretty much doubled down on his position and
claimed to be completely right in what he had said. Then he played the
victim card.

Of course this being the internet people started digging into his
background and the funny one I saw is it seems on his streams he digital manipulates his voice so it sounds deeper. There was a interview with
him at a games conference and all I can say is he must have smoked a lot
of cigarettes since then.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/7/2025 8:43 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 08:27:59 +0100, JAB <[email protected]> wrote:

This one came up in relation to the whole Stop Killings Games initiative
and content creator Pirate Software*. Something called Videogames Europe
- https://www.videogameseurope.eu/ - which presents itself as a champion
of the consumer. That's sound good, as do some of their polices, right
up until you look at the board members.

So we have Epic, EA, Activision, Mircrosoft to name but a few. Yeh right
because those companies are really champions of consumers and this isn't
just a lobbying group for some of the big players hoping that the EU
won't get involved.

*Fascinating stuff I must say, it seems to be based on Stop Killing game
are trying to get petitions signed with enough number that respective
governments are legally required to at least consider what they are
proposing - in a nutshell, all games (both single and multiplayer)
should be developed with a sunset plan so when the company decides to no
longer support them they can still be played in some reasonable form
without the companies involvement at all. I like the idea but of not
sure of the practicalities especially when it comes to live services games. >>
The internet drama seems to have come about as Pirate Software basically
called it stupid and he would actively being trying to get his community
not to sign up to it. It then all blow up as after many months Stop
Killing Games released a video explaining the Pirate Software had really
misunderstood what they were asking for. This is were it all got even
worse as Pirate Software pretty much doubled down on his position and
claimed to be completely right in what he had said. Then he played the
victim card.

Of course this being the internet people started digging into his
background and the funny one I saw is it seems on his streams he digital
manipulates his voice so it sounds deeper. There was a interview with
him at a games conference and all I can say is he must have smoked a lot
of cigarettes since then.

I saw all this in passing, but didn't really care to dig deeper into
the matter -Intenet drama bores me- but, in the name of keeping
informed, I appreciate the summary.

I've generally stayed away from Stop Killing Games just because -as
much as I agree with their goal- it's a lost cause from the start.
There's too much legal precedent and money against it ever gaining any
sort of traction, especially for as spurious a medium as video games
(which, given the age of the average litigator, is assumed to be
something only little kids play and thus lacking any and all artistic integrity). Its end goals are too vague too; how, exactly, can you
prevent a publisher from killing games without overreaching
legislation?

[Not that I'm entirely opposed to that sort of legislation;
I'd love if there was a legal obligation to put DRM keys
and source code into escrow, to be released to the public
if a publisher goes defunct or doesn't distributed for a
certain length of time. But we can't even get regular
copyrights down to a reasonable term so I've no expectations
that we'd ever see such drastic action taken for software]

Re your last paragraph above, will NEVER happen. If a publisher goes
defunct, it goes thru bankruptcy proceedings and all the DRM keys and
code are _assets_. So can't be just given away, they would have to be distributed to creditors or sold to pay off creditors. And forcing a
company to distribute against their will effectively destroys the entire concept of "private property".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2025 01:30, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Re your last paragraph above, will NEVER happen.  If a publisher goes defunct, it goes thru bankruptcy proceedings and all the DRM keys and
code are _assets_.  So can't be just given away, they would have to be distributed to creditors or sold to pay off creditors.  And forcing a company to distribute against their will effectively destroys the entire concept of "private property".

If a single player game that uses an online DRM server is no longer
usable because the company has gone tits up what about the loss of my
property. Does that not matter, why is it that the consumer is always
last in the pecking order?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/07/2025 16:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I've generally stayed away from Stop Killing Games just because -as
much as I agree with their goal- it's a lost cause from the start.
There's too much legal precedent and money against it ever gaining any
sort of traction, especially for as spurious a medium as video games
(which, given the age of the average litigator, is assumed to be
something only little kids play and thus lacking any and all artistic integrity). Its end goals are too vague too; how, exactly, can you
prevent a publisher from killing games without overreaching
legislation?

I think the chances of the EU* suddenly springing into action are very
low but I do think that it will at least help make them more aware of
whether the current law is fit for purpose when it comes to digital
assets in general. The EU is generally consumer friendly and less
inclined to the mantra of businesses must be allowed to do whatever they
want to make as much money as possible. There's also an outside chance
that a single individual in the EU may take it up as a cause**.

For the vague part, I agree it is but STG have said they look at this as
the starting part of a conversation over what would be a reasonable
solution.

One positive I do hope one thing that comes out of it is that it keeps
the issue in gamers minds and thinking do I really want to be buying,
and continue to spend, money on a game where at some point the publisher
is going to turn around and say bad luck you've lost it all.

*The UK petition has already passed the number of signatories but I
think we have somewhat bigger problems to attend to at the moment.

**We had a similar case here in the UK when I single MP took it upon
themselves to try and do something about what's called fixed odds
betting terminals and the real life harm they can cause - think people
losing their jobs, family and house. They made the industry so much
money that is was actually profitable to open up another betting shop
close by just to get around the limit of only four allowed per-shop.

The gambling industry swung into action but after I think two years the
rest of parliament just got to the stage of let's pass this bill to keep
her quiet!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/8/2025 1:27 AM, JAB wrote:

On 08/07/2025 01:30, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Re your last paragraph above, will NEVER happen.  If a publisher goes
defunct, it goes thru bankruptcy proceedings and all the DRM keys and
code are _assets_.  So can't be just given away, they would have to be
distributed to creditors or sold to pay off creditors.  And forcing a
company to distribute against their will effectively destroys the
entire concept of "private property".

If a single player game that uses an online DRM server is no longer
usable because the company has gone tits up what about the loss of my property. Does that not matter, why is it that the consumer is always
last in the pecking order?

The EULA you signed says it isn't your property.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2025 14:39, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 7/8/2025 1:27 AM, JAB wrote:

On 08/07/2025 01:30, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Re your last paragraph above, will NEVER happen.  If a publisher goes
defunct, it goes thru bankruptcy proceedings and all the DRM keys and
code are _assets_.  So can't be just given away, they would have to
be distributed to creditors or sold to pay off creditors.  And
forcing a company to distribute against their will effectively
destroys the entire concept of "private property".

If a single player game that uses an online DRM server is no longer
usable because the company has gone tits up what about the loss of my
property. Does that not matter, why is it that the consumer is always
last in the pecking order?

The EULA you signed says it isn't your property.

Well that's ok then. Maybe you could sign one that says they can sell
one of your kidneys?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/07/2025 16:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I saw all this in passing, but didn't really care to dig deeper into
the matter -Intenet drama bores me- but, in the name of keeping
informed, I appreciate the summary.

I don't mind a bit of it now and then and this one I found interesting
as it seems to be a classic case of someone who's never got past that
teenager mindset of I can never be wrong. Most people at some stage in
their life learn that they aren't infallible and although they may not
like being in error when it happens the best thing to do is put your
hands up and just admit that's the case. Generally people will accept,
even respect, that and just move on.

The worse thing you can do is carry on with more poor 'reasons' as to
why you were right really and it's everyone else's fault not yours.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 08:27:59 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

*Fascinating stuff I must say, it seems to be based on Stop Killing game
are trying to get petitions signed with enough number that respective >governments are legally required to at least consider what they are
proposing - in a nutshell, all games (both single and multiplayer)
should be developed with a sunset plan so when the company decides to no >longer support them they can still be played in some reasonable form
without the companies involvement at all. I like the idea but of not
sure of the practicalities especially when it comes to live services games.

Well, that would accomplish exactly the opposite, as those companies
would choose to sunset games after a year to spur on new sales, and
probably would not open source server code so MP games would just
effectively shut down. MP players would have to reverse engineer the
whole damn thing to keep a community going.

They win the George Orwell prize for 2025.

--
Zag

What's the point of growing up
if you can't be childish sometimes? ...Terrance Dicks, BBC

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 11:43:03 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So we have Epic, EA, Activision, Mircrosoft to name but a few. Yeh right >>because those companies are really champions of consumers and this isn't >>just a lobbying group for some of the big players hoping that the EU
won't get involved.

Well, potentially it's a shot across the bow at Ubi for killing GRID, and
the first draft title was "Stop being dicks" directly aimed at the
Guillemots. Like that would change anything. It's been revealed that the
entire company was being run by unrestrained BDE.

But Ubi is a member, so the point may have already been made. There's definitely some kind of carrot in there for them to have joined the
coalition.

--
Zag

What's the point of growing up
if you can't be childish sometimes? ...Terrance Dicks, BBC

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:09:15 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

On 08/07/2025 14:39, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 7/8/2025 1:27 AM, JAB wrote:

On 08/07/2025 01:30, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Re your last paragraph above, will NEVER happen.� If a publisher goes
defunct, it goes thru bankruptcy proceedings and all the DRM keys and
code are _assets_.� So can't be just given away, they would have to
be distributed to creditors or sold to pay off creditors.� And
forcing a company to distribute against their will effectively
destroys the entire concept of "private property".

If a single player game that uses an online DRM server is no longer
usable because the company has gone tits up what about the loss of my
property. Does that not matter, why is it that the consumer is always
last in the pecking order?

The EULA you signed says it isn't your property.

Well that's ok then. Maybe you could sign one that says they can sell
one of your kidneys?

Exactly, the current EULAs are not court tested and haven't been in
years, and that's not a coincidence.

These companies assiduously avoid letting EULA issues get to court and
actively discourage class-actions in the EULAs with "agree to
arbitration" clauses. The fact is, that is an invalid agreement in most jurisdictions. You can absolutely file suit, anywhere at any time, if the
tort is grave enough.

They do not want the law to be involved. They think they *are* the law.
Their arbitrators will decide what *their* laws say.

Should something bad enough happen, like a massive termination of games
instead of dribs and drabs, that EULA is toilet paper.

This is lip service to that effect, so they can keep it a legal gray
area. That's how they like it.

--
Zag

What's the point of growing up
if you can't be childish sometimes? ...Terrance Dicks, BBC

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/8/2025 7:09 AM, JAB wrote:

On 08/07/2025 14:39, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 7/8/2025 1:27 AM, JAB wrote:

On 08/07/2025 01:30, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Re your last paragraph above, will NEVER happen.  If a publisher
goes defunct, it goes thru bankruptcy proceedings and all the DRM
keys and code are _assets_.  So can't be just given away, they would
have to be distributed to creditors or sold to pay off creditors.
And forcing a company to distribute against their will effectively
destroys the entire concept of "private property".

If a single player game that uses an online DRM server is no longer
usable because the company has gone tits up what about the loss of my
property. Does that not matter, why is it that the consumer is always
last in the pecking order?

The EULA you signed says it isn't your property.

Well that's ok then. Maybe you could sign one that says they can sell
one of your kidneys?

Make that "force you to sell one of your kidneys" and it would be closer
to reality. Ownership is not just to ability/right TO sell but also the ability/right to NOT sell. If you don't have both you don't own it.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote at 16:25 this Wednesday (GMT):

On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 08:38:54 +0100, JAB <[email protected]> wrote:

On 07/07/2025 16:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I saw all this in passing, but didn't really care to dig deeper into
the matter -Intenet drama bores me- but, in the name of keeping
informed, I appreciate the summary.

I don't mind a bit of it now and then and this one I found interesting
as it seems to be a classic case of someone who's never got past that >>teenager mindset of I can never be wrong. Most people at some stage in >>their life learn that they aren't infallible and although they may not
like being in error when it happens the best thing to do is put your
hands up and just admit that's the case. Generally people will accept,
even respect, that and just move on.

It's probably worsened by having a public persona (even if it is as
mediocre a one as being a "YouTube celebrity"). Or that you're in
frequent communication with Fans On The Internet, who are not only
quick to point out any conflicting views you may have had, but provide
links to where you said something that disagrees with your current statements. The internet can be incredibly critical, and when you're
income depends on maintaining the good will and your trustworthiness
(as in, people can depend on you for certain viewpoints), backing down
can be extremely taxing.

Apparently the guy has a huge ego too, they're terrible at programming
despite "working at Bethesda for 20 years" (because his dad is a major employee), and yet literally calls himself "coding jesus" (also he
called out toby fox for being a bad coder), also some WoW drama where
they abandoned their team?

Also he is AGAINST pirating software.

That's why I never say anything of value here on Usenet ;-)

cheers
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

candycanearter07 <[email protected]>
looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The
Augury is good, the signs say:

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote at 16:25 this Wednesday (GMT):

On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 08:38:54 +0100, JAB <[email protected]> wrote:

On 07/07/2025 16:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I saw all this in passing, but didn't really care to dig deeper into
the matter -Intenet drama bores me- but, in the name of keeping
informed, I appreciate the summary.

I don't mind a bit of it now and then and this one I found interesting
as it seems to be a classic case of someone who's never got past that >>>teenager mindset of I can never be wrong. Most people at some stage in >>>their life learn that they aren't infallible and although they may not >>>like being in error when it happens the best thing to do is put your >>>hands up and just admit that's the case. Generally people will accept, >>>even respect, that and just move on.

It's probably worsened by having a public persona (even if it is as
mediocre a one as being a "YouTube celebrity"). Or that you're in
frequent communication with Fans On The Internet, who are not only
quick to point out any conflicting views you may have had, but provide
links to where you said something that disagrees with your current
statements. The internet can be incredibly critical, and when you're
income depends on maintaining the good will and your trustworthiness
(as in, people can depend on you for certain viewpoints), backing down
can be extremely taxing.

Apparently the guy has a huge ego too, they're terrible at programming >despite "working at Bethesda for 20 years" (because his dad is a major >employee), and yet literally calls himself "coding jesus"

Codes like his hands have been nailed to a cross?

Or he makes the bugs and errors multiply like loaves and fishes?

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:10:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 <[email protected]> wrote:

Apparently the guy has a huge ego too, they're terrible at programming >despite "working at Bethesda for 20 years" (because his dad is a major >employee), and yet literally calls himself "coding jesus"

I'm not sure if that means he can simultaneously code while selling
burritos from a food truck, or if he has the laptop mounted to his
leaf blower...

What the hell is a coding heysoos?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Well this is more than I thought would happen. One of the vice
presidents of the EU has come out in support of the initiative. Where
it's goes from here is anybody's guess. Something I also noticed,
Videogames Europe is based in Brussels, now I can't imagine why they
choose that location. Maybe they really like Belgian fries with mayo?

https://www.eurogamer.net/as-stop-killing-games-momentum-continues-top-eu-politician-offers-support-a-game-once-sold-belongs-to-the-customer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16/07/2025 19:24, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:22:35 +0100, JAB <[email protected]> wrote:

Well this is more than I thought would happen. One of the vice
presidents of the EU has come out in support of the initiative. Where
it's goes from here is anybody's guess. Something I also noticed,
Videogames Europe is based in Brussels, now I can't imagine why they
choose that location. Maybe they really like Belgian fries with mayo?

https://www.eurogamer.net/as-stop-killing-games-momentum-continues-top-eu-politician-offers-support-a-game-once-sold-belongs-to-the-customer

To be clear, though, all Stefanuta (the politician in question) was
did was say is (paraphrased), "yeah, this a good idea," and he signed
the non-binding "Stop Killing Games" petition. He hasn't actually
pushed forward any initiatives that would support it. And, coming from Romania, I'm not sure how much influence he'd have anyway. At this
point, he's just one more name on the petition and (with apologies to
our Romanian neighbors) little more important than if, say, Tom Hanks
signed his name to the list. Buzzworthy, but not really moving us
forward.

I'll happily eat my hat, though, if tomorrow Stefanuta proposes some
sort of committee or ensures there will be a public hearing on the
topic. But -and maybe I'm just too cynical- at this point it just
looks like an easy way to get his name in the press rather than any
real show of support.

He's one of the vice presidents of the *EU* so does have somewhat of a
say in what happens and certainly rather more than Tom Hanks support
would. He also has a history of talking about digital rights for consumers.

To put it simply, it's people like him who if the petition get's the
authorised number of signatures can try and push people in the EU to
move it forward and be considered.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JAB <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

Well this is more than I thought would happen. One of the vice
presidents of the EU has come out in support of the initiative. Where
it's goes from here is anybody's guess. Something I also noticed,
Videogames Europe is based in Brussels, now I can't imagine why they
choose that location. Maybe they really like Belgian fries with mayo?

Isn't Brussels the home base of the EU gov't?

As such expect this to be bogged down by legalese and take the better
part of a decade to start to get off the ground.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/07/2025 20:14, Xocyll wrote:

JAB <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

Well this is more than I thought would happen. One of the vice
presidents of the EU has come out in support of the initiative. Where
it's goes from here is anybody's guess. Something I also noticed,
Videogames Europe is based in Brussels, now I can't imagine why they
choose that location. Maybe they really like Belgian fries with mayo?

Isn't Brussels the home base of the EU gov't?

Well quite, that was the point. It's a lobbying group for the games
industry in Europe, where else would they place it.

As such expect this to be bogged down by legalese and take the better
part of a decade to start to get off the ground.

The initiative is designed to get the ball rolling on changing consumer
law not what the law says at the moment. Where the time will go, if it
evens happens, is all member states will want to have their say on the
matter. The positive though, no country will be allowed a veto.

I'm still not optimistic that something will happen but I am more
optimistic than I was before.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)