1.7k
u/Mitir01 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Europe right about now. I love it.
Edit : Check out Stop Killing Games, like u/LudwigSpectre mentioned. Support it. The moment needs continued and growing support if it is to achieve its goal. Any and all Europeans in this sub, reach out to your representative.
244
u/t-_-rexranger19205 Apr 19 '26
Iâm so glad it worked out
111
u/Thunderbridge Apr 19 '26
It's only at the stage of being presented to EU parliament, still a way to go to get it into law. But hopefully they can pull it off
55
u/ZuAusHierDa Apr 19 '26
Even when nothing comes out of this special initiative, it will have an affect on future legislation. The problem has been made visible to the European Parliament - and basically every political group agreed that this is a real problem.
Things move very slowly in the EU - but they are moving at least.
6
u/Demonic_Storm Apr 20 '26
honestly to me it seems its moving quite fast actually, i remember when it was just in the voting phase like it was yesterday, cant wait to get more info about it!
14
u/ViftieStuff Apr 20 '26
A representative said that new legislation can take years, but only months if it is not controversial. And given that almost all (or I think even all in total) reps that were present at the recent hearing were in favor of new legislation, I am hopeful that it will go fast.
6
u/ZuAusHierDa Apr 20 '26
At first the European Commission has to create a proposal and then hand it to the parliament and to the Council.
The responsible parliamentary committee then holds public hearings and creates its own version of the proposal. Then the parliament votes for its proposal both in the committee and in the general assembly.
The Council (the goverments of all 27 member states) also has hearings and creates its own proposal and votes for it with a qualified majority.
Then all three institutions meet to tether in the so called âTrilogueâ to find a compromise between these three different proposals. Then both the parliament and the council vote again on this compromise.
- If itâs a regulation then it ends here. Itâs now EU law.
- If itâs a directive then all 27 member states have 2 years to implement it into national law.
Keep in mind that this is highly simplified. ;)
156
u/Winterfall_0 Apr 19 '26
It also sets a great precedence, to the publishers that consumers will not stay silent, and to the people that we can indeed fight for a difference
18
u/Loggersalienplants Apr 19 '26
Nothing has worked out yet homie, the first hearing started and that's it so far. There's no official framework or anything, it's FAR from worked out lol
13
3
u/Valtremors Apr 19 '26
Fight ain't over yet.
...but it was nice at the hearing that the overall sentiment was positive.
1
1
59
u/Spez-is-dick-sucker Apr 19 '26
Stop killing games doesn't mean they can't delist a game from your library, it means its still playable, but companies can still delist it, do not missinform.
34
u/Desertcow Apr 19 '26
It also only requires developers make a reasonable effort going forward to keep a game playable. Especially if the game is heavily reliant on proprietary server software that the developer can't distribute or swap out, there may not be a whole lot for the developers to actually turn over to the players once support ends
15
u/Madara1389 Apr 19 '26
Right. Basically all it's going to accomplish is that publishers won't be allowed to tie single player games to online servers if it passes.
Online only games are still going to exist. Companies will still be allowed to delist games (and forced to if there's an expired licensing deal such as including real world products such as licensed cars). Cheaters will still be banned from playing their games if they refuse to abide by ToS (the amount of people I've met online arguing that this initiative will prevent cheaters from being banned & attesting that they're supporting it because they don't think anyone should lose their games for any reason is severely alarming and paints those people as cheaters wanting to get away with it).
None of that is going to change, so there's still going to be some avenues to lose access to a game you bought or otherwise lose the ability to buy that game.
→ More replies (7)2
u/temotodochi Apr 19 '26
Reasonable effort includes simple instructions how the server software operates. No need to release source code. That would be enough.
2
u/int23_t Apr 19 '26
Yeah only releasing binaries would count.
I don't care if it only works on a 2005 version of DragonflyBSD I will make it work.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Genesis2001 Apr 19 '26
As long as we have server binaries, we can always reverse-engineer it. Look at C&C Renegade (2002). It's still going with active development (from the community). All we had was the FDS installer. Another group of devs have nearly-100% reverse-engineered the W3D Engine that Renegade runs on to the point that they've swapped out various game subsystems like audio. And this was long before EA released the source code.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Spekingur Apr 19 '26
Itâs so weird. Itâs my library hosted by a third party that is also a storefront for publishers. If it was a book library most people would be appalled.
Like if Steam provided a service where you get physical space to keep physical books you buy through them but at any time a publisher can demand that Steam go into your physical library and remove any of the publisherâs books that you already paid for. People would consider that an invasion of privacy.
→ More replies (1)4
u/PashaWithHat Apr 19 '26
Tbf this is also increasingly an issue with eBooks. Almost nobody wants to give you an actual copy vs. something that can only be accessed through a third-party app, and thereâve recently been some things emerging like Kindle copies of the book Pretty Little Liars â which was published in 2006 â now referencing TikTok (it originally was that the characters were going to watch the competition/challenge show Fear Factor and instead they were going to watch a TikTok challenge). Honestly all of this + general software as a subscription and not as a one-off makes me want to go feral and start biting executives
8
u/JokerXMaine2511 Apr 19 '26
Thats the whole point, that access to a title not be revoked because the publisher wanted to stop supporting it, and to at least give the players tools so they can maintain it themselves where necessary, like how the TCU team had to reverse engineer the game (without the help of Ubi) so people could still play it as a single player experience.
Or how you can still play NFS World via SBRW, and the various servers accessible through it.
4
3
u/Sagnikk Apr 20 '26
Sorry but this is such a first world problem đ
6
u/Mitir01 Apr 20 '26
Game industry has pioneered a lot of ways to screw over the consumer with their licensing terms, that it is a whole world problem. Whole world uses software in one way or another and even if you don't use it directly, someone whom you need (like government offices) is using it. Stopping these people now and reeling these (frankly, anti-consumer) practices means a better future. I am in a third world country and still support this. My country has faced issues because we had to accept these things forcefully.
Sorry, your comment such a half-brain.
2
u/Sagnikk Apr 20 '26
I agree with the whole.. thing whatever it is. But you seem really invested so good for ya.
1
1
u/Demonic_Storm Apr 20 '26
I've now forgotten the details, but there are also similar movements starting in the US, so for those living there or for those who want to make the research, please post the source, its not all lost of Americans!!
→ More replies (2)1
u/mrloko120 Apr 20 '26
Stop killing games is about keeping servers live, not about giving people hability to refund a game they haven't touched in years.
723
u/LudwigSpectre Apr 19 '26
You need to check out Stop Killing Games
412
u/Icy-Juggernaut-4579 Apr 19 '26
Stop killing games not about refunds. It is about ability to keep games in playable state after their end of life
376
u/Tallladywithnails Apr 19 '26
The bill in question does actually suggest refunds if publishers are unable to fulfil the request of preserving games after end of support.
91
u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo Apr 19 '26
Assuming this bill passes, what will likely happen instead is that theyâd design the game such that the multiplayer is offered as a different live service like switch or ps. So the game is still technically playable, but since you are no longer paying the multiplayer service therefore they can cut you off cleanly since it is a different service you are paying for.
83
u/zaccatman Apr 19 '26
Should hopefully cut the number of live service/multiplayer only games down at least.
Or they all become free to play and theyâd pull the âin-game purchases donât countâ card
45
u/AddressSimilar6665 Apr 19 '26
In the parlament hearing all representatives where in huge support of the "stop killing games" program AND they also mentioned that micro-transacrions and exploitation of in-game purchases should also be heavily regulated this was brought up mainly by italian office rep and was was also supported by other in the hearing
→ More replies (52)10
u/Madara1389 Apr 19 '26
Should hopefully cut the number of live service/multiplayer only games down at least.
Or it'll increase the number of them as you'll need your game to be a live service/multiplayer only to get around the new rules about not being able to shut down old games.
Game companies have been trying to find a way to get people to stop latching on to specific installments of franchises and to move on to the new one once it's released. They're never going to stop trying to find ways to do that because it makes them significantly more money than being accepting of people neglecting new releases to play old ones.
→ More replies (6)5
u/wizardofpancakes Apr 19 '26
Multiplayer games dying off always been somewhat expected, but thereâs now a bunch of games that are single player and online only, which is insanely anti-consumer
→ More replies (2)5
u/Tallladywithnails Apr 19 '26
That would depend on whether the core game and features are still accessible, which is what SKG suggests and was discussed in the hearing too and obviously its unreasonable to expect games to have complete functionality even after support ends, so I feel like as long as the bill passes, we should be fine as it'll get fine tuned based on how companies respond to it.
3
u/Valtremors Apr 19 '26
I do believe 'mauling' of the game was also somewhat brought up.
It is a process, not a win/lose condition.
And besides, this passing would hopefully let people host their privste servers legally once the game has been abandoned. Having the tools to do so is actually one of the suggested options for end of life plans.
→ More replies (5)5
Apr 19 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
2
u/Lamballama Apr 19 '26
Yes, there's no requirement to release the server code to run yourself if you want to keep playing. But it does require that the single player experience work without the servers once the game reaches EOL
5
u/ZuAusHierDa Apr 19 '26
There is not really âa bill in questionâ. They made it very clear a few days ago in parliament that they are open to any solutions.
→ More replies (3)49
u/FBI_Open_Up_Now Apr 19 '26
Yes, and while the idea is to keep games in a playable state after their end of life, a counter argument is that if a game publisher can revoke your access to content youâve purchased, they should reimburse you the cost. The idea is that they are purposely planning the end of life for the games youâve spent money on to ensure you spend money on the next game and why not incentivize them to not do so by taking the money back out of their pocket and putting it back into yours. I bet if people could get their money back for The Crew from Ubisoft, which they shutdown in 2024, they would be less inclined to spend it on another Ubisoft title.
11
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Spork_the_dork Apr 19 '26
Yeah ironically SKG can have the effect of making subscription models a lot more enticing from a corporate POV. But clearly SKG couldn't possibly end up backfiring in any way so it's fine that the movement is going in blind with no actual plan and just crossing fingers that the politicians will know how the gaming scene and infrastructure works so that they can set up laws that don't result in those kinds of side-effects.
2
u/MoreDoor2915 Apr 19 '26
Most likely it would be treated like planned obsolescence so the laws that regulate that would apply it like that.
Meaning unless you sue you aint getting money back but the company also still gets general warnings and or fines
→ More replies (12)3
u/Axel_Foley_ Apr 19 '26
After the gamer has used the product for multiple hours.
If you have played and used the product, youâre not entitled to a refund.
If you donât like the terms presented at time of purchase, simply donât purchase the game.
1
u/Zestyclose-Durian-97 Apr 19 '26
Isn't that a bit weird tho?
Games are a bit in between an object that you purchase and a live service.
If the game is a single player with no co-op / multiplayer features then yeah, it is closer to an object and it shouldn't request server access, thus should remain playable.
But what about games like New World which you buy once, like an object, but they are more of a live service? Or are these excluded? Surely it is not okay to force publishers to keep server infrastructure up and running.
I am just wondering, didn't have time to dig through the project.
3
u/VolcanicBakemeat Apr 19 '26
Because it is not about forcing publishers to maintain infrastructure, it's about expecting them to foster an environment where new infrastructure may be implemented by fans once they conclude official support.
1
u/Pijany_Matematyk767 Apr 19 '26
No but the meme says "If a purchase can be revoked at any time" which is part of what SKG is trying to combat
36
u/KakorotJoJoAckerman Apr 19 '26
Just watched the entire hearing yesterday!!! :D
Great things are happening.
8
u/LegendCZ Apr 19 '26
Got a link? Want to watch as well.
→ More replies (1)11
1
→ More replies (1)1
198
u/Will_A_Robinson Apr 19 '26
The Stop Killing Games movement had a big step forward in the EU Parliament yesterday: link.
2
70
u/Vegetable_Purple_707 Apr 19 '26
"Thank you for holding onto MY 70 dollars for 1 year, I'll be taking that back now game publisher."
13
u/jyrox Apr 19 '26
There should be a 12-month minimum support window from the terminal date of any sale. If you are still selling the game, you should be required to support the accessibility of that game for a minimum of twelve months from the last date that it was listed on any store fronts (aside from resellers).
This is also part of the Stop Killing Games discussion. If I spent $70 on your game and you kill it the next day before I could even install and play it, I expect a full refund.
2
Apr 21 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/jyrox Apr 21 '26
Minimum support window means that they actively support any issues that prevent play - aka you can contact them if you have issues with the game.
Post-mortem functionality is a different topic entirely and I believe that the publisher should either make sure that the game is able to function without their support or they sign away their exclusive IP rights that prevent someone else from providing patches/services that help the game continue to run.
I donât care if they refuse to support the game after a certain time, but they shouldnât be able to prevent other people from supporting it. This includes everything from community patches to community servers.
18
50
u/Spez-is-dick-sucker Apr 19 '26
That's why you buy it from gog, no one can delist a game from you, and you can install it offl8ne
17
u/Ray_Berr Apr 19 '26
Even though the game is delisted, buyers will have access but new buyers can't buy it.
→ More replies (9)3
5
u/KestrelVO Apr 19 '26
And what do we do in case games are delisted even from GOG? It actually happened... I saw that they delisted two star wars games, rogue one and another that I don't remember of.
Publishers should be held accountable for this as well! đ
31
u/Marisakis Apr 19 '26
But that's just 'they stop selling it', that's a a very different problem from 'you can't use the thing you bought'.
Things that stop being sold become abandon-ware and might have fewer legal protections.
6
u/Warm_Month_1309 Apr 19 '26
IAAL. There is no legal difference between a product that is actively being sold and one that isn't; both still benefit from identical copyright protections. Downloading abandonware that you do not have a license for is still piracy, the only difference is that there is less likely to be a plaintiff to sue you for it.
2
u/kimetsunosuper121 Apr 19 '26
I mean if it's not being sold then at that point just pirate it, nobody can be hurt from pirating something that isn't being sold in the first place.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Instagalactix May 04 '26
Steam let's you download delisted games too??
1
u/Marisakis May 05 '26
Yea, delisted games that you have a license for (in your library) can still be downloaded afaik. I've got 2 Mass Effect 1 versions to choose from in my list, but they both get directed to the same store page.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Spez-is-dick-sucker Apr 19 '26
Gog can delist game only if a company ask for delisting (from the store) NOT from your library unless they detect you stole a credit card and bought with it, for example
5
u/Background_Listen486 Apr 19 '26
Perhaps not a realistic option for your common user (not with these prices), but this is what inspired me to build a NAS to store the offline installers from GOG. That way I would truly own it as long as I maintain a copy. I guess you could burn the stuff on bluray discs too.
2
u/queefburritowcheese Apr 19 '26
Delisting doesn't remove an already purchased game from your library...
→ More replies (5)1
u/Silkie341 May 18 '26
True. I have the original Fallout 1. 2 & Tactics Classic versions in my library from the Gog beta days.
1
u/herewegoagain1920 Apr 21 '26
Sometimes a game requires online servers. Unless they are going to keep them running or another starts paying for private servers (opening themselves up to lawsuits) the game is effectively dead anyway.
41
u/Fletcher_Chonk Apr 19 '26
fun fact: Steam wouldn't like this either
18
u/TheSpytf2_real Apr 19 '26
Because everyone thinks Valve is perfect and can do no wrong... Their handling of Tf2 makes me not fall for that bs
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)5
u/Hazy-n-Lazy Apr 20 '26
Funner fact: steam would probably be extremely against this and fight tooth and nail to ensure it wasn't allowed, because they would go bankrupt if they suddenly had to issue millions of refunds that they couldn't vet
19
u/Sayakai Apr 19 '26
A purchase can't be revoked arbitrarily. That would be fraud. Both the ability to revoke and the ability to refund have and should have limits, the problem is where those limits are in practice.
8
69
u/cryonicwatcher Apr 19 '26
This would be a terrible idea. If you have gotten adequate use out of a product but could still refund it, the provider of that product would never make any money.
101
u/ElegantNut Apr 19 '26
Agreed. But an equally terrible idea is that the provider can revoke the product before adequate use has been gotten out of it. Which is why the Stop Killing Games initiative is so important.
→ More replies (6)28
u/MoreDoor2915 Apr 19 '26
I much prefer the old suggestion of SKG of demanding Publishers have publicly available EOL plans for their games.
If they had a disclaimer stating "This game will be available atleast X amount of years after publishing"
That would allow people to more accurately judge if they want the game or not
11
u/ElegantNut Apr 19 '26
Would be a step in the right direction, but I honestly do not see a reason why there would not be a clause that every single player game would still remain available afterwards. It would be nice to also demand that multiplayer games offer a way for communities to set up their own servers if they so wish after the official servers shut down, but I understand the overhead this would create for some companies and especially indie devs. That being said, it seems bizarre to me to just "close" a game, and then no one gets to ever play it again without hacking it open. Why not? If the company will no longer provide servers or sell new copies, they will not be generating any wealth from the game at that point anyway.
→ More replies (1)3
u/iamcdr Apr 19 '26
That being said, it seems bizarre to me to just "close" a game, and then no one gets to ever play it again without hacking it open. Why not? If the company will no longer provide servers or sell new copies, they will not be generating any wealth from the game at that point anyway.
The backend might contain licensed software that they can't just redistribute.
The backend might contain their own tech IP that they want to protect.
If private servers become a common thing, who is the party responsible for any future security issues and their consequences? Author of the software or whoever is running it?
3
u/WSuperOS Apr 19 '26
If private servers become a common thing, who is the party responsible for any future security issues and their consequences? Author of the software or whoever is running it?
No one. Just like FOSS. If a vunerability is found in FOSS software, it's no one's fault, the software is provided as-is without any warranty. The original publisher won't be held responsible, too
→ More replies (2)2
u/varitok Apr 19 '26
Most devs do not know about the success of their game, nor do they have infinite money coffers to keep a dead game going. Gamers have really no idea how anything game development related actually works.
3
u/Chrysaliarus Apr 20 '26
No one expects them to keep the game running. This is exactly the opposite of what Ross says in the eu hearing. We expect them to provide instructions or tools on how to run the game after they end support. So we can run the servers on our end so we can play the game.
This isn't some revolutionary unheard of idea. Games used to have files for people to run their own servers and server browsers.
We don't expect them to provide updates, we don't expect them to fix bugs, we don't expect them to provide anticheat, we just want to be able to run and play the game.
2
20
u/Cabrill0 Apr 19 '26
this is Reddit. Reddit doesnât do nuance or grey areas. All or nothing site.
6
u/mavajo Apr 19 '26
Of course itâs a terrible idea. Thatâs the point. Itâs showing the absurdity of âbuyingâ a game and then one day no longer having access to it.
2
u/Anagoth9 Apr 19 '26
It is not up to the manufacturer to decide what qualifies as adequate use. In the absence of a pre-determined time frame, the assumption is that you retain usage of the product in perpetuity, barring normal wear and tear.Â
3
u/Hearth-Traeknald Apr 19 '26
Exactly. So purchases shouldn't be able to be revoked at any time either.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)1
u/demoNToosh Apr 20 '26
Depends.
If I paid for it, received adequate use from it, but then my access was pulled from it, then I want my money back.
Otherwise, I agree. I'm not renting stuff I buy and if I am, I want a rental agreement. Not a purchase agreement.
15
u/Anyacad0 Apr 19 '26
But then people will refund the game when theyâre finished with it and the devs will make 0 money?
→ More replies (2)3
u/love_cici Apr 19 '26
oh i misunderstood this post, my understanding of this would be, if you remove the game, you refund it. if you are literally removing it from a players library. not "oh i'm done gimme a refund." free for all refunds doesn't make sense
7
u/nocturn-e Apr 19 '26
I agree, fuck game publishers, but they'll just hide behind the EULA and argue youâre paying for a "revocable license" to play the game rather than actually owning it. And based on this they're legally right.
But if "buying" isn't owning, then "pirating" isn't stealing. They want the "buy" price without the "buy" responsibility, and until laws force them to give refunds when they pull the plug, theyâre basically just running a glorified rental shop with zero transparency.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/bender3600 Apr 19 '26
I get servers not being hosted forever but they should start allowing self hosted servers/singleplayer only when they stop support
21
u/D35trud0 Apr 19 '26
Has this ever happened or is it one of those imaginary conversations just to farm likes?
-Steam keys are revoked very often and are the result of illicit purchases. If you buy them from a reseller, it's your fault.
-A game that is delisted remains available in the library and playable.
-An online-only game whose servers are shut down is part of the normal life cycle of a product.
-The Stop Killing Games initiative has nothing to do with this.
23
u/Possible-Turn9833 Apr 19 '26
The crew
→ More replies (15)1
u/Key-Department-2874 Apr 19 '26
That seems to fit into point 3 of the post you responded to doesn't it?.
→ More replies (1)6
u/CharismaStatOfOne Apr 19 '26
An online-only game whose servers are shut down is part of the normal life cycle of a product.
I though the stop killing games movement wants some kind of provision in place for online-only games to provide a means of private hosting should the company-side servers be decomissioned?
5
u/Another-Mans-Rubarb Apr 19 '26
And that would be untenable for virtually every developer. As soon as a dev is using a 3rd party service or license for their product, the whole thing becomes literally impossible to give to the public. Devs can't give out the networking management tools they use to build their server stack for their MMO. Unless they used exclusively open source or inhouse software, that is not currently in use by other game and would not compromise the security of those if released, releasing the networking tools to the public is not possible.
3
u/ZersetzungMedia Apr 19 '26
The law wouldnât be retroactive and would have a grace period. The market, like with every regulation, would simply have to adapt. Games arenât some special case where this is impossible.
→ More replies (4)1
u/VolcanicBakemeat Apr 19 '26
Yes, which is why the person you're responding too quietly snuck that little nugget in there. It's called begging the question and it's a deceptive tactic
5
u/Low_Direction1774 Apr 19 '26
>An online-only game whose servers are shut down is part of the normal life cycle of a product.
Its genuinely not part of the normal life cycle of a product. You need to understand that its become normalized to believe that a product just stopping to work at the flip of a switch is just how it is when it is really not.
Your car doesnt just stop working all together because its been 10 years since you bought it. It might not get any software OTA updates but it will still start and drive you from one location to another. It might get damaged from wear and tear, but you can fix that damage or prevent it with preventative maintenance.
Same thing with idk, your central heating. A gas furnace doesnt just stop working because the company who produced it decided that its time for you to upgrade to a newer model and flipped a switch, permanently turning it off.
You need to understand that "stops being maintained" is not the same as "stops working permanently". And you should not be okay with getting the thing you bought taken away because the guy who made it thinks you had enough fun and that its time for you to pay again.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ExtraEye4568 Apr 26 '26
A car fundamentally cannot work the same as a video game. I cannot copy and paste my car into multiple garages for when I need them. I cannot download a car from the internet. This isn't something that needs addressing, it simply a limitation of cars. Acting like video games should work more like cars ignores the pretty glaring detail that video games are not cars. Blizzard cannot simply sell you the stuff you need to open up a private server once a game goes offline, it is more complicated than that and not at all comparable to buying a new tire.
I am a big fan of maintaining video games, policy should indeed be put in place to protect consumers. There are several games that I miss that simply went offline because they didn't meet sales expectations. But the analogy is just nonsense. You could spend all day comparing video games to physical products, but nobody who disagrees with you is going to change their mind because you talked about how World of Warcraft should be more like a Ford F-150. It is a REALLY bad argument and there are so many other ways to talk about this issue.
1
u/Low_Direction1774 Apr 26 '26
Bruh. Its incredibly how desperately youre trying to find a reason as to why buying a car and buying a game arent comparable. You're not even arguing in good faith, you're accusing me of saying that a car is the same exact thing as a video game which i never said. I said, explicity, that people wouldn't tolerate Ford remotely disabling their car so they can no longer use it. I said that people wouldn't tolerate the they're treated regarding video games if it was any other product.
I know, evidently, more than you about hosting servers and what entails running a private server. You seem to think that its an incredibly difficult thing to do and that its simply not possible for blizzard to give people a way to keep using a game. Not sure how you got to blizzard when private WoW servers have existed for... damn, must be two decades at this point.
People who disagree with me are at best uneducated and at worst antigonistic to my ideas. My whole point is "you should fully own what you buy", there is no possible way this is a bad thing for the end consumer. Its like saying "breathing should be free". There is no possible argument against my point.
2
u/Burpmeister Apr 19 '26
It has happened a few times. Mostly online only games or IP abuse though.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/19ahkea/what_are_the_steam_games_that_were_totally/
→ More replies (2)3
u/PrizeStrawberryOil Apr 19 '26
I got banned from an online game for leaving a negative review on steam. Steam refused my refund because I had more than 2 hours played. Of course I can't do a chargeback because steam controls my games.
Other people have been banned by that dev for similar reasons.
4
→ More replies (13)1
u/Background_Listen486 Apr 19 '26
You don't start scrambling for solutions after the shit has hit the fan, you try to prevent that from happening in the first place. If Valve would go tits up for any reason, even if it's unlikely, you wouldn't want every game that you paid for, but had not downloaded on your PC at the time just disappear.
We need consumer laws to protect consumer rights, because you can't just trust age old quotes or good vibes.
3
u/D35trud0 Apr 19 '26
Honestly, I'm concerned about the precedent set by Factorio: two price increases after years of being released, with the justification of price adjustments based on inflation.
Since it's a beloved game, no one protested, but in my opinion they set a dangerous precedent for everyone else.
4
u/Background_Listen486 Apr 19 '26
Didn't hear about that, that's a really poor excuse. It's supposedly wildly successful game already and they had crowdfunding and early access phase too.
4
u/Usual_Opportunity626 Apr 19 '26
If a purchase is revoked en masse or an online server for an online only game is shut down, the company responsible for the shutdown and revoke should be REQUIRED to refund everyone that purchased the content.
9
2
u/DirCurrFluxDiode Apr 19 '26
Now we just need a country to sue Steam over it for us to get it, just like Gabe "The Porpoise" Newell did with refundsÂ
2
u/Solid_Wind_3234 Apr 20 '26
Should a âlive service gameâ that can still function offline be required to off-ramp to an offline mode at end of life? 1000% yes.
Should I, as a user be entitled to a refund of said game if I have 100s or 1000s of hours played in it? No, I think thatâs a silly argument. There should be some limitation on that.
2
u/Airwings2006 Apr 21 '26
Ok so don't burn me at the stake but I think this is wrong I think if you bought the game and played it just like if you bought a dvd and opened it you shouldn't be able to return it afterwards, meanwhile if a game is removed from the store and the servers are shut down there should be something like a warranty that says I get my money back if you take away my game just like if someone breaks into your house and takes your dvd your insurance will cover it among whatever else is stolen
6
u/notenoughrage666 Apr 19 '26
Or like in the case of ark aquatica it was abandoned and never finished so imho everyone should be fully refunded on it and the game needs to be removed from steam and they should also be penalized in other ways as well or like the game manhunt and jade empire both broken as fuck out of the box and dont work so they should ither be fixed and patched or refunded and removed simple as
11
u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo Apr 19 '26
I believe with steam you can ask for refunds on abandoned projects as well, but if you are funding on kickstarter then you are sol
6
10
u/FuckYouThrowaway99 Apr 19 '26
Jesus dude. I feel you, but like, break that up into sentences.
→ More replies (8)2
u/AfroNinjaNation Apr 19 '26
In my opinion, that wouldn't really ever work (especially from a business persepctive). This scenario would involve basically refunding every dollar of revenue generated by the game on Steam.
Valve would have to give back their cut of the sales/revenue generated by the game. So from the beginning, they're unlikely to enact a full player base refund policy in favor of keeping the current status quo.
But the revenue the dev takes from sales isn't all sitting in a bank account. It would have been used to pay salaries, office rents, payroll taxes, regular taxes, etc. There is only so much money that can be recouped.
In this scenario, let's be extremely generous (and perhaps a bit illogical) and say they take all the assets of the devs to pay for a full player base-wide refund. They manage to come up with 60% of the total revenue of the game. Who's going to pay out the last 40%?
Its a nice idea, but a policy that calls for a total refund only makes sense from a consumer basis. Valve and game devs aren't going to agree on a contract that heavily disfavors them when they can just keep the status quo.
2
u/notenoughrage666 Apr 19 '26
Then that company has more of their games pulled or get banned from the platform simple as
1
u/Key-Department-2874 Apr 19 '26
jade empire both broken as fuck out of the box and dont work
I think the problem with this is that it's an old game, and it's a consumer hardware\software problem.
Someone with the appropriate hardware/software could still run old games without issue.
So we don't want to delist the game entirely. It would be a net negative if it wasn't available for purchase.
Eventually every game will stop working due to hardware and software changes. Companies will go out of business and won't exist to maintain their old products.
50 years from now it is unlikely gaming will look similar to it does now.
But people should still be able to obtain them to play them on what will be "retro" hardware.
1
u/notenoughrage666 Apr 19 '26
If ur selling ur game on a modern platform then it needs to work simple as otherwise dont offer it
4
u/mettiusfufettius Apr 19 '26
If a purchase can be revoked at anytime then the purchase shouldnât be made in the first place.
3
5
u/Sanquinity Apr 19 '26
Can you even imagine buying a book, lego set, vacuum, or whatever else, and at some moment in the future someone from the company that made it suddenly barges into your home, takes the product from you, and walks out again, saying "oh we discontinued this product so you're not allowed to have it anymore." Anyone would be outraged and it'd be called theft. Yet gaming companies have been getting away with basically doing the same thing for years now.
2
2
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/queefburritowcheese Apr 19 '26
To argue for unlimited full refunds of games with no restrictions is essentially arguing to turn all games publishing into subscription services instead of direct purchasing.
2
Apr 19 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
7
u/Roccondil-s Apr 19 '26
According to the EULAs of pretty much every game, yes. And it has been done at least once: Ubisoftâs The Crew.
→ More replies (8)4
u/Reasonable_Squash427 Apr 19 '26
Also now Anthem.
EA has been removing keys from accounts that bought the game, so not even modders can revive it by doing custom servers.
3
u/Low_Direction1774 Apr 19 '26
Yes? Lets say you buy yourself a copy of Battlefield 2042. It doesnt have a singleplayer campaign, its pure online multiplayer. For the sake of our discussion, it doesnt support private servers. DICE now decides that actually BF2042 is no longer profitable and they shut the servers down.
You paid money for the software and at one point in time, it was usable. You can still download the code and assets from Steams servers but you can no longer do anything with it once its installed. You can run the executable and all youll see is "Server error" and thats it. There is no functionality available beyond that error message getting displayed.
Your purchase has, effectively, been revoked. You can no longer play the game Battlefield 2042 despite owning a license for it.
1
u/jmorais00 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
Yes but if you used the product for s time are you expecting to get the full refund? How much of the total value you'd get for the game if it was never shut down did you already receive when it was shut down?
Those are impossible questions to answer. To resolve this, the games should be either clear from day 1 until when is support planned or (God forbid) charge a subscription but not an upfront cost
Those are the only ways I can see that would resolve this from a business perspective. Remember publishers and studios are businesses that need to pay their employees
Edit: thanks for the replies. Yeah, allowing community support would indeed probably solve it, and I still think that being upfront about charging a subscription (say $5/month), if the publisher is upfront about it / for any reason doesn't want to allow community support, could also work
27
u/ModeatelyIndependant Apr 19 '26
Don't revoke the purchase and you won't have to refund money.
10
u/Nozinger Apr 19 '26
technically the entire revoke the purchase thing barely happens at all.
This is where it gets difficult again. If an online service is shut down the customer still has the product. It just became useless. The purchase was not revoked.
Do they have to give a refund or not? And running servers indefinetly is also not realistic but handing out refunds 15 years after release to people that played during all that time would that be a sensible thing to do?Also if the community manages to set up their own server infrastructure the product now becomes usable again so what's the situation with that?
there should certainly be some refund policy to protect from shitty publishers but that should be managed by the storefronts, not the customers themselves.
The entire thing is a lot more complicated and a huge mess.Now forcing publisheres to give the community the tools to keep the games going, that should absolutely happen.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)12
6
u/LatterEngineering813 Apr 19 '26
You are missing something important, most people dont want the publishers and studios to keep the support of the game indefinitely.
We want them to release the game for support by community and not completely delete the access to it once they decide they dont want to bother anymore with the game and support it.
Thats all. If we purchase something we should have it forever. If support is stopped and we want to keep using it its up to us, they have no obligation to continue support, we just dont want them to delete access.
If they want to rent out the game in a subscription model, fine, at least we know upfront. But if you purchase something that they plan to delete and lock you out of you need to know for exactly how long you will have the game.
6
u/rdri Apr 19 '26
Taking into account just "business perspective" makes no sense. Publishers and studios can waste resources on unplayable crap that nobody wants to play -> expecting to be compensated just because you are creating something is unreasonable. Games is art and people love games as a form of art. Monetizing art is reasonable. But taking the art away from people who paid for it (and want to enjoy it more) is unreasonable. Wiping the art from existence so that nobody can enjoy it anymore should be punishable.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Winterfall_0 Apr 19 '26
Those are impossible questions to answer.
Permanent ownership is not a new concept. The question wouldn't have needed to be asked if publishers are not allowed to revoke ownership at their will
Remember publishers and studios are businesses that need to pay their employees
Yes, and they can still accomplish that by selling their products ethically without revoking ownerships from their paying consumers.
2
u/Nonions Apr 19 '26
I think allowing people to download a full installer program that doesn't need any further downloads would be a big help, because then you can always just back this file up.
Secondly if multiplayer is an issue, simply allowing people to do direct connection games and/or their own servers shouldn't cost the developer much to add as an option.
2
u/Kalafiorek Apr 19 '26
There are other ways, many of which worked already in the past. Stop Killing Games is all about these, from patching the game to work offline, through switching to other protocols, to submitting the server binary to host the game yourself.
→ More replies (1)2
0
u/K4ramis Apr 19 '26
At minimum players should get an instruction how to run the game locally and some easy workarounds for online components to be able to continue use the game.
3
u/ferocity_mule366 Apr 19 '26
not every game is designed to do that because the server is another app, and companies wont be jumping through hoop to provide you a build of the server because of many issue like security.
2
u/Roccondil-s Apr 19 '26
Which is why SKG is encouraging developers to NOT build their games like that from the start AND proposing several other options with the understanding that some publishers are too set in their ways.
2
u/0____-___00___-____0 Apr 19 '26
Tbh i dont mind that the game license can be revoked at any time
but i do expect them to refund me, when that happens. Can't expect this to be a 1 way transaction only.
Till then i'll happily pirate your shit
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Cultural-River-9698 Apr 20 '26
And that's why Stop Killing Games is making serious traction and not just making talk. Ross Scott pointed out the illegality of it all and got way more than enough people to agree with him.
1
1
u/NNNNEM Apr 21 '26
No joke... đ¤Śđť Especially when some games can't be properly played on platforms, like PlayStation 5... When you would THINK the PSVR2 would work with the PSVR1 games, due to the backwards compatibility...
I genuinely thought this was the case, and bought multiple PSVR1 games I couldn't refund... All cause I didn't understand why my PSVR2 wouldn't work with them... And Sony gave me the finger for it...
1
u/progxdt Apr 21 '26
Funny thing is Apple has sent me a refund and/or credit when this has happened on iTunes. I know an album I bought in 2020 was delisted and removed in 2021, then Apple credited my full amount to my account. The email stated to backup my current copy of the album somewhere too.
1
u/Kravenbyte Apr 22 '26
Honestly i love this new movement seems like everyone is catching up on the game devs and im just loving every moment of it đđ¤Ł
1
u/paul-d9 Apr 22 '26
Makes zero sense. Thats like saying you should be refunded for a rental once you return it. It isnt the devs fault you dont read terms of service and then cry when its enforced.
Does it suck? Absolutely but I have no sympathy for people who dont read terms and then bitch about them when they're used.
1
1
1
u/CallMeMista96 Apr 25 '26
Not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at here, but clicked the link anyway like a true Steam addict.
1
u/Disastrous_Focus_278 Apr 26 '26
Thats not what stop killing games wants. Youre twisting the meaning. Rewoking purchase at any time would ONLY be possible due to end of service from publisher side. This would singlehandedly kill the entire industry because games would be getting refunded after people finished playing it with no real reason.
1
1
1.6k
u/Will_A_Robinson Apr 19 '26
You got me on this oneđ¤đť