I’ve been working through my endless backlog.
I finished Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. It is a masterpiece.
I bought the Sniper Elite Humble Bundle that came with games 1 through 5. I have played through 1 to 4 already. It makes me miss games that can be finished in 20 hours instead of the endless grinds every game expects now. I also miss when Nazis were the evil bad guys.
I’m also playing through Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth. This one is set in Hawaii which is a coincidence since I’ve also just finished Kitchen Sync: Aloha!, a cooking game set in Hawaii.
If the end goal is that games remain in a playable state regardless of publisher involvement, there are three possible paths.
The Hard Way - World governments, under pressure from their populace, modify international treaties to change the rules around licensing intellectual property rights. Almost certainly a pipe dream since this doesn’t just effect video games but every industry.
The Easy Way - Game companies, under pressure from consumers, relax their hard stance when it comes to revoking game licenses. This can range from promises to keep games in a functional state, to allowing private servers, to allowing self-regulation (similar to ESRB game ratings) which are done by third-parties on behalf of consumers to keep them happy and to stop governments from forcing regulation through law changes.
The Pivot - Push the Hard Way as far as possible until the game industry offers a deal to consumers to prevent any kind of government action, resulting in achieving the Easy Way.
The Non-existent way - Get a country to create legislation to stop killing games or a court to agree revoking access to games isn’t allowed. International treaties regarding IP licensing supersede any laws a country passes. The ability for companies to revoke your game licence comes from an international treaty (the TRIPS Agreement), so no single country can pass a law to change how it works. The video cites all the relevant laws and legal cases surrounding this and how the games industry has carefully crafted all their sales so they would be considered licensing under this international agreement. There is absolutely no way anyone can legally argue they “own” a game. Either international IP laws change or industry practices change.
The lawyer suggests the SKG movement isn’t clear on which of the three actual ways it wants to pursue and needs to fix that ASAP. Even the petition given to the EU flips back and forth between games being things you licence and things you own. This mismatched messaging is a legal weakness that would be exploited by any legal grad let alone multi-million dollar industry law firms.
For odds of success the video suggests that if the movement goes with The Easy Way, they will likely get token gestures like promises or allowing private servers for older games but not future ones. If they go with The Hard Way, they will be ripped to shreds by industry lawyers and lobbyists and the EU will handwave away the petition with vague platitudes and wrist slaps. However, there is a teeny-tiny chance the EU might actually seem like they’d be willing to reconsider international IP laws, in which case, the movement could time their Pivot and negotiate significant concessions with the games industry in exchange for telling the EU the issue has been settled and the petition withdrawn.