The initiative is at more than 20% of the 1 million signatures necessary.

As of 4 pm CEST the numbers are:

Country Number of Signatures Percentage of the theshold
Austria 4,187 31.26%
Belgium 7,116 48.06%
Bulgaria 2,764 23.06%
Croatia 2,527 29.87%
Cyprus 288 6.81%
Czechia 4,690 31.68%
Denmark 7,684 77.85%
Estonia 1,827 37.02%
Finland 10,266 104.01%
France 16,732 30.04%
Germany 45,688 67.51%
Greece 2,469 16.68%
Hungary 4,509 30.46%
Ireland 4,680 51.06%
Italy 7,949 14.84%
Latvia 1,569 27.82%
Lithuania 3,109 40.09%
Luxembourg 430 10.17%
Malta 279 6.6%
Netherlands 15,999 78.25%
Poland 20,517 55.97%
Portugal 5,019 33.9%
Romania 7,917 34.03%
Slovakia 2,773 28.1%
Slovenia 1,478 26.21%
Spain 16,261 39.09%
Sweden 13,698 92.52%
Total 212.425 21,24%

To be successful the initiative needs to reach 1 million signatures and pass the threshold in at least seven countries.

https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home/allcountries

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I usually agree with Thor but on this one I probably couldn’t disagree more. Based on what he says I’d say his mindset is completely opposite to what his initiative wants to do. He essentially said he doesn’t see any value in (live service) games after they’ve reached their end of service and from that perspective I can understand how this movement is pointless or even potentially damaging. But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it and I just don’t think that’s the case.

      A lot of games continue live despite the company ending official support for them. If anyone remembers there’s a gem called Wildstar that was shut down in 2018. Despite the game being shut down and even trademark has expiring people are still running the game on private servers. People are putting in sweat and tears to make sure a game is preserved. Imagine how much easier it would be if Carbine or NcSoft had released proper tools for it. Even Vanilla WoW exists because private server did it first and Blizzard wanted to get some of that money.

      And another point that Thor made how it’s not about preservation because you can’t preserve a moment in time. I think that’s a completely disingenuous argument because it feeds into FOMO. If you join WoW today you will never experience “the golden age of WoW”. Maybe another game you might be interested in is having a golden age right now, better buy into the hype. You can’t argue against preservation like this because it’s literally impossible to preserve a moment in time except in your memory so you have be at that exact place at that exact time to really experience that thing, that is FOMO at it’s purest form. That argument against preservation is an argument in favor of FOMO.

      Thors points come for a belief that live service games don’t need to be preserved after official support has ended, and he views this initiative through that lens. Of course he will have issues with the initiative because he’s opposing the idea at a fundamental level. It’s like asking a racist how to be more tolerant with other races, the answer obviously is that you shouldn’t want to tolerate other races. And just like you would ignore a racist I think you should ignore what Thor has to say on this matter because anything he says is against the idea of preservation.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it

        Well yeah. Obviously the game losses value BECAUSE it’s not being supported anymore. There’s no value in a paperweight.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          You’re stating it like it’s somehow objective, but it’s not. Battlefield 3 and 4 have been delisted and it’s a matter of time until EA turns off services and those games are left for dead. Battlefield 4 still averages above 1k players a month. It’s clear that EA won’t see value in keeping the light on and will turn off the services in the near future, but do you think the players will go overnight from “I want to play this game” to “This game is worthless”. Don’t you think the people playing BF4 wouldn’t want to continue playing after EA shuts down the services keeping the game running?

          I think it’s pretty obvious that there are two groups who decide if a game has value or not, the company and the customers. Right now after purchasing the game the customers no longer have a say whether a game has value or not. Only the company has a say and if the company says it’s not worth it then the people who bought it just have to suck it up. And that’s the idea behind the initiative, to make it so that the company isn’t the only one who gets to decide how long you get to use the product you’ve purchased.

          I think if we expanded the idea of bricking software beyond gaming, if companies could destroy any piece of software they made, you’d also be in favor of this initiative. Imagine if Microsoft could brick Windows 10 when they’ve officially stopped supporting it. Or Nvidia effectively bricking their older cards by stopping official driver support. Would you then also argue that the software has lost value and it’s acceptable behavior?

    • Maven (famous)@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The guy who started it and other people helping push it have also responded and talked about how Thor doesn’t entirely get it/missed the point.

      Here’s Ross’s entire response pasted because it got buried on the video.

      “I’m afraid you’re misunderstanding several parts of our initiative. We want as many games as possible to be left in some playable state upon shutdown, not just specifically targeted ones. The Crew was justa convenient example to take action on, it represents hundreds of games that have already been destroyed in a similar manner and hundreds more"at risk” of being destroyed. We’re not looking at the advertising being the primary bad practice, but the preventable destruction of videogames themselves.

      This isn’t about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it’s primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.

      A key component is how the game is sold and conveyed to the player. Goods are generally sold as one time purchases and you can keep them indefinitely. Services are generally sold with a clearly stated expiration date. Most “Live service” games do neither of these. They are often sold as a one-time purchase with no statement whatsoever about the duration, so customers can’t make an informed decision, it’s gambling how long the game lasts. Other industries would face legal charges for operating this way. This could likely be running afoul of EU law even without the ECI, that’s being tested.

      The EU has laws on EULAS that ban unfair or one-sided terms. MANY existing game EULAS likely violate those. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA. The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely.

      We’re not making a distinction between preservation of multiplayer and single player and neither does the law. We fail to find reasons why a 4v4 arena game like Nosgoth should be destroyed permanently when it shuts down other than it being deliberately designed that way with no recourse for the customer.

      As for the reasons why think this initiative could pass, that’s my cynicism bleeding though. think what we’re doing is pushing a good cause that would benefit millions of people through an imperfect system where petty factors of politicians could be a large part of what determines its success or not. Democracy can be a messy process and was acknowledging that. I’m not championing these flawed factors, but rather saying think our odds are decent.

      Finally, while your earlier comments towards me were far from civil, don’t wish you any ill will, nor do encourage anyone to harass you. I and others still absolutely disagree with you on the necessity of saving games, but I wanted to be clear causing you trouble is not something I nor the campaign seeks at all. Personally, I think you made your stance clear, you’re not going to change your mind, so people should stop bothering you about it."

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      PirateSoftware was a blizzard dev, is a current dev, and is just basically lobbying against change. I don’t believe he’s being genuine in his arguments and is misrepresenting the cause or hasn’t understood it. It was possible to make games that didn’t stop working once a server shut down and it still is.

      Being given a server binary isn’t a licensing issue unless you make it one. And because publishers and studios sign shitty contracts, doesn’t make it right, nor the only way to do business. If he wants to do business that way, do that shit in the US, but if something meaningful happens in the EU, then don’t sell your games there. Simple as…

      Anti Commercial-AI license