The page seems to be not working at the moment but keep on signing https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home
Fresh update video from Ross about the campaign.
TL;DW:
- There’s a chance many of the signatures for the EU petition aren’t real. Keep signing to build up a safety margin. Official suggestions are: 10% more minimum, 20% pretty OK, up to 40% more for an actual safety net.
- Some countries had problems with signing using the digital ID system - suggests to use the manual method (instructions on the campaign page) or try again later.
- Someone not related with the campaign released a SKG crypto. Don’t touch it, obviously.
- Ross heard about people harassing Pirate Software, asks to stop.
- He’s got a lot of messages to reply to, prioritises ones important to the campaign for now.
- UK petition cleared 100k signatures. Number is most likely more reliable than the EU one.
- Link about contacting UK MP’s for those who want to do more than just sign a petition.
I tried five times to sign using digital ID system, five times failed. Tried once on my phone and…it worked. So try to check other medium if you’re having problem.
If you’re in the EU, you should still sign; extra signatures will be useful if it turns out some of them are invalid.
To be clear… If you have already signed, thank you but do not sign again.
(I know that’s not what you wanted to say, I just want to make sure it’s not misunderstood).
Does it not stop you from signing multiple times? The UK one tells you you’ve already signed it when you try again. I tried it again recently in case i was misremembering signing the second petition after the first one was misunderstood completely by the uk government.
Wait, what happened with the first one?
Parliament disbanded iirc
After giving such a bad answer to it that some other part of the government stepped in and said the answer was dramatically insufficient.
Yeah I signet 10 months ago. Also put the link in the post
I signed with my eID, which went fine, but then the website asked me to log in with my EU account, which I didn’t have.
Now, did I sign or didn’t I? 🤔
You should have received an email with a receipt if you did sign. In doubt, sign again; signing twice will invalidate the second signature but not the first (confirmed by EU staff).
Definitely keep signing, I’m really concerned at the speed it rose , and I’m really hoping there wasn’t something else at play here.
It was Critikal and PewDiePie saying to sign it. They could get a million signatures on literally anything.
Someone posted a screenshot from 4chan where they were talking about how to fake submissions… 😠
Yay! I’m one in a million!
Can we move for a Stop Killing People now!? :)
Ich bin dabei 🙋🏼♂️
Ich auch. Schon 10 Monaten.
This should not stop, the more the merry and also to ensure to filter out anomalies. 34k have already signed pass the million
About my lowest threshold for success is that this at least makes disclosures about what you’re buying more prominent and restricts the ability for software licenses to just alter the deal and pray that they don’t alter them further. Even better disclosures would make the raw deal you’re getting become more poisonous before the point of sale. Especially as an American, I’m going to have wait a few years after any legislation goes through before I can trust online multiplayer games again.
Do they still need to get the minimum in at least 7 countries? Anyone happen to know? Ive only been loosely following and i don’t want to stress the website more than it is suffering lol.
No, that requirement has already been met. The final requirement (which has just been met now) is to reach a total of 1 million signatures. Basically, all requirements are now satisfied
Awesome, thank you!!
It’s good to see. The UK one is still ticking upward too (133.5k/100k). It’s been an impressive last minute push.
Now, we wait and see I guess. I expect nothing useful to come from the UK one, but at least we force them to respond again. Even if it is the same response.
The EU one, I really do hope something comes of it.
I’m glad. But don’t get your hopes up because of this. Commission could (and probably will) just say “we have considered it and we are going to do nothing”.
I think the commission will take action in some form. The worst case scenario in my mind is that they will only require clear labelling. Similar to what they did with smart phones recently. While this not exactly what I am hoping for, having “This game will at least be playable until XXXX” on the package or store page would still be a massive improvement over the status quo.
I dont understand how such a broad requirement would work. They just have to pick some arbitrary date, and then after that they can continue as things currently are? Can you give an example of a game where this type of labelling would have helped?
‘The Crew’ by Ubisoft was sold for several months before they decided to shut it down. This would have at least forced them to communicate that before taking peoples money. I am also pretty sure that publishers don’t want to put this information on the package because it could seriously hurt sales. So the effect of this labelling requirement might be that publishers build the game in a way that enables self-hosting.
If you are saying they knew it was closing and they sold it for months anyways, that sounds like fraud. Has there been proof ubisoft decided to do this anyways?
On December 14, 2023, Ubisoft delisted The Crew and its expansions from digital platforms, suspended sales of microtransactions, and announced that the game’s servers would be shut down on March 31, 2024, citing “upcoming server infrastructure and licensing constraints”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crew_(video_game)
People who paid around us$40 for the game on December 13 were being sold a lemon.
Given that it was released in 2014 it seems likely that their licenses were given a 10 year duration and they always intended to shutdown in 2024 at the latest (of course if its user base failed to reach critical mass they could have pulled the plug earlier).
Does selling a game in 2023 when you plan to kill it in 2024 legally qualify as fraud?
Thats not what I’m asking. You just have me evidence that they didnt sell it as soon as an EOL date was announced. Are you saying they should have stopped selling it before they publicly announce the EOL? Should they have announced and removed it as soon as the board meeting ended? How much earlier would that be in this case?
Should they have announced and removed it as soon as the board meeting ended? How much earlier would that be in this case?
My unsubstantiated theory is the the licences they signed for all the vehicles and real world content had a 10 year lifetime.
Usually those contracts would just require that they stop selling the game, but they may have included something about the servers in the contract too.
Either way they new something was going to change in 2024 and realistically they knew which of these possibilities were viable:
- sign new deals with all licensors and continue business as usual
- sign new deals with cooperative licensors and modify the game to remove the others
- remove the game from sale and keep the servers running for current customers
- remove the game from sale and kill the servers - tell people to buy the sequal
I’d they waited until December of 2023 to have that meeting then that feels negligent.
If they had that meeting earlier and continued to sell the game (until ≈100 days to EOL) without warning customers that feels fraudulent.
A) this issue applies to all kinds of software.
B) procuring software is a two-way street … the producer assigns terms by which access is obtained, and you agree to those terms in exchange for that access. If the software is SaaS then if the producer chooses to shut down the service then you are SOL. If the software is provided with a long list of terms via Steam, then you are basically buying SaaS with local caching and execution. Maybe don’t reward producers by agreeing to one-sided deals like SaaS?
This kind of headache is what prompted Richard Stallman to come up with the idea for the GNU license. Maybe you think that is too radical… but maybe imposing your ideas of what licensing terms should look like on (only?) game developers is radical also.
