Sorry for the late response.
I actually don't know about EU politics specificities, but it seems the me that the objective of an initiative is to show EU citizens support to a generic cause for then it to be used to support a law to be created.

In the steps that the initiative proposes, it makes sense for it to gather enough support to the cause.
I just hope they will talk about DRM issues later (improbable); but lets see how things will work out now.

That's exactly what it is. It's a movement designed to force EU parliament to discuss the issue, then the organizers will get involved with talks, and maybe some legislation comes out of it. The actual legislation hasn't been written yet and the wording so far is generic and done on good faith both to recruit the public, politicians, and hopefully placate publishers.

There's a lot of nitpicking on the wording here when nothing has even materialized in EU parliament as potential legislation. It's like nitpicking how the table should be set before people have even decided if they want to eat at a restaurant.

Many, me included, question the whole premise that we would need more EU regulation to restrict how we can buy our games, especially as EU has the tendency to fuck things up and people don't get what they hoped they would.

So yes, it would be a similar stupid initiative as to demand EU regulation that McDonalds should start selling only non-fattening hamburgers and french fries. Gee, how about just not eating in McDonalds, if you don't want to get fat?

It is also worrying that the proponents of the initiative seem to be ok with DRM in games. They just want some kind of guarantees that DRM would work in the future too. That is definitely bad news for DRM-free gaming.

lolwut. is there a funny finlandia Wcdonald's where after they sell you a type of burger, and if the burger was unpopular or they just stop selling it, they will send a remote-controlled drone to zap your burger to ashes?!?

wtf would you compare digital software to burgers? do you also download car burgers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS9vvF1V1Dc

Not true at all.

How can you say something like this... there is no way this is bad news for DRM-free gaming.
In the worst case scenario, games that were already DRM-enabled will still be released with DRM.
If a publisher wants to publish DRM-free games, they won't be affected in any way by the initiative, and frankly, this might even push more publishers to publish DRM-free games.
But let's assume that's not the case... those who already publish with DRM and let games die, like Ubisoft and EA, do you think they'd publish more DRM-free games without making new laws to avoid that they continue to kill games?
In what parallel universe did this happen?

Worst case scenario they will try to go full game as service (like with a subscription)... but even now they are doing something really close with most games and even when they don't they usually publish everything with draconian drm... so why should be fear that they try to make it worst? We are already under the bottom with those publishers (that's why I don't buy anything from them)... there is no reason to fear it will get worst, they are already doing really bad stuff.

Really, I don't see the situation getting worse.... Furthermore, it's not true that Europe always makes things worse. Quite the opposite: when it intervenes in the right way, things improve. Like with mandatory USB Type-C connectors.

I really don't understand this Euroscepticism, not in Italy, not in the rest of Europe. I understand that Europe hasn't always been up to the task, but if it were every country for itself, it would be much worse, and the UK amply demonstrated this with Brexit.

The subscription is DRM. "Want to enjoy the full offerings of your Nintendo Switch console? Best pay up for the privilage! There's Mario 35, it's gone now! Thanks for playing! There's Super Mario 3D All-Stars, and it's gone! Thanks for playing!"

"Ah, you want to play our classic library of games? Our terms, your money, no options. You missed Super Formation Soccer? Tough."

So he is just hoping that Steam games are easily crackable and work as intended after cracking, with no guarantees?

Or they would use this as a red herring to not release DRM-free games, with vague promises of removing DRM at some point of time. Or not.

They will release their games as service, including streaming game services. Just so that they are surely not affected by any such initiatives.

I just posted that video to make you understand that nobody is pro drm here.
I actually know for a fact that the basic steam drm is nothing more than an API call so there is actually no need for a real crack, just something like steamless, steam goldberg or anything like that that will simulate a response locally... or even a steam local installation put offline. I'm not saying this is drm-free or a good thing... I'm just saying what he said in the video about the steam game issue is not an issue and there is no need for a crack. Still I would not focus on that point at all... he was just trying to understand how we can preserve games from an art point of view. From a consumer point of view the answer should be avoid to buy games with drm.

They never wanted to release DRM-free games in the first place. Just take a look at the last EA/Ubisoft games released on gog and look how old they are... there is no reason to believe passing a law against their interest will make them release even less drm-free games (there is nothing less than zero...).
if they really want to go streaming subscriptions to avoid end of life support well... who cares... Most of us don't buy anything from them anyway.

I never said it was not... not sure what you want from me.

I want this to be the realization that SKG as proposed may not be the panacea it was thought to be, and even worse may have the opposite effect.
"Oh, the game wasn't discontinued or made inaccessible. It was vaulted. When we feel it appropriate to reveal it again, we'll give service back."

I honestly don't care if a game that today use a server that goes offline will in the future be on subscription.
that's actually better so that people will understand better that they are paying like 60€ for a subscription, not for a complete game.

This is getting awfully close to special pleading. What stops me from saying:

"I honestly don't care if a game that today use a server that in the future goes offline and will stop working. that's actually better so that people will understand better that they are paying like 60€ for a time-limited game, not for a complete game."

Yes, that's the impression I had when watching videos from good content creators on the issue.
Thanks. :)

Because we should try to make the situation better.
We lose nothing if a game that today is a "game as service" will turn into "game as service + subscription", while if we got an end of support law in place and some decide to remove the drm the situation will get better. Also a "game as service + subscription" is a lot more clear to the customers compared to "we can decide to put the game offline for no reason any time, but sell you the game as it was a complete release"

When I was a teenager I played some games that I didn't realize would die (it was after that I educated myself and found out what DRM is and how to avoid it and I think we all have similar experiences, you're not born learned)... with a clearer law this wouldn't have happened.

The idea is to make the situation better for everybody... and there is no way the situation will get worse since there is no worse for EA/Ubisoft etc... Devs that already release drm-free games will not be affected by this at all.

The fact the big corpos are lobbying against the initiative just shows how much more it's important this thing passes.