I just can say in which way i am personally "affected" by such policies as we nowadays got:

Surely not this Ubisoft game which kinda was "the final straw breaking the camels back", according to the one doing the movement at least. To me, the entire experience was a on a different direction but on its core with comparable issues. There was a game which appeared in my young adult age i cared about a lot, which is known as Phantasy Star Universe. It was basically the second "big title" from the Phantasy Star franchise and as far as i can say the last title from the "old original team" who truly knew what they was doing... no matter its art and gameplay. So it was kinda as well the very last of the "real things" they ever made. Everything that came after, which was not a variation of the two "original games", which was Phantasy Star Online and Phantasy Star Universe, those was just blunt and pale wannabes but never truly was able to achieve the fragrance of the ones who was defining a entire series and no one up to this day made anything comparable or better out of it. Nowadays, the stuff left of this series is not much more than cheap gacha games and the flavor of their heritage was fading long ago. Not that the mainly Japanese community may care at all because what truly matters to them is the "life service aspect" which is up to this day pretty healthy and making everything mobile and server based, so they can access it just about anywhere, which seems to be part of their "mobile" lifestyle. However... outside Japan, outside of the massive fanservice and lifeservice... even the newest title is pretty much killed now with a very limited user base. Of course, no one can say at what day the lifeservice may stop but as long as sufficient profit is to be made out of it... it got a long uptime; it all depends on profit.

This is a very US-like "economy-mentality". basically putting almost everything into the hand of the private sector and the very upper stage, the "core state"... is usually used in order to put some kind of pressure in a certain direction, including allocating funds toward it, military for example (and yes, the funds supplied to this sector is really huge). In fact, we do not have a shortage in tax coins, the amount of tax coins is increasing world wide, year after year. The question is just "how it is distributed" and it seems corruption is a big issue as well.

However... the missing stuff, the missing puzzle, is the investment into culture and art which is up to this point almost entirely "in the hands of the private sector"; which does not need to be. Because, if the "most upper stage" would have in mind that culture and art, movies, games and alike... got some real value... including its preservation... they would allocate some real funds by supporting it. Instead, up to this point, it is almost entirely "a private thing", and the real issue with the private sector of the economy is... that they only move a finger, in general, if they can get sufficient profit out of it. If there is no profit to be made... they will stop moving a single finger, this is what we usually may call "the profit oriented or as well hype-based or simply success based economy." No matter if the outcome can be considered good or bad, short or long term... it is simply how it works in the current economy.

Success is a nasty thing, as it will need to be able to ride the "hype train" and a hype train is able to fade at some point and if it happens it may kill anything linked to it. As well CDPR is now in need of a new hype-train because the old ones are now slowly fading and the shareholders are already becoming some "shaky hands", reason the funds in shares has been dropping a lot the past few years. Sure, this is not GOGs issue, at least not primary... secondary perhaps as it is still generating some good funds for them. GOG simply is trying to "survive" in some way, which means neither to lose nor gain money... finally simply mostly "non profit", which may work but always somewhat risky in long term because no one knows how much more stressful the economy may become and if their customer support may remain sufficiently strong.

Anyway, the thing for example the Chinese make different vs. most western countries, is that they kinda got a hybrid-economy. So, a huge fraction is state owned and state handled, while still having a big private sector. On top of that the investment they do in the state-sector is surely way more "balanced". A thing many western countries consider critical because they got in mind it is not legit if a state is investing so much into certain things that should become handled by the private sector only, even generating unfair competition. Although, some examples actually exists even in Germany and other countries.. because Everspace 2 or Chained Echoes got some startup help as well from the state-sector. Still, compared to Chinese funds into certain projects it is very marginal. Although, China barely was investing into games as a cultural medium, so far they did not really feel the urge doing so. Black Myth Wukong, probably the most successful Chinese game of all time, only did cost around 50 million (so around 15-20% of the cost of comparable western games) but was able to earn cutting edge profit. So far this was funded by private investors only, although the state surely helped a lot by providing good conditions. Now it has arrived at a point it has become interesting even for the state to consider supporting it, as it is able to produce real impact on the economy.

In any case, without state funds... something like a high speed rail, huge bridges or big energy projects would not be possible, as many of those projects are not considered profitable, at least not in short term... rather in very long term. This is the weakest spot in the private sector, which is usually focused on "short term profits"... most western countries still lack any fast railway... many energy projects, good bridges and what else... just because the state simply is as weak as never seen before. Culture and game industry in general... i would say they are caring lesser than ever ago... because it seems all they truly care about is "the heat of battle"... who is more powerful, who got the bigger stick and whatelse... instead of improving culture and teamwork between each others. The US and even Europe could actually be the "path to connection" and "culture" in some way... but instead they prefer to create heat after heat for any battle after another... This is a victory that can not be won because it already has been setup by some opponents which was continuously scared for countless of decades and it seems... they has been right about.

There are other victories to be won, but this would mean to broaden the horizon a good bit, stepping into culture in which especially Europe had a legendary past... which is now slowly crumbling for a long time already and even US by their movie industry... crumbling as well for a good time already. Indeed, games are as well part of culture, the modern one, so i consider their preservation important.

Going back to the core of my concern now: Phantasy Star Universe, as an example: This game had a kinda cut down offline mode; so the major part was online already. Now, at some point they was shutting down the servers as usual... and at least they was providing a copy of the game, free to download, on their Japanese website. Although, this copy had a big flaw: Most of the story content was cloud based, so the 3 chapters that came after chapter 1 and 2 are gone forever, because those chapters was never available offline in any form and it was never part of any installer. Sure, Sega knows about but it seems they got no interest into "providing the missing chapters" and i am not even sure if Sega still is able to provide them. It is totally possible they may have lost those chapters forever... as it was not generating profit for them anymore and the storage would cost them money all the time, without real gains up to a foreseeable future... so they may even have decided just to delete it or not to care about until the point the data may just disappear by itself "out of ignorance" and no one feels truly responsible for.

This is a good example what may happen if we do not take sufficiently care about preservation nor culture in general. At least in this case most of the game is still "accessible" thanks to a lot of work from fans (who made it with zero financial gains, actually the private server costs them several hundred coins a month... for a very tiny server). But i just can tell what may happen if we do not take sufficiently care for it and do not see games as "part of the culture".

Don’t forget inflation.

Let’s stick with USD, since that’s the most common comparison. If you take $80 today, here’s what that’s equivalent to in past dollars:

About $55 in 2010 money
About $43 in 2000 money
About $38 in 1995 money
About $32 in 1990 money
About $21 in 1980 money

As the value of money has changed a lot over time. On top of that, the cost of making games has gone up, whether for better or worse, and as development costs increase, prices follow.

But games are actually cheaper today in many ways. It’s mainly the launch prices and console games that stay high. After the initial release window, you can get AAA titles for next to nothing. Right now on Steam, for example: NFS: Heat = £6, Mass Effect: Legendary Edition =£5, Battlefield V = £2.30. There are regular sales where even top-tier games drop to £20 or less if you’re patient. Also, you’re only talking about AAA games, a relatively recent category. Go back in time and most games were what we’d now call AA or indie, made by smaller teams. Today, similar games often launch at around £25 (which, adjusted for inflation, is equivalent to about £13 in 2000 money). And that’s only possible because digital distribution has dramatically lowered the barrier for smaller developers to release games.

So overall, I’d say digital distribution has significantly reduced the real cost of games compared to earlier times.

yes inflation exists but the lie was still true, because it's not cheaper. XD
and i get less for my money, box, trinkets, manuals, posters.. you see where i'm going here.
and now these only come in the ULTRA SUPER DELUX variant.. and the materials are even worse.

Most of all.. a disc that has the actual game... that they can't make disappear unless their scaly AF
as i explain here..
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_you_should_be_ashamed_of_yourself_by_chicken_out_from_giving_support_to_stop_killing_games_initi/post191

and yes my dead space 2 disc... also cannot install...

The peak of the "gamer bases" which has become pretty much solidified the past 25 years because the "base" on any given platform barely is exceeding 150 million, so it can be considered the magical limit on "real gamers" outside of the "super-casual-gamer mobile market" still responsible for more than half of the "income cookie" just because of its sheer amount and a successful micro-transaction strategy (the typical gacha-economy).

Anyway, it has pretty much become solidified at around 2000 so, roughly 25 years ago, which is the important timeline for making those comparisons.

What can be seen is simply that, due to mainly digital only sales, the quantity sold of any game has increased a lot. 3 million in 2000 is nowadays 30 million, so 10 times bigger... despite the still more or less same "gamer base" on each platform.

So, the thing that truly had an impact on pricing was the way higher quantity and in general it was easier to reach those gamers around the globe. This i see as the main reason why the games pricing in overall barely has been increasing, or even dropping in prices.

Instead of 1 game the same gamer will now buy 10 games... which means, the overall amount spend per gamer is surely not lower and as always limited by the purchasing power of someone and the willingness to spend a certain amount of coins at all.

However, what truly matters is not how much the money decreased in "value" but simply if a gamer is willing to spend a certain amount of cash on a certain quantity of games or even a pretty particular game. So, this "inflation theory" seems obvious, yet still useless. The customers mind is way more "practical" in their daily life. They simply see a game and are looking at their pocket... and if they can somehow afford it they may spend a certain amount on it. Which, i already told is a mix between 2 main factors: Purchasing power (after all of the static costs has been removed... because it is no use looking at a total income if in the end almost nothing is left when all the fixed expenses has been paid), and the willingness to spend a certain amount (without willpower not even Musk will spend a single cent on a game, which is reflecting the social and individual value someone is putting into it).

Based on those main factors... there is as well the regional pricing, which can vary a lot. A factor with low importance around 2000 because back at those old days we mainly had US, EU and JP markets... most other markets barely was playing a role, and those markets was more or less "with comparable purchasing power"... which is nowadays not the case anymore.

So, it got way more complicated and, apart from way more locations and "regional factors", as well any sort of quantity is playing a bigger role nowadays. Additionally, the DLC and in general micro-sales are very important in many cases nowadays, but it was not playing a role in 2000 (any addon was very rare and in most cases it was included at some point). This is additional income "bloating up" a games total price. It may be true that many AAA can be gotten for perhaps 20 or lesser USD but in many cases the DLCs may add even more the the cookie, unless someone want to pass on those DLCs... well... i guess then the game is simply broken and the comparison is not really "rock solid" with a game from 2000, if we use "incomplete games" to compare it with.

And yes, the total amount spend on the game industry was going up the past 25 years, mainly because the purchasing power and the "range of gamers" has been going up as well in some way. However... the advancement surely is now slowly going down as the industry is feeling the economical struggle many gamers now slowly start to get. It is surely not comparable to the inflation anymore, which is higher than the purchasing power, for a good time already.

It's a matter of interpretation of the word 'dead'.

Yes, just about any game that is no longer available via legal channels, is available via abandonware sites. You have to be willing to deal with them, or such a game is dead to you.

And 'dead' also applies to not being able to purchase ... not available through official channels, so for many it might as well be dead.

And then there are issues in many cases, about running such a game on modern OS and hardware, where the game can be good as dead, if you cannot get it working or working well enough.

So take your pick.

I'm not going to argue about what GOG did or didn't do.
However, I am well aware that in the time I have known them, they have often done silly things that they later regretted ... and if not in word, then in deed.

GOG would ultimately be concerned about how negatively they would be impacted, by supporting any initiative, as others have already stated. This would especially be so, because they are not exactly on real firm ground, with great profits and all, and basking in the easiness of acquiring great games. DRM-Free remains a tough thing to sell to game providers.

Look at their stupid juvenile F#CKDRM, and where that got them. It's one thing to hate DRM, as I do, but another to do something like that, which likely turned many potential game providers away.

We also live in a current climate, where Public Domain for much of the world, has been pushed out to 70 years, before being eligible for media products.

So what the initiative is trying to achieve, while admirable on the one hand, is an extremely hard ask on the other. It would involve legislation, which would of course need to be done on an individual basis for each country or union. And unless you change the mindset of those transgressing, the best you can possibly hope for, is some kind of reimbursement in some cases, based on a specific time period ... but even that could be gotten around.

So I don't hold out hope it will ever be possible.

If anything, the better approach would be to educate every gamer, and also blacklist the relevant publishers. Shaming, if it hurts their bottom line, might be enough. And with a big name publisher, their resale value could become very diminished. Small publishers don't have much to lose by changing their name, not so the big ones.

I work in the legal field and the best thing people can do with this is create 1-2 meaningful analogies instead of endless terrible ones. Yes, advertising should be clear, but no, an online-service game being shut down is not like "being robbed by the store manager who sold you a DVD" or "being sold a stolen rental car" or "having your car stolen" or "breaking and entering your garage". The former are all criminal issues, this whole thing is entirely about civil law (contract law and / or advertising).

What differentiates products from services is the latter all require some kind of ongoing support (eg, provision of online-only servers or even online DRM authentication) that often give them a finite lifespan, whereas a product, eg, a CD you pay for, bring home and it has nothing further to do with the store you bought it from after that. It's better to focus on the legal side of things rather than keep pretending you "didn't agree to the game being a service" that The Crew (and all online-only games) very obviously are and that you DID agree to when you bought it.

Stop Killing Games wants to make changes to seemingly convert such service-based games into products at some point EOL, however as Brian pointed out that involves vast changes in contract law legislation in many countries. If it affects only publishers (not stores), it'll only affect EU published games. If you actually want such vast changes to affect all reseller stores (inc those that aren't even based in the EU like Steam), then it requires major changes in the law that ultimately involves governments dictating what private online stores based in other countries can / cannot sell in general. That's HUGE, and is far bigger than the "light touch" regulation Ross thinks it is.

Since you're fond of analogies, this is like the EU requiring Microsoft to remove all Product Activation / online code of Windows & Office versions about to expire, and if they refused then banning not just all Microsoft products directly but as Ross seemed to threaten the other day, also ban the whole of every other 3rd party store that sells Microsoft products, eg, Amazon, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and all major computer stores would all also be "banned" in the EU. I think we all know how 'likely' such a law is to pass in the real world, let alone enforced to that extent. As many said, a far more likely legal outcome in most countries is simply a watered down change in advertising laws for digital services making it more clearer on the checkout page with more prominent "There is no guaranteed lifespan for online services, you are buying a time-limited experience only" disclaimers. And that's it.

At the end of the day, you need to deal with the reality that regardless of how well intended SKG is, it's highly doubtful there will be any major global legislative requirement to force software companies to make changes to 10 year old software they'll about to remove support for. All they may need to do is implement minor changes in advertising regulations, and if so, then gamers who keep throwing money at disposable content will have no choice but to stop burying their heads in the sand and develop a bit more self-awareness / self-control if they want a better gaming industry.

It is always a good thing showing some diplomacy and GOG already was taking some "extreme positions" in the past which was not toward their best benefit. They should stand in for what they truly care about, everyone should, but there is no need to unnecessary going into confrontations with a pretty salty taste.

Unfortunately, most gamers could not care less, which can be seen on the sales numbers, numbers do not really lie... just showing pretty direct actions done. But it does not really matter, even a minority can have some importance for sure. In our language we say "Kleinvieh macht auch Mist" which in the US would sound like "Many a little makes a muckle", so GOG got a saying for sure. I still do not recommend throwing to much salt into the soup of someone who enjoys a pretty bland taste.

Yes, I see where you are going. And as you are going there, you are grabbing those goalposts and moving them with you as fast as you can.

What you said and I replied to was: "wasn't online distro supposed to make games cheaper "Looks at AAA prices" yeah... we were lied to.". Games are cheaper today.
That is kinda the point... Digital distribution have lead to cheaper games becuase... umm.... it is digital and not physical....

Not because digital, because amount. Digital is the remedy, but causality is amount. The servers are very pricey... but they are great at "inflating numbers" in any direction. Of course, especially Steam was mastering it the best way possible by world wide almost instant reach, a marketing and features attracting customers like a magnet and a very "flexible" marketing able to make near countless of custom offers in a blink of their eyes.

I bet almost no one had the same pricing as another one... the price range someone had to pay for the exact same game can vary between 10% and 100%, dependable on location and custom offers. This sort of chess move was one of the most important traits of digital marketing, with a flexibility and reach never seen before. Kinda somewhat comparable to the stock market.

If someone thinks they pay to much, most likely they truly paid to much because in almost any case someone on another location or at another time paid lesser than that. There is not really a fix price... it is rather some sort of gambling in which everyone is trying to get "their personal best deal at the expense of waiting time or other trade offs".

For certain, in the past, and in general for the physical market, the price is way more stable and in many cases it can even go up if there is a certain rarity at some point. This is not possible on digital sales which got prices only becoming lower over time but almost never going up (no rule without exception).

EULAs are not legal documents. They cannot trump consumer laws:
https://youtu.be/sEVBiN5SKuA?list=PLheQeINBJzWa6RmeCpWwu0KRHAidNFVTB&t=1529
"Can't companies do whatever due to the EULA?"

"Directive 93/13/EEC prohibits unfair terms causing a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of consumers." - European Commission

✂️ Most gaming EULAs violate Directive 93/13/EEC
"Wouldn't clearer labelling fix the problem?"

"Games as a Service is legal because you agree to the terms stated in the End User License Agreement."
"So what is a dead game? It's not a game that no one is playing anymore; that's just an inactive game.
A "dead game" is one that is IMPOSSIBLE to play because it relied on a company server in order to run and the company has since shut it down. In the early days of gaming, this never happened, because no game was designed with a kill-switch built into it. That's why you can still play them now. But nowadays, games are getting shut down all the time and we're destroying gaming history and sometimes good games."
- https://youtu.be/xboF33ZsOg4?list=PLxO-3A70ruwoGviTGK9EyBEdmd-E8We8b&t=10

[url=][/url]

Well, we can hopefully agree on a "relative term" of dead game and the "absolute term" of dead game. If a game was for some reason totally server-bound without any capable offline mode, then it will be completely dead after... in a absolute term, yes such games does exist (as well games that may still be playable but some of their content is gone forever due to online-only bound access; PSU as an example).

Other games are not dead in absolute terms but in relative terms there are a lot of struggles, be it because of legal issues (almost no access anymore) or even more issues such as incompatibility, which is as well a issue on its own and actually more common.

Live service games are not services
It is unclear in multiple countries if they are goods or services

Yes they are : "An end-user license agreement or EULA is a legal contract between a software supplier and a customer or end-user."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement

I suspect what you meant to say was "EULA's do not supercede national law" which is true. But they absolutely are legal documents. The problem is, things you quote from his videos like "unfair terms" are highly subjective and only become law after they've actually been tested. Eg, "We can terminate your game for any reason" may well be found unfair, however "We're ending support for this 10 year old game for financial reasons", or "we can't release a DRM-Free GOG version of this 10 year old game because some of the previously time-limited licensed content has expired" almost certainly won't be. Directive 93/13/EEC is not some magic wand that can dismiss anything & everything you don't like in a EULA nor makes any EULA "not a legal document".

Same issue here. Just because Ross wants a firm date a decade in advance doesn't mean that will be found unreasonable to not provide one. Example - in many cases publishers simply don't know when EOL is until the second half of a game's lifepsan. If a game (and related DLC) sells well, it could be supported 15 years, if it flops badly, it could be as little as 3-5 years. No-one knows on launch day, it's something the publisher works out ongoing sales figures data, plus how well later released DLC sells. So Ross's "I want you to tell me that this game will be supported until 11:30 on Jan 21st 2038 when I pay for it in April 2025" itself may be found unreasonable and the publishers "We don't know yet, that's not how it works" more reasonable.

Yes they are. Someone's opinion in a Youtube vid that starts off with "Let's pretend the law doesn't exist and we're writing it fresh" doesn't change that. You can quote his Youtube vids until you're blue in the face, but much of that content is entirely personal opinion than any serious legal advice.