[vasco]

They just mean the companies can still do whatever they want while the game is being supported. It's an extremely poor way of writing that they are only interested in modifying the rules for end-of-life of games instead of regulate existing playable games. The whole thing is poorly written, but the idea is reasonable.

[IshKebab]

Define "supported"...

This seems like a good goal but I'm not sure they've fully thought it through.

[NekkoDroid]

For DRM protected games that "phone home" for verification its when they are unable to reach "home" anymore (not just temporary outage). For online game its when the official servers are shut down.

Are there any other cases where this initiative would apply that I didn't mention?

https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/20...

> This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.

> Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.

[surfingdino]

> Are there any other cases where this initiative would apply that I didn't mention?

Music and video sales? How many times people who bought music on one of the Microsoft services had to buy it again, because Microsoft turned off authorisation servers?

But in reality this would apply to a lot of software today.

[extraduder_ire]

This is explicitly limited to video games, to keep the scale and scope as achievable as possible.