[dalmo3]

> Require video games sold

Wouldn't this just incentivise companies to move to a F2P and/or subscription model?

There's no expectation that, just because I've downloaded the client, I should be able to use a VPN service after the servers are discontinued. Or use AutoCAD after my licence has expired.

You don't need to leave the gaming realm to imagine the unintended consequences of this petition - just look at the hellscape that is mobile gaming.

[BlackFly]

Possibly, but it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly. People approach free-to-play games and subscription based games with different attitudes than purchased games. A purchase carries a reasonable expectation of durability.

On the other hand, if you sell cosmetic items in your subscription based or free-to-play game, then you have sold something with a reasonable expectation of durability which is somewhat already enshrined in the digital goods laws. If you rent those items for a limited time then the relationship is again honest.

If it is reasonable to expect a limited time frame of usage from the software then it is reasonable for the company to state what guarantees they are willing to make for that time frame in a subscription contract. The presumption of durability should carry the weight of law (up to consumables and wear and tear).

[johnnyanmac]

> it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly.

Yeah, good luck with that. these companies have wasted that goodwill for almost a decade now. The real unfortunate part is that most consumers don't care, so companies can keep doing it.

[BlackFly]

Well, I have personally had luck with this. It took a very long time after the initial laws on digital content for refunds to become widely available but it happened. I am doing my part, I do not share your cynicism here. To me it appears to be working effectively.

The saying is, the wheels of justice turn slowly but they grind finely.

Directive 2019/770 is still young and game companies haven't had much opportunity to interact with irate customers demanding remedy under this directive and its national transpositions yet. They still use the old terminology to clarify their sale as a "service" despite the new act defining what a service is and making that definition inalienable. As more and more people assert their rights, new norms will develop. More and more companies may be forced to register as gatekeepers under the digital markets act as well.

[teroshan]

As I understand, this would also apply to e.g. micro-transactions/cosmetics which would be categorized as 'possessions' if I follow the wording in this proposal. So this would include F2P games, requiring them to provide a way to enjoy those cosmetics.

As for subscription-based games, Ross Scott put them in a separate category in a previous video of his [1], as you willingly pay for access to a service which has a known end date (end of the month). Although with the micro-transactions angle in mind, I'm not sure how this changes things.

[1]: "Games as a service" is fraud, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw

[Karliss]

If some companies explicitly switched to subscription model that would also be an improvement. With proper subscriptions the company at least needs to clearly specify how long they will provide their service in exchange for your money, and there are laws for dealing with situations when they take money for x months but fail to deliver it.

With many games you are currently paying money for unknown period of time. Maybe you will get 5 year, maybe 1 year, maybe 1 month or even just 3 days. It's not that much of exaggeration, there have been examples of companies continuing to sell a game without any warning that they will kill the servers making the product useless in a few months.

Any fair trade whether it's a purchase, subscription or rental needs to clearly state what exactly and how much of it each party will get from the deal.

[account42]

I don't think this is a good argument - that is, to not hold companies accountable because doing so might get them to do other undesirable things. It's not like the mobile F2P dumpster fire doesn't exist already without the proposed changes and even PC games have moved significantly towards F2P, especially for online titles which are the main concern of the petition.

Also while this may not be the current public opinion, F2P generally still involves income via sales - not of the whole game but of tiny portions of it dangled in front of you. Any worthwile rule change would also require those to continue to be available to you when the company decides to shut the servers.

[prmoustache]

well, we can ban subscription models too ;-)