[hodgehog11]

As is stated in the article, but is not clear just from the headline, this was not an unexpected outcome from the initiative. The Commission did not seek discussions with SKG, and spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups.

SKG was prepared for this, and their intention has been to join up with the group putting together the new Digital Fairness Act, since the objective there is very similar, but much broader in scope, and most of the groundwork is already there. Much of the earlier recorded Q&A sessions in Parliament had representatives commenting on this already, so it's the natural approach. This way, legislation will almost certainly be put forward and voted on, and the lobby groups will likely have a harder time trying to wrestle with a larger movement and a parliament that seems sympathetic to the cause.

Basically, this is a battle lost that never really mattered. The climax of this war is yet to come.

[HDBaseT]

This sounds like cope.

The SKG Movement has been hyping up both the EU and EU Commission from the get-go as a possible target for change.

This is a major blow to the movement.

[TylerE]

This is not surprising. The movement has been all about gamer vibes and not technical reality from day one. It should have been rejected, and I'm glad it was.

[spaqin]

Not sure about the technical reality here - until 2010s, singleplayer games didn't require an Internet connection, and for multiplayer ones you could download a dedicated server application, host it yourself. Only recently it became locked down for the corporate profit; the only party making it hard are the game developers themselves.

[x______________]

Because telemetry and advertising revenues did not plague the online landscape during those times. It has all been standardized since: "click OK to share data with our 13,285 partners", "always-online needed to prove your identity", "we need to force an upgrade of your software so we can ensure you get what's best for you, when we decide" ..oh and all of that after a 159 page legally binding and enforceable agreement that you can't negotiate or reject.

Are you sure we don't need all of this? Seems like we'd be going back to the dark ages of information technology if we did.. (/s)

[hatefulheart]

What does telling your customers you plan to make a game unplayable if it doesn’t perform exactly as you expect financially have to do with technical reality, pray tell?

[xingped]

(Not parent) It doesn't. It's just uninformed or bad faith commenting, astroturfing, and arm chair developers who've never written a line of code for a game in their lives. Always has been.

(Or maybe Jason Hall is going by "Tyler" now. XD )

[Ritewut]

What SKG is asking for is not only technical reality but easy to do if you plan for it from the start.

[gundamdoubleO]

Please actually read the proposed initiative.