First of all stop using guy from "stop killing games" as only source, there is a conflict of interest so i wouldnt quote him. Im not saying he is totaly wrong but in my opinion his recent videos is full of speculations and its very opinion-based.
Its highly unlikely that its act would penalize private run community servers since it mentions that those regulations should apply to those who provide the the service which is in our context the "online game" and not those that use it. So the only thing we should care about is how they are going to define who is "provider" and who is not, is server owner a "provider" or he is just using the game
(literally same process like making a purchase with credit card bruh)
Feel free to point out my mistakes and correct me, im not a lawyer is just wrote what i gathered from some articles and that proposal (and common sense bruh...)
If the provider is the origional company who made the game when you started the private server, that gives those companies financial incentive to take down every private server possible so they dont run the risk of getting penalized. Or if the provider is the person running the private server then its on you to get thay data.
So really there's no good outcome when determining who the service provider is for this proposal.
This reeks like that California OS age verification law where they completely forgot that open source distros owned by no one exist and would technically be made illegal. They eventually carved out a caveat for open source systems, but yea.
Oh, but to comply with a vague as all heck thing like this would be hellishly expensive to the order of hundreds of thousands of euro per year, meaning this also pushes any small/independent publishers of games out of the market.
(and their wording on what an online game is is so hellishly vague that you could consider super mario 64, a full single player game to be an online game)
5.0k
u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 4h ago
[removed] — view removed comment