Edit History

To be fair to Thor, the initiative put up to the EU does not direct to the FAQ - you'd have to actually care about Ross in particular to seek out his FAQ on the subject. And the EU initiative starting from a vague position instead of a specific position is not really a good place to start.

With the benefit of hindsight, I'd have personally tweaked the language to target the specific business practice we all have an issue with (games being arbitrarily turned into services in order to yank them away from you later, and whether a game is a service or purchase not being communicated at all), rather than simply demanding something as (legally) nebulous as requiring games be left in a "playable state".

For instance, while the initiative does make mention of games requiring a "phone home" to function, it makes no distinction between: Those where the core gameplay requires such a function; those which only contain certain components which require such a phone home; or those which do not require it at all but simply use it as cheap and sloppy DRM. Structurally the approach the initiative takes is kind of sloppy and unless politicians actually care about the topic, it'd result in draconian legislation that would actively harm multiplayer gaming rather than preserve it (assuming they take it at face value).

I don't think adding stuff to the website in particular is the solution, I think what would be needed to address Thor's concerns is a fundamental change in messaging and approach to the core issue.

To be fair to Thor, the initiative put up to the EU does not direct to the FAQ - you'd have to actually care about Ross in particular to seek out his FAQ on the subject. And the EU initiative starting from a vague position instead of a specific position is not really a good place to start.

With the benefit of hindsight, I'd have personally tweaked the language to target the specific business practice we all have an issue with (games being arbitrarily turned into services in order to yank them away from you later, and whether a game is a service or purchase not being communicated at all), rather than simply demanding something as (legally) nebulous as requiring games be left in a "playable state".

For instance, while the initiative does make mention of games requiring a "phone home" to function, it makes no distinction between: Those where the core gameplay requires such a function; those which only contain certain components which require such a phone home; or those which do not require it at all but simply use it as cheap and sloppy DRM. Structurally the approach the initiative takes is kind of sloppy and unless politicians actually care about the topic, it'd result in draconian legislation that would actively harm multiplayer gaming rather than preserve it (assuming they take it at face value).

I don't think adding stuff to the website in particular is the solution, more like a fundamental change in messaging and approach to the core issue.

To be fair to Thor, the initiative put up to the EU does not direct to the FAQ - you'd have to actually care about Ross in particular to seek out his FAQ on the subject. And the EU initiative starting from a vague position instead of a specific position is not really a good place to start.

With the benefit of hindsight, I'd have personally tweaked the language to target the specific business practice we all have an issue with (games being arbitrarily turned into services in order to yank them away from you later, and whether a game is a service or purchase not being communicated at all), rather than simply demanding something as (legally) nebulous as requiring games be left in a "playable state".

For instance, while the initiative does make mention of games requiring a "phone home" to function, it makes no distinction between: Those where the core gameplay requires such a function; those which only contain certain components which require such a phone home; or those which do not require it at all but simply use it as cheap and sloppy DRM. Structurally the approach the initiative takes is kind of sloppy and unless politicians actually care about the topic, it'd result in draconian legislation that would actively harm multiplayer gaming rather than preserve it.

I don't think adding stuff to the website in particular is the solution, more like a fundamental change in messaging and approach to the core issue.

To be fair to Thor, the initiative put up to the EU does not direct to the FAQ - you'd have to actually care about Ross in particular to seek out his FAQ on the subject. And the EU initiative starting from a vague position instead of a specific position is not really a good place to start.

With the benefit of hindsight, I'd have personally tweaked the language to target the specific business practice we all have an issue with (games being arbitrarily turned into services in order to yank them away from you later, and whether a game is a service or purchase not being communicated at all), rather than simply demanding something as (legally) nebulous as requiring games be left in a "playable state".

For instance, while the initiative does make mention of games requiring a "phone home" to function, it makes no distinction between: Those where the core gameplay requires such a function; those which only contain certain components which require such a phone home; or those which do not require it at all but simply use it as cheap and sloppy DRM. Structurally the approach the initiative takes is kind of sloppy and unless politicians actually care about the topic, it'd result in draconian legislation that would actively harm multiplayer gaming rather than preserve it.