- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
There is a much broader support for SKG in the European Parliament, the other legislative body besides the EC
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.
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
Got a source to back that up? I’d love for it to be true, but all I’ve ever heard is the opposite…
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.
Marathon falling far short
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.
o it sound to me like the EC says: " Well these sellers said fuck you up front so they’re immune to any responsibility"
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:
the EU is committed to safeguarding and enhancing Europe’s cultural heritage.
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.
L’Union européenne a pour mission de soutenir et de compléter les actions menées par les États membres pour préserver et promouvoir le patrimoine culturel de l’Europe.
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
As it is the tradition in the sector, I hope the industry will listen to player communities and agree on better sunsetting standards so communities can continue to meet and play together.
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!
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.
Calm down.
Treason?
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.
The EU commission is elected by the directly elected European Parliament based on suggestions by the Council/member states.
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?
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.
What the fuck @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu ? You are listening to people who don’t represent the majority of users. Fuck you.
*citizens, not users
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.
The government does nothing. More news at 11.
Corruption. Corruption everywhere.
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.
Lot of EU supremacist/jingoist gamers gonna be feeling some serious cognitive dissonance tonight.
Eh?
EU commission does what everyone expected them to do: Deciding based on what wealthy lobby groups tell them.
I knew this was coming and still somehow feel disappointed.
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.
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.
