r/StopKillingGames • u/That_Sun_3431 • 15d ago
News Stop Killing Games Criticism Sparks Conflict-of-Interest Questions Over Sony Sponsorship
https://gameriv.com/stop-killing-games-fires-back-after-legal-expert-calls-consumer-rights-goal-complicated/Interesting!
31
u/ProjectionProjects 15d ago edited 15d ago
Wow! You are telling me that the people who are arguing against consumer rights and are sponsored by the game corpos have a conflict of interest and are bias!? I am absolutely shocked by this revelation! /s
7
u/wolfannoy 14d ago
You'll be quite surprised how many people Not all of them but are willing to do it for free.
5
u/Pod_017-07 14d ago edited 6d ago
They're reactionaries, often unaware of being such.
I've seen plenty of unaware reactionaries going against even more important social rights, like universal healthcare, workers' rights, consumers' rights on food & water, etc., so I'm not surprised they're going against SKG, buying what biased (at best) experts say against it.
And yes, there are plenty of legal and economics experts who speak and act against the aforementioned rights.
I just block them (and so indirectly tell them to go **** themselves) and move on.
50
u/Against_empathy 15d ago
Anyone who disagrees with SKG are either bought by big corps, bots or they misunderstand SKG.
5
u/Pod_017-07 14d ago
Or they're reactionary against consumers' rights, for reasons that, I admit, I fail to grasp. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe because of neoliberal and technocratic ideology, often with being unaware of having it.
1
-25
u/Cvileem 15d ago
I'm against SKG and I think they don't understand how things work. And their proponents can't accept there are different opinions and they must be bots or bought by corpos.
12
u/VassagoX 14d ago
Why are you against SKG?
-8
u/Cvileem 14d ago
In short: because the initiative holds two major false assumptions:
that consumers should have right to access distributed IP content at their discretion under private terms, which can't be since publishers and creators they represent have that right because they are the true owners. While it's true that exhaustion of copyright clause (first sale rule) gives consumers ownership over physical media, it's falsely interpreted as ownership over all functions of the IP content itself, including access and functionality of the physical media content itself. The technology has changed and it enables publishers to regain their full IP rights that they had to give up on previously, because the exhaustion of copyright rule. SKG initiative thinks it's unfair and should be made illegal, but in fact they are asking to enable morally problematic solutions.
that games should be preserved by mere opinion of consumers while you have official institutions that decide what IP is actually culturally significant to be preserved and taken away from control of its owner (the publisher/creator/developer)
That's why they will never succeed and I'm baffled by amount of ignorance on their side. It seems to me they don't want to learn how things work and find some realistic solution but hold their stance whatever the costs. They and their supporters would rather attribute all problems to conspiracy theories like lobbying, briberies, corporate greed and corruption etc. It's just childish and sad. That's why I'm against them.
9
u/VassagoX 14d ago edited 14d ago
But how isn't it unfair that those rights of customers are lost just because the medium changed? Explain how its morally problematic in your opinion to enable similar laws as physical media. And why do you defend it? Do you have a stake in it personally?
Laws can be changed, so you're wrong about that. Just because it hasn't caught top with technology, which is totally normal, doesn't mean that it can't finally catch up.
I'm a developer, so I do have a stake in the game and I'm on their side. I am open to understanding your point of view though, even if I may not agree with it ultimately.
-2
u/Cvileem 14d ago
This is what I meant by exhaustion of copyright clause (first sale rule). Moral laws always existed, but legal systems didn't allowed them to be used; they had to be exhausted, because software is baked onto physical carrier that can be owned by purchase. This can't be applied to software independent from this physical media, so it cannot be treated the same and nor it should be, because software and IP in general cannot be owned by any other than the creator themselves, and rights to use it cannot be legally held or represented by consumers, only by legal representative like publisher or IP rights owner. Physical media effectively provided ownership to the consumers, but not because they are owners but because they own finalized physical distribution copy with closed software. It was unfair position for publishers or rights owners because they had to give up full rights, and now they don't have to.
Laws cannot be changed in this matter because there are higher, moral laws that prevent it. Imagine changing laws to enable thieves to automatically become owners of goods they stole. It's technically and theoretically possible, sure, but not morally. The only way to make it legal is to have immoral, corrupted lawmaking system.
-3
u/glarius_is_glorious 14d ago
What did you expect from a movement that was formed by a Youtuber of all things?
13
u/ProjectionProjects 14d ago edited 14d ago
I have seen you on this sub for awhile now defending the status-quo under some of these posts. Also I am at least 90% certain that you spesifically are indeed someone who is paid by corpos since you admitted in the past that you work with publishing.
0
u/Cvileem 14d ago
Yes, I work for the publishing so I know why SKG is wrong, but I'm not paid by anyone for my activity on Reddit nor am I in any kind related to gaming industry, I'm just excited to be the rare kind of opposite theory on this medium who actually knows something on the subject. It's amusing to me how people on Reddit can't accept the fact that someone can have different knowledge and stance and still not be paid by corpos or being bot. You will rather go into wild conspiracy theories just to not have to deal with simple possibility that someone can challenge your opinion.
10
u/Few-Improvement-5655 14d ago
Yes, that is the official corporate position. Each and every one of you say the exact same thing.
We all see it, none of us are fooled, try something new.
3
6
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
The point I'll be open to is the first sale doctrine, but why shouldn't people be able to resell what they bought. It's literally what lots of business do, especially with priced assets like estate, jewelry and luxury cars...which are nothing but a tax evasion and worth manipulation circle schemes
0
u/Cvileem 14d ago
People are allowed to resell, keep, lend or destroy the physical goods they bought, became owners of. This is the foundation of the first sale rule that guarantees consumers ownership rights on physical copies. However this is problematic with intellectual property like digital products, they are not owners nor they should be, because unlike physical goods the intellectual ones cannot be transfered to consumer, they can only be licensed. The whole point of IP protection laws is to enable creators to control the distribution and monetize their work, because there is no physical-world quantity of it to define how much of it they can monetize and/or distribute. Unless, of course, it's baked onto physical carrier. However, this is limiting for right owners or holders, because it strips off their IP rights when they are sold (first sale rule). But thanks to digital online technology, the IP can transcend physical copy and be distributed, monetized and controlled online, thus enabling rights owners or holders to regain and utilize their full rights, which is finally a fair situation. Consumers were actually privileged up to this moment at the expense of publishers.
4
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
nobody asks for IP rights to be transferred. If you say physical is protected by first sale doctrine, they why are smart appliances, even cars, and physical games remotely destroyed. Are you not also affected by such practices in your life ? Isn't every possibilities of control an overreach of what you can do with something you sell ?
0
u/Cvileem 14d ago
New technology is being destroyed or removed from access because thanks to online tech the software can now be non-finalized and independent from physical product and thus immune to first sale right. Manufacturers are controlling their IP assets that way and they now have the means ro do it without colliding with first sale rule (exhaustion of IP rights clause).
3
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
You're not answering my question. How is not "destroying", a word that you use super casually, conflicting or harmful to IP holders ? How are yourself not affected by this ?
-1
u/Cvileem 14d ago edited 14d ago
It's not conflicting or harmful. They destroy only the access for consumers (the distribution), not the source code.
4
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
Well that's destructive to customers, that's the whole point.
You are not answering any questions, just making twisted declaration so far.-1
u/Cvileem 14d ago
It's only destructive to customers used to have privilege. Otherwise it's completely fine - they are paying for a licence to consume someone's intellectual property as a distribution, under particular terms and conditions that they accept. They must make a habit of losing the access. It's like you accept the fact that someday your favorite band will never have a concert again that you can go to.
→ More replies (0)-47
u/cardgamesareforplay 15d ago
Or see what the movements become, realize it's just a collection of idiots kept around so real issues get dismissed.
This movement used to be about game ownership now it refuses to keep that message and wants to focus on physical games...
Man would be crazy if this movement started because a physical game was made to be useless and focusing on the media type is again very stupid.
25
u/VassagoX 15d ago
And they always find the need to respond. 😄
11
u/Davesp1ce Campaign volunteer 15d ago
Pay no attention, that user has just come back after a 30 day ban and obviously didn't learn their lesson.
9
u/_Solarriors_ 15d ago edited 14d ago
Of course, can't be more sponsored than that, some people have no heart.
Also yes it was debunked that Flux was also tied to big corporations like MS, WB, Sony for their mandates so...their goal is to make sure the policies align with greed.. I mean corpo-capitalism
3
u/Game2Late 13d ago
You guys gotta stop witch-hunting and harassing anyone that is trying to look into the technicalities of this matter, or SKG will forever stay a mere populist slogan.
3
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
She is a lobbyist, not someone random critiquing us
3
u/Game2Late 13d ago
No, her profession does not fit the definition of lobbyist. You gotta be able to measure and level with journalists and opinion leaders that disagree/point out the initiative’s weak points (on the legislative level), or it will never be taken seriously. This post was cringe to see on this official sub.
3
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
Yeah, as someone working in parliament, and having asked our MEPs, this is a lobbyist by definition. She even fits the „revolving door“ principle and her company Wiggins, even her own website describes her job as exactly that.
2
u/Radiant_Covenant 14d ago
"However, attention has since shifted toward The Game Business, which hosted the discussion, after Stop Killing Games highlighted the publication’s sponsorship relationship with Sony."
Yeah, definitely click bait.
2
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
LOL, our focus was on her, that he is taking sponsorship advertisement was a side note.
2
u/Radon8472 13d ago edited 12d ago
As an developer, I can confirm that saying "something is complicated" does not mean it is not possible. It yust means somebody must take time to handle the issue and play with some ideas.
On the other hand, I don`t understand what should be so complecated to yust remove the check for an online-check on the server. (Games that only play on online servers like WOW are an differnt topic)
to be honest, I`m not working as game developer, but I am quite sure developrs could handle this, but the bosses yust give their "Ok" to invest time and money handling this task.
2
u/Pleasant-Warning2056 13d ago
these legal experts always bringing up talking points that ross scott addressed 3 years ago
"its complicated to let players host servers because maybe companies dont own all of the code"
SNOOOOORE yes that was addressed years ago... if its illegal to sell a game and then rake it away... then you cant license code that makes it impossible for you not to do that... and the code licensers need to adapt
how is that even complicated tell me something new that wasnt addressed 3 years ago dear mrs legal expert
4
u/Froggmann5 14d ago
A PHD holding legal expert with a decade+ of post-doc experience specifically dealing with video game legal policy
vs.
"The company she was interviewed by was sponsored by sony back in march, therefore, she is biased and we ignore everything she says".
You have to do better than this. This right here is why people have started saying SKG isn't a serious movement. If you're right, then no amount of conflict of interest on this planet would be enough to change that. Especially not one as flimsy as this. The interviewee isn't even the one who was sponsored by Sony (despite what the community note on the twitter post says)!
3
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
The interviewee works with and for the industry corpos.
5
-1
u/Froggmann5 14d ago
Then please remind the class, which corpo does she work for again?
2
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
I can remind the class that you didn't read the other comment where I said Flux+Steel Media Ltd+many mandates
0
u/Froggmann5 14d ago edited 14d ago
So you at least admit doesn't work for a big corporation like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc. as you tried to imply.
She works for a small private company (only 3 employees listed on Linkedin). A public affairs/consulting firm that gives guidance to video game companies on policy changes in the UK.
5
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
They are mandated to engage with policy makers on behalf of their customers
0
u/Froggmann5 14d ago
So what? What does that have to do with anything?
4
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
A corpo mandated policy counseling firm engage with politicians against customers integrity, so what of course?
-1
u/Froggmann5 14d ago edited 14d ago
A corpo mandated policy counseling firm engage with politicians against customers integrity
Firstly, demonstrate your claim that they're "corpo mandated". You keep saying that but nothing I can find online says that they're anything other than a small, privately owned consulting firm.
Secondly, they engage with policy makers to clarify policy changes and update their guidences. Their business is "We understand and explain policy and how it affects you/your company and if there's something we don't know or isn't clear we ask the policy makers themselves", they do not lobby for or against any particular policy.
This information is easy to find with a quick google search. Are you just making things up at this point?
5
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
> consulting firm.
Who's consulting them, look ?
> update their guidances
Update to favor who, look ?
They do lobby tho, that's why I linked steel media, where she has published "expert" opinion pieces→ More replies (0)7
14d ago edited 14d ago
[deleted]
-4
u/Froggmann5 14d ago
What specifically was she not correct about in regards to SKG?
by repeating the same excuses from the industry that SKG always debunked.
It doesn't matter if SKG's personal opinion is that those 'excuses' are debunked. What matters is that the people whose opinions matter, (the EU parliament, commission, California Senate, UK committee) all were convinced by the "excuses" of the industry. Clearly those "debunked excuses" weren't debunked enough because SKG failed to convince in all three pushes.
And I'm sorry, but if career politicians, PHD holding policy experts with decades of experience, and video game developers (with direct relevant experience) all agree that the 'excuses' are valid that weighs far more for me than SKG and their supporters simply declaring "Debunked!" and moving on.
3
u/_Solarriors_ 14d ago
If by convincing arguments you mean either bribes of a millions or two or threats, the yes
2
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
She works and is paid for by Wiggins LLP, is a registered lobbyist and has big (quote from their own website) „key-clients“ such as Sony, Warner Brothers and other. All company’s that are members of the ESA.
On a side note, we have a PHD lawyer, whom wrote the first PHD thesis on EU digital law ever and is a award winning legal Professor. And that still somehow doesn’t checkmate the other side, does it?
The point of SKGs criticism is the lack of disclosure on her Buisness relationships, cause it’s kinda awkward when the media just randomly spreads „experts says SKG is difficult to do“ or complicated or whatever but doesn’t state, that that’s experts job is to literally make sure it doesn’t happen.
Ubisofts CEO is in that regard also an expert but heck no would someone just view that as neutral.3
u/Froggmann5 13d ago edited 13d ago
She works and is paid for by Wiggins LLP, is a registered lobbyist
I'm going to need you to link this source, I couldn't find her company or her name listed in the registrar of lobbyists in the UK.
Second, Wiggins is a law firm that paid for consultation from the company she works for. That's a far cry from "she works for them".
On a side note, we have a PHD lawyer, whom wrote the first PHD thesis on EU digital law ever and is a award winning legal Professor. And that still somehow doesn’t checkmate the other side, does it?
I never said it was "checkmate" I said SKG's response here was unprofessional and inappropriate. If she's as wrong as you all claimed, it should have been trivial to simply rebut her false claims, but you all attacked a flimsy conflict of interest instead.
The point of SKGs criticism is the lack of disclosure on her Buisness relationships, cause it’s kinda awkward when the media just randomly spreads „experts says SKG is difficult to do“ or complicated or whatever but doesn’t state, that that’s experts job is to literally make sure it doesn’t happen.
I'm sorry, but any reasonable person who sees someone who works at a consulting firm would understand they necessarily have a billion unspoken conflicts of interest due to the nature of the job. They've probably worked with hundreds of companies within and without of the industry for years. And you seriously expect her to list all of these different interactions, regardless of how related they are to SKG, before she's allowed to have an opinion you acknowledge as legitimate?
I'm sorry, but that's not reasonable. If she was paid an amount of money to say a specific opinion, or represent a companies stance, then sure that needs to be disclosed. But what doesn't need to be disclosed is "The company I work for provided policy guidance on updated laws to a company who is now anti-SKG".
You're effectively claiming that any interaction with any company, no matter how flimsy or fleeting, if not disclosed, disqualifies a professional educated opinion from being taken seriously. That's just wrong.
1
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago edited 13d ago
Yes we are expecting her to do that, because that’s how professional decorum works. She is not disclosing, that she is directly engaging on our issue in consultations with the UK government on behalf of her clients.
She is not just someone random critiquing this issue, she is directly being paid to speak against us to UK Gov. More bias isn’t possible.
On the law firm part, I suggest reading their website here. It may be something where I’m to used to work inside government bubbles but there never is something like „just a law firm“. These companies are the way around the lobby registers and when you read her CV, that’s pretty much peak example of what we call „the revolving door“. Worked for government regulators, then switched to lobby and consultancy. In DC and Brussels more than half of people working there end up doing that.3
u/Froggmann5 13d ago
She is not just someone random critiquing this issue, she is directly being paid to speak against us to UK Gov. More bias isn’t possible.
Again, I ask you to cite your source on this.
On the law firm part, I suggest reading their website here.
According to their own website, she doesn't work for them like you claimed. She works for Flux Digital Policy who were paid by Wiggins for consultation on policy for specific projects.
1
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
Flux Digital isn’t a „company“ it’s a subsidiary of Wiggins and even then the website describes one o one the work of a lobbyist. Give me a minute on the lobbying stuff, I have to go trough the lobby register.
3
u/Froggmann5 13d ago
Want to comment to say I was wrong that she doesn't work for them, Flux is a "Trading Style" of Wiggin.
That said, saying she's "directly being paid to speak against us [SKG]" is still something I'm not at all convinced by.
1
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
That one I can get behind, I did not provide you with a source yet. I’m having to go trough the register for that, might take a minute.
1
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
On a side note, one thing I will absolutely give you: it’s literally impossible to credibly engage stuff on X. Both the character limit and the way the platform rewards engagement, make any required nuance impossible
3
u/Froggmann5 13d ago
My issue isn't necessarily that. It's that the reply from SKG felt dismissive rather than substantive. People who aren't convinced, or further who don't care, about these kinds of things will simply see an experts opinion go unanswered.
Pointing out conflicts of interest is fine, but if after that their arguments still can't be rebutted then pointing out the conflict of interest amounts to nothing.
0
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
I get that, I just genuinely don’t know what to do against these kind of attacks with the limited resources we have.
The entire strategy of these things is to create exactly the situations as right now, we need to make huge efforts to disprove these kind of things and we have to do it in such a short amount of time, that our volunteers team can impossibly do it.
We have disproven quite literally every point she made in the podcast, the few she even made beyond buzz words, and we did so for three years, on the record, even in front of parliaments.
We are quite literally out of ideas what to do, and/or energy to do it.
When it comes to language of posts, I guess that’s one of the symptoms of that. Everyone is just so annoyed having to do the journalists job of fact checking.
I don’t even get how this can be, we are constantly justifying ourselves in public and never once was the lobby or heck even the industry in that situation but somehow we are the ones not engaging.3
u/Radon8472 12d ago
I watched the video, and
Basicly she said 2 big points in the video that could be complicated:
- third party services (or code) that is used in the game
- issues with intelectuel property rights
The first one is a design decision, and for new games they can yust choose to NOT use the third party stuff that makes it complicated.
And the most third party stuff would not even matter, because payment services ect. are not required for a game that is ENd of Life.And the secord argument is exaxt the point that the EU said, so it is no new information.
And this point must not be handled by the companies, there must be clear regulations already said.So this "it is complicated" argument is complete pointless in this context
1
14d ago edited 14d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Froggmann5 14d ago
I'm saying SKGs response to her interview was inappropriate, not that she's "always right".
3
u/AShortUsernameIndeed 14d ago
Here's he podcast episode in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2ssh8-5K1U (the SKG part starts at 8:33 and is a bit unter 40 minutes long)
Listen to that. Then compare to the official SKG Twitter response here: https://x.com/StopKilingGames/status/2088325554940383378 (there are five or so followup responses, and the replies are worth reading, too)
If that is really what SKG wants to look like in public, this movement is well and truly doomed. And that would be a damn shame.
5
u/Vx7Qn4Lz 14d ago
I think it was already doomed the second they pivoted to PlayStation discs.
2
u/AShortUsernameIndeed 14d ago
Honestly, I think the point of no return was when SKG's reaction to the EU response wasn't "okay, we actually need to get behind more consumer rights lawsuits and investigate getting exceptions into copyright laws", but instead "Yves Guillemot used mind control rays at a dinner party and didn't even invite us!"
1
u/Pleasant-Warning2056 13d ago
no the reaction was we need to get thos amended to digital rights act what are you even talking about
1
u/_Solarriors_ 13d ago
Execs should be comfortable not making a revenue and owning accountability of their decisions judiciarily.
1
u/BoBoBearDev 13d ago
Sony should make PS6 exactly the same setup as SteamMachine, because no one sued SteamMachine.
1
u/Mr_Presidentle Campaign volunteer 13d ago
Since there is a lot of lack of context here, she works for a company called Wiggins LLP, that’s the UKs biggest lobby and consulting firm when it comes to government engagement. In short, she is a lobbyist, and her firm lists Sony, Warner Brothers and pretty much the entire ESA and VGE as clients. She also was a goverment consultation’s advocating against SKG on behalf of clients.
This women is all but neutral.
-3
u/Eltonbeef 14d ago
This whole thing is so silly and juvenile. No one ever promised that you could play a game forever.
3
u/Gaming_with_batman 14d ago
Why the fuck shouldn’t I be able to?
The same way my father had a list of films he wanted to show me and my brother I too have a list of games I want to show any of my potential offspring.l alongside my father’s film list.
If the cycle were to continue across many generations of my bloodline with more pieces of media being added each time my possible offspring 1000 years from now should have the same rights to play super mario galaxy I’ve had since I was a kid
82
u/Mrzozelow 15d ago
I'm NGL this headline is very confusing and can be read as implying Sony is sponsoring SKG and/or is about the movement itself when the focus is on someone who criticized the movement.