European Commission rejects new laws for Stop Destroying Videogames
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2026/06/european-commission-rejects-new-laws-for-stop-destroying-videogames/Open linkView original on lemmy.world469
Comments154https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2026/06/european-commission-rejects-new-laws-for-stop-destroying-videogames/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
I see a lot of defeatist commenters are content to lie down and let this be the end result. I'll let the man himself explain why this isn't the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgoODQFrPgw&t=734s
tl;dw: There is a much broader support for SKG in the European Parliament, the other legislative body besides the EC. They can't introduce new legislation, but they can modify existing legislation; specifically, SKG is targeting the Digital Fairness Act.
Definitely not the end of the movement, but it's still disappointing that they reached anything other than the obvious conclusion with so much grassroots support.
Expected, though. The EC is not exactly known for having sensible opinions.
Ah, the one that's actually VOTED for (rather than appointed by "The Council") is more responsive to the will of the people! Imagine that!
Goddamn it. Lobbying wins again
Lobbying will always win until people start busting out guillotines
it's literally corruption with makeup.
People like to say the US is a corrupt cess pool, and they're right, but so is the rest of the world. EU isn't an exception when corporate profit are on the line.
Money wins again.
It's not a big enough issue for the pols to come down on the side of the people. They know they won't be voted out on this one decision, so they came down on the side of the money.
On the bright side, there's not enough money in live service anymore, so plenty of companies are getting cold feet when it comes to making games that can be killed anyway. Yeah, that's a reach for a silver lining, but it's something. I'd like to believe that the action they say they're taking will result in real change, but it sure doesn't sound like it.
Got a source to back that up? I'd love for it to be true, but all I've ever heard is the opposite..
Sega
Hasbro
And I thought there was a third example in recent weeks, but I'm struggling to find it right now. In place of that, you can look at the implosion of Sony's live service efforts, with Marathon falling far short of making money, and for some reason Fairgames, rumored to now be called Break-In, will be the last one out the door after that Horizon live service. After that, I'd be shocked if they keep trying.
Teehee 😁
"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"."
Well that would be cool, but anything about the duration and conditions for terminating the contract i've ever read on boxes or terms of service is: " We can do whatever we like, whenever we like, just so we're clear' (im slightly paraphrasing). So it sound to me like the EC says: " Well these sellers said fuck you up front so they're immune to any responsibility". Cool, cool. I saw a digital fairness act, but maybe we can hang something up in the mandated warranty tree? So if a game shuts down in 6 months barring you from playing, you would be entitled to some form of restitution instead of hoping the dev has morals.
Still doesn't solve that corpo's have their fingers over the killbuttons on our cultural heritage existence, so, you know, there's a lot of work to do still.
Upfront? As in the UELA you get to read after opening the box, at which point you can't return the game anymore?
EULA is not valid in EU. Contract terms that are unfair under EU law have no legal or binding force on consumers.
It's a basic premise of European and EU legal systems that you cannot use a contract to subvert national or international law. I guess the difficulty is who exactly enforces the existing laws that are supposed to guard against consumers getting ripped off.
Its not the eu's job to protect cultural heritage. What kind of nut job comes to conclusions like this?
here is a quote from the european commision:
Great rebuttal.
Well that's a broad interpretation of a translation into a language no EU country officially speaks. So...
Out of all “internet commenters who could not admit they were wrong,” this is quite high ranking in my memory.
I will remember you, friend.
😘
also, i just wanna remind you, Ireland is an eu member state.
Yeah, well, I didn't remember that when I said it. Doesn't count.
How fragile is your ego when you have to say "nuh uh" to something so unambiguous?
More fragile than you can possibly imagine.
Better ?
They'd be really upset if they weren't monolingual.
They're monolingual and anything written in English isn't valid since it's not the official language of any European country.
Checkmate!
Well you can't really argue video games are culture except the ones that are but they don't count.
Dude, it's ok to be wrong sometimes, no one would judge you :) In fact, it's a sign of strength to be able to admit you're wrong, and people will like you more for it. It'll also be good for you personally as you will be more effective in more things :)
lol, at least you tried
lol. lmao even.
Industry? Listening to customers?
Especially the fucking gaming industry where the likes of EA, Ubisoft, and all the HUGE companies now owned by Microsoft have been shitting on consumers with absolutely staggering impunity for decades!
What the fuck @[email protected] ? You are listening to people who don't represent the majority of users. Fuck you.
*citizens, not users
The European Comission being corrupt as fuck really doesn't help with growing anti-EU sentiments. This is why people lose faith in the EU.
Prosecute Ursula von der Leyen for treason and crimes against the European Union. Dissolve the European Comission and/or give more power to the European Parliament.
How are we supposed to be the leading democracy if only the arbitrarily-appointed commissioners can introduce new legislation?
How is it a functional democracy if one of the most successful citizens' initiative is essentially being ignored, because it doesn't align with corporate interests?
President von der Leyen, along with the rest of the European Comission, are digging the entire European Union's grave. And they're doing a very good job, unfortunately.
Treason?
I would also like to know what the hell they are talking about.
She has repeatedly made decisions that cost the EU and benefitted the US. Putting foreign powers' interests before the European Union's sounds like a clear case of treason to me.
Are also calling for the complete abolishing of the government of your country and thereby call for the destruction of the political system, when you don't like the government in office, or is it just something you do with the EU
My country's government has been democratically elected. If it makes terrible decisions, the people have the choice of electing a different one. In theory at least.
The European Comission is not democratically elected, and regardless of how batshit insane its decisions are - we have no legal pathway of changing it.
The European Comission is not 'the political system' of the European Union. It's one part of it. A part that is undemocratic and needs reforms as soon as possible.
The EU commission is elected by the directly elected European Parliament based on suggestions by the Council/member states. The Commission can be voted out of office anytime when it loses support in the European Parliament.
The Austrian government is elected by Parliament based on suggestions by the Chancelor candidate (the latter chosen by the President). The parliament can vote the government out of office anytime.
According to you the one thing is utterly undemocratic while the other is not. ok.
The EU Commission is not the EU, but it is its executive and administration. I f you just kill that, you let everthing derail. Bureaucracy is a dirty word but there without it political entities implode.
I don't know why we're suddenly talking about Austria - a country I've never mentioned, because I've never been there and know little about it.
Judging solely based on your description, it does sound similar to the European Comission. I wouldn't say either is particularly democratic. Both seem quite similar to the Chinese democracy, which is rarely referred to as democracy at all in the West.
This is wrong. The European Parliament does not elect anybody. The president of the European Comission is chosen by the European Council, while the rest of the comissioners are chosen by the Council of the European Union.
The Parliament only gets to vote on the final result, as usual. Theoretically, it can vote against the proposed Comission, or put a motion of no confidence in the Comission. Both of these only have limited realistic use, because the Parliament still cannot put forward its own nominations.
Sources:
I am talking about Austria because to compare it with other parliamentary democracies it helps to chose one concrete example, you can chose another one if you like. How about Germany, the largest member state. There Parliament's position in this regard is actually weaker than in Austria.
I have no idea where you are coming from but you seem to lack knowledge how parliamentary democracies work if you hold the completely outlandish view that they are on the same level as the Chinese system in terms of democracy.
Back to the EU Commission. Its election is obviously a system where both, the Council / member states and the EP hold power. ("election" is the word in the treaties btw) This is by design. Power is not centralised. It is common in parliamentary democracies that parliaments elect/consent on members of the government but don't choose them. However government with members that are not to the liking of a majority in Parliament won't be elected/voted into power. The same is the case in the EU and there is precedent for that as well. The vote on VdL yielded a paper thin majority im the EP and only because VdL was giving the EP concessions in return. If the EP targets candidates as not acceptable they will not make it into the Commission. Again, there is precedent for that.
If that sounds like Chinese "democracy" to you, half the democracies (ie all parliamentary democracies) on earth are in reality a Chinese style "democracy". Seriously?
Calm down.
Funfact, anytime someone utters the phrase "leading democracy" that just means they have drank the kool-aid and are either too blind, ignorant or stupid to realize there's no such thing.
Every government is corrupt as fuck as a base line. There is no leading democracy they all fucking suck.
Every government sucks.
Some just suck more then others, the only upside to democracy is they at least typically out right murdery to their own people most of the time. And pretend to play nice.
Nobody said anything about governments or even democracy itself being good.
'Leading democracy' just means it's the best out of all available democracies, regardless of how bad they all are or how flawed the system of democracy is. It's relative.
Good video to show how bs the corpo claims are. Especially the licensing claims.
I think this video is specifically for the California bill, but similar arguments are being used against both initiatives.
https://youtu.be/CgoODQFrPgw
The government does nothing. More news at 11.
Corruption. Corruption everywhere.
Never had any faith in them anyway, just empty old suits that should have retired 20 years ago and now just want to get a bit more money before they keel over.
Best solution is to just stop buying games and go back to piracy, only way to keep your games these days.
The reason these games can be destroyed is that even piracy is often impossible. The ones you're pirating are more often than not going to be the ones that were never at risk of being targeted by this initiative.
Then start considering buying games that you can also get through piracy, as long as you keep giving them money and allowing them control nothing will change.
Way ahead of you.
i'm planning to make sure my game is "piratable"... but shh 😅
EU commission does what everyone expected them to do: Deciding based on what wealthy lobby groups tell them.
TLDR "we have been successfully lobbied/bribed/corrupted into doing nothing (we may end up making it easier for publishers to do whatever they want)".
Lot of EU supremacist/jingoist gamers gonna be feeling some serious cognitive dissonance tonight.
Eh?
I knew this was coming and still somehow feel disappointed.
I come to distrust the EU with opinions like this every day
Fuck the Eu Commission. They are traitors to everything the EU stands for. They deserve to burn with every billionaire on this planet.
Uh, they are the EU.
Uh, they are not. It's like saying the entire US government consists of only the members of congress.
The European Commission is one of two legislative bodies. It's the one that can introduce new legislation. The European Parliament is where SKG has a much broader support, and they are aiming to modify the Digital Fairness Act.
Wanted to say exactly that. The EU Commission is seemingly actively pushing against everything common sense EU citizens are for, while the EU parliament is busy rejecting the BS coming from the Commission.
I think you confused something here. While I agree that it is nonsense to claim that the Commission "is the EU", it is not really a legislative body. While it is true that the Commission "initiates" legislation, it is an executive institution and such work is more in line with national governments drafting new legislation (even if there commonly Parliaments then rubber stamp a legislative initiative based on that). The two legislative institutions of the EU are the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (comprised of ministers from each national government), the amend, veto or agree on legislation together, with committee work etc, as one would expect from legislatives.
I probably didn't translate that properly. I meant "one of the two bodies involved in lawmaking".
In that case, if you choose to include the Commission, there would be three bodies. There is a reason the "trilogue" is called that way. The third body is the Council of the European Union which has basically equal standing to the European Parliament but represents the member states, while the EP represents the voters directly. Both can bring in amendments and veto or agree on a piece of legislation (while the Commission can't, its influence is with initiation and the initial draft).
Holy lazy writing Batman!
As if this all wasn't adressed by SKG 100 times before. Did the author never hear about SKG before writing this article?
:(
Is there something we can do? One more petition, with already debunked lobbyist lies? I will sign it again.
list everyone who voted for rejection, dig up what else they have been up to, make sure people know and will not forget. no peace for these assholes. even if it doesnt do anything, just having them think it might do something is enough.
these people have prevented other laws too or voted for shitty ones. And, if naming and shaming them isnt part of democracy then we have no democracy at all as then actions can't have consequences.
The EU commission is not democratic. The Parliament is. And of cours the power lies with the commission.
The EU Commission is elected by the European Parliament into power and can be fired by the European Parliament anytime. Pretty much standard for governments in parliamentary democracies. If that isn't democratic, you don't consider parliamentary democracies democratic in general?
The Commission is unique in the way that it alone can initiate legislation but the right to initiative is routinely blown out of proportion. In most countries this power of their parliaments is mostly facade nowadays, because the governments there are actually drafting legislation and if needed parliaments just rubber stamp the initiative. This is further watered down because both Council and Parliament can propose legislative initiative to the Commission, which the Commission usually follows through. While the Commission can try to prevent legal initiative, it can do little to prevent the amending of current legislative proposals in the works. This is actually relevant for Stop Killing Games, if you followed the news of the initiative.
Each of the 27 Commissioners is nominated by one member states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
Which means nothing if they are not elected by the European Parliament by a vote of consent. The Commission can be also fired anytime by the European Parliament anytime later, if it loses support in the chamber.
They are not elected. They are just vetted by the Parliament.
The Commission President is literally "elected" by the European Parliament, the word in the treaties. The Commission as a whole is facing a vote of consent. If the European Parliament rejects candidates, also besides the Commission President, they have to go or the Commission won't be getting into power. This is not merely theoretical, there is precedence for that. There are also interviews of each Commission candidate in the European Parliament and those are usually way harder than anything, any minister candidate in Austria, for example, would ever face.
Equally as important is the fact that the European Parliament can vote the Commission out of office anytime as well.
I very much doubt this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes us to rebel against the system and tear down these structures of oppression that benefit business and capital at the expense of people and humanity. But it could be, and that excites me.
Government will not do good things if you're not organized enough that you don't need government.
Also you need to bribe them. Like a lot.
Bummer
Nobody voted for paper straws, glued bottletaps or AliExpress tariffs. Enough people voted for this.
EU is hardly a democracy. More like an enlightened despotism. "All for the people, but without the people".
I get the feeling you are not really aware of how the EU functions. Despotism is absolutist rule, calling that the EU or any EU institution is pretty absurd and detached from reality. There is hardly a political entity, less centralised than the EU, still capable of routinely drafting common legislation. Also, while there is a democratic deficit (but hardly larger than in many other democracies nowadays), the Commission is elected into power by the directly elected European Parliament and can't pass ordinary legislation without a majority in the EP in support of it and the latter having the power to amend the hell out of it, if it doesn't outright veto it straight away.
Europarliament representatives voting has nothing to do with the programs they get elected for.
When they present themselves to the election they show people a program. Then they do whatever they want, untelated with that program they were voted to achieve.
It's a detached institution. People elected for the european parliament get outrageous salaries, and barely get audited.
I remember when chat control was being voted. I wrote my representatives, none of them answerer, none, not a single one. If they cannot even talk to me about things I worry sure as hell they are not representing me.
I thonk this is false on many levels. Party groups are acting largely within their programs. Topics like Russia, Ukraine, EU integration (pro/contra), environment, regulation vs fighting red tape, Immigration etc. were present in the debate.
It is not complete, after all coalitions need to compromise and also the other legislative chamber gas a say for good reasons but generally I don't see more divergence than on national level.
What I do see however, when comparing to Austria is that MEPs are more approachable than MPs and there is a higher chance that they might be influenced by public pressure. They are also much more engaged in actual legislative work in committees and not just in rubber stamping in the plenum.
Your example of chat control is actually confirming that. A majority conservative EP voted how on it again? MEPs were drowning in messages, I am not sure what you expected. The point was not for you to get back an assay but the drowning in messages was already the point and it worked.
Did your representatives had in their program tariffs for AliExpress or Shein?
Mine didn't, they voted in favor of it regardless.
Yes national parties always campaign on the introduction of new fees and taxes and every new law is in every party program, naturally also when coalitions govern.
That said, yes the tariffs on small orders are in line with the program of the party I voted for. They are also reasonable. Disposable fashion platforms (and also other Chinese companies) were systemmatically mislabeling shipments to avoid existing tariffs. Thanks to international agreements they can also ship at dumping prices (for less than the cost of a letter to the neighbour village within a country). Adding that tariff merely raises the shipping price to a level that is closer to domestic shipping. It also creates an incentive to not split up everything into countless part shipments, reducing the load on insfrustructure. Last but not least, it reduces the incentive for mislabelling.
PS: I am shopping myself occasionally in China, so I know the practices and I understand the need for stricter rules.
I didn't see that explicit tariff on any program.
Their programa tend to be vague "supporting local industry" "protection from harmful foreign products". But under those vague umbrellas they do whatever they want and then they job becomes to convince the people that what they decided to do is the good thing.
And in a democracy that's not what should happen. In a democracy the people tells the politicians what to do. When the politicians tell by their own to the people what's good from them it's called enlightened despotism.
Also I do not see how it's reasonable to ask for a 3€ tariff for each product category on any order. That tariff is obviously aimed to cut people from buying directly from china and just to buy the exact same product to a middleman paying way more. Products are still the same, guarantees are still the same, taxes are quite similar as this products were subject to vat. The only thing that change is you pay the extra tariff or you pay the middleman. Zero benefits for the consumer.
It seems your beef is with democracy itself rather than the EU. Which party publishes an exhaustive detailed list of all coming laws with specific outlines for the coming legislative period, and of course predicting future coalition negotiations. You don't see that your requirements are completely unworkable in reality, not just in the EU, anywhere, are you?
Party programs are simplifications out of necessity and they focus on specific topics, depending on the party. That focus itself is a strong reason why to vote for them. Those few Euros of tariffs on orders from China was indeed not a big topic. Immigration, Russia, defense and Integration were big topics, understandably.
3 EUR is not cutting off anyone from anything, especially as that is barely compensating the dumping prices on shipping. Or do you believe that 0 EUR shipping on a 2 EUR order is covering the actual shipping costs? Like I said, that shipping dumping is possible because of anachronistic international agreements that were never intended for what they are used now.
I know some don't care at all about the environment or costs to society. That avalanche of tiny packages is a huge strain on our infrastructure and driven by unsustainably low shipping rates. That legislation will have a positive effect by incentivicing more consolidated ordering and shipping at prices closer to real costs.
Like I said, I am ordering myself in China and I support that. Chinese platforms will adopt fast when it is about money. So the positive effects will be seen soon. Maybe you don't think as far but that shipping dumping is paid largely by us. At least everyone who is still ordering stuff also within the EU or paying taxes here for infrastructure.
We have a serious democracy deficit. And without democratic accountability, it's hard to see a bright future for it.
The Commission is accountable to the directly elected European Parliament, by the fact that the latter can vote the former out of office anytime.
coincidence the same time they passed a pretty regressive anti-immigration law.
...and they wonder why we become EU-sceptics...
Hey, maybe it's not that EU is a failed and totally corrupt state but they simply don't care about video games that much? You know, with global economic crisis on the horizon, new war in the middle east, growing threat from Russia and the collapse of NATO? Is that possible?
then why not do as people ask if they dont care?
Because they don't care? They won't spend time on it because it's low priority?
Is it the same people that works with wars and video games? EU is big and they can work on many things at the same time.
EU has done improvements on our right to our hardware, which includes right to repair and software updates of the operating system for five years. Looking into the right to our software, including video games, could have been the next step of that.
Yes, those are the same people. Not the same people will write the whole bill but the same people will have to move it through all the legislative process and vote on it.
Yes, EU has done many improvements. That's why I think it's silly that everyone says they are corrupt just because they didn't agree to work on video games. It's like people can only see one thing at a time.
Many things can be true at once. They can have done good things, they can various opinions on topics, they can be busy with larger matters, and they can be corrupt!
Humans are really good at doing lots of things.
So they pushed GDPR through against the lobbying for Meta and Google, they pushed ICE cars ban against the lobbying or auto industry, they passed DMA/DSA against the lobbying of all the biggest corporations but on video games they folded immediately because EA and Xbox told them to. Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened.
As much as I liked the initiative, it was always on shaky ground because games aren't needed... now, if we could have tied it to the environment somehow (eg. hardware waste), or to the right of education (eg. safeguarding access to learning material), it would have stood a better chance.
Yeah, EU was probably thinking that it is a bunch of young adults which wants to continue play their favorite games. Good for them but not something worthy of their time. Personally, I think it is worth to do improvements to things that are not necessary but I can understand from their point that they want to focus on other things. With that being said I have a hard time to believe that everyone at EU needs to work on crucial projects all the time.
Cringe. The tentacles of Pirate Software are far reaching.
How obsessed can people get with one inconsequential guy for being cringe on the internet?
Well, I called that one.
It's not even a matter of corruption, it's basic intellectual property rights and asking for those rights to be eroded. I'm not saying these companies aren't evil, they are evil as fuck! But to ask the EU to make a bunch of illogical changes doesn't make sense. Enforcement of existing consumer rights is what I said would likely result and hopefully that is true. You can do a lot within the existing framework without having to use some poorly thought out nuclear option.
I know of no examples where people rose up to demand enforcement of existing laws and rights and something changed, but I'd love to learn that I'm wrong. The lack of enforcement usually shows a gap where the law didn't cover the real world scenario diligently enough.
I can think of tons:
I think the idea of govt needing to "cover the real world scenario diligently enough" isn't the issue here. Its a matter of non‑justiciable demands. My biggest issue with SKG was the lack of real goals. They needed clearly defined actionable demands from the beginning because groups like the ESA were going to come in swinging hard on them. They didn't do that.
It's not a matter of law failing to cover real world scenarios, its a matter of making real world demands that can be addressed by law.
Those are terrible examples. We needed affirmative action policies to get past people's biases, and women's suffrage needed an amendment to the Constitution. MeToo was more the destruction of "catch and kill" tactics by social media for powerful men committing crimes that rarely leave evidence beyond corroborating witnesses.
Plus, there was zero danger of eroding intellectual property rights here.
I've never heard anyone say that the Civil Rights movement was a bad example of people demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights. That's kind of the hallmark of that exact thing.
And the EU commission outlined exactly why this is eroding intellectual property rights.
I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point. I'm not going to debate your bad faith arguments, so that's where this ends. Much like SKG.
I've never heard anyone say the Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of existing laws and rights. Segregation was the existing law that needed to be changed, not enforced.
I mean I think Ruby Bridges would probably disagree on that, but ok.
EDIT: Actually, lets just go with the entire US post-Brown v. Board of Education. Yeah, that qualifies as "demand enforcement of existing laws and rights". Hell, lets go before that even. Little Rock Nine.
It's unsettling that people can't do basic fucking research before commenting with their feelings.
Do you think the Civil Rights movement started and ended with Ruby Bridges?
Famously, the civil rights movement didn't end with zero changes to laws on the books because they were all perfect beforehand. The EU commission did not outline how this erodes intellectual property rights, but somehow, after a behind-closed-doors meeting with the industry that SKG wasn't allowed to attend, they were convinced that it would.
The whole intellectual property rights arguments boils down to the fact that publishers and their suppliers don't want restrictions to tell people they're actually buying a license and not a copy. Yes, as a property holder you enjoy complete control of how those properties are used, but if they decide to sell a copy you don't get to take that sale back, unlike with a license could be termed.
So then the industry is using all it's power to avoid that designation, including lots and lots of bad faith. My opinion is that at this point the offenders need some form of punishment.
In the case where you have a legal copy, you as a consumer are free to keep that copy and keep it running.
You're making a distinction between a license and a copy that doesn't exist.
It's a license for a copy just like any other software. Watch this by the guy who started SKG to understand better.
The issue is that these companies sell you a perpetual license (there's no expiration date) and then through disabling servers etc they are effectively revoking it which is fraudulent.
That is a huge part of the IP issue. Even Value has tried to argue that Steam is a subscription service and that you don't own Steam games but rather licenses to games on Steam. And it was for the exact reason you mentioned: a user was banned from Steam but wanted access to the hundreds of games he purchased.
That is the practical side of the problem. The logical side of the problem is the erosion problem. For example, SWTOR was planning on being retired and eventually offlined when the new SW title releases (thereby replacing it). Under SKG, the new title would effectively be forced to compete with the old despite the fact that the IP holder doesn't want that. They would have limited power over how their IP is being used. A group could take SWTOR, add content, and have people donate/pay for it despite the IP holder not wanting their IP used that way. The IP would in essence be fighting the IP. That is erosion. You have the rights but those rights become more limited.
Honestly, most people here are commenting with their feelings (not you, just in general) and anything that isn't fanatical level support for SKW is instantly attacked with absurd ideas how things "should work". There is legitimate reasons to support SKW and there is legitimate worries to how SKW is handling things.
OK, I'll bite.
If you open a printed, physical book, you'll likely see something like this printed on the first page: "copyright [author name], all rights reserved". If the book was printed in the last year, it might also include language explicitly forbidding AI training and other forms of data mining.
If you look at the back of the packaging of physical movie releases (so for example a DVD or Bluray case) you'll find find something like "this movie has only been licensed for personal used. Public exhibition is not permitted"
Because media has always been licenced. The question therefore is less about license vs ownership and instead about what makes a fair license. SKG argues, that the licensing as it currently exists is deeply unfair. Unfair enough that it possibly already violates EU law. That's what the lawsuit in France is about.
Not really. The game has, as you yourself noted, been licensed to you. The granted rights don't include commercial activity. Publishers could even put the videogame equivalent of the language from the movie cases into their licenses to spell that out.
I'm guessing you blocked me, but these are mods, and they've existed for a long time.
chad_yes.jpg
Publishers shouldn't be able to erase existing games consumers have purchased so that new games don't have to compete with them. That's the equivalent of Disney confiscating all DVDs of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and destroying them so that the new MCU movies don't have to compete.
If their new products aren't good enough to compete with the old, tough shit. Not an excuse to confiscate and destroy what consumers already paid for.