Asmongold TV - European Gaming Industry Lobby responded.. | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: July 6, 2025

European Gaming Industry Lobby responded.. Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. --------- Keywords: gaming podcast, video game analysis, pc gaming, gaming reactions, gaming drama, gaming community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Apparently, the video games, I don't know, commission group, a lobbying group for video games Europe has made a statement about stop killing games. That's right. We appreciate the passion of our community. However, the decision to discontinue online services is multifaceted, never taken lightly, and must be an option for companies when online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players, but when it does happen, the industry ensures players are given fair notice of the perspective changes in compliance with the local consumer protection laws. Well, so it's about that last sentence that we really need to talk about, though, right? So you're complying with the local consumer protection laws? Well, we've got a few new ones for you to comply to.

about that. How about we just have a couple more of those and you're going to comply with those as well. And also, you're going to follow, you're going to jump. Yeah, bro, like, if we say jump, the government says jump, you say how high. You don't make the rules.

The people make the rules. And as soon as the people realize that, stuff like this immediately evaporates. that's it it's about fucking time yes and will win yes do not ever ever ever

think that you can't overpower these parasites you easily can the only reason why we don't is because people are stupid that's the reason why it won't change unless people stop buying it of course it will

of course it will you just make it against the law problem solved that's it you just change our regulation If anyone doubts how powerful the EU initiative can be, video games Europe and industry lobbying group has unsurprisingly come out against stop killing games. The arguments against killing allowing you to keep your purchase or flimsy,

I'll have a video on it in a day or two. Yep, and so will everybody else. The thing is that these lobbying groups are really important, but what matters even more than lobbying groups is votes. Because different people that take money and are, influenced by these lobbying groups, if enough people complain about it, you can make it go away. People who complains it? Yeah. These people like money, but they care more about power. And so, yeah, they know how effective it's going to be. That's not the full statement. There's more.

Really? All right. So this is the full statement that they made. Video games Europe said in their statement, we appreciate the passion of our community decision to discontinue online services is multifaceted. Never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online. service is no longer commercially viable. Well, that's, again, that's not even what people are asking for. People are not asking for you to provide online services forever. People are asking for you to allow other people to provide online services in absence of you providing them yourself.

Nobody says that you have to run the server forever. They're twisting it again. It's included in the petition. it's an alternative or some sort of other solution. That's not the only way of doing it. They watch Pirate Software's video. Read the next paragraph. We understand it can be disappointing for players,

but when that does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with the local consumer protection laws. Well, we're going to change the laws. And so that's it. And hopefully at least, right? That's the goal.

Private servers are not always a viable option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players' data. remove illegal content and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would have rights holders liable. No, it wouldn't. No, it wouldn't. Absolutely not. You don't have to regulate the entire internet. You don't have to do that. It's not your stuff. It's not your issue. If somebody else takes your content and they turn it into something else, you're not legally liable for that. And also, if you are, then maybe we should solve that problem too. So let me get this straight.

Because of one stupid rule, we have to have another stupid rule. Hey, I've got a solution. Why don't we stop making stupid rules? How about that? How about we stop creating this apparatus of retardation that everybody has to fucking play gymnastics around because a bunch of lawyers want to make money? It's ridiculous.

What a ridiculous idea? And in addition, many titles are designed from a ground up to be online online. in effect, these proposals would curtail the developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create. No, it's just that you have to provide an option for players to be able to play peer to peer. There is no reason why players can't play peer to peer. And also, your ability to maintain and control your intellectual property,

in my opinion, does not supersede an individual's ability to have ownership over what they've paid for. And this is the big problem. Is it these people view intellectual property as the pinnacle of value? No, consumer rights, consumer protections, and ownership is the pinnacle of value, and intellectual property is underneath that. You can stay as rent? Yeah, that's totally different.

They could just make it possible for other people to emulate it? Yeah, that's not the way it works. Yeah, you can have plenty of DRM is more responsible with no DRR. You just said it. Move the goalposts. players either peer-to-peer or service. Yep, exactly. And let's go back. I can see if find this here. And where's the rest of it? We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position with policymakers and those that have led the European Citizens Initiative in the coming months. Video Game Europe's case is it can be too expensive for developers and publishers to offer private servers or single-player modes.

It's not that it's too expensive. It's that it makes them have to give up a certain degree of their intellectual property. That's the reason, is that they think that their intellectual property is more important than our rights as consumers. It's really simple. And I disagree with that. And if enough people disagree with that, we take it away from them, and then they have to jump the same distance that we say that we do. So don't ever give these people an inch. They don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about any of this stuff.

They don't care about the integrity of the games. They don't care about the legality of this. They don't care about anything other than. maintaining a complete stranglehold over this and doing so through the ability of them to exercise their connections and money and resources inside of the government. Never give a fucking inch. And so no, absolutely not. Yes, if we can get enough people together, we can make them do what we want. That's right. It's that simple. Not even about the game? Yep. Let's make them do what we want. And if they want to cry and complain about it, go ahead. Stop making the games.

But you won't stop making the games because that's the way you make money. And you'll easily fit and you will easily acclimate to this, just like you acclimate to everything else, because you're a business and every business has to meet the market demands at the point that they want. Cyber security argument. Yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Let's go ahead and let's hear the cybersecurity argument from Sony. Oh no. wait a minute Sony says that wait, oh no

if maybe if somebody else is running it your stuff might get hacked oh my God imagine if that happened that would be horrible never give an inch

and make video see I'm going to read your comments real quick make it along games will be $120 fine then they'll go out of business if you can't make a product at a cost that meets the initiative and the demand of a consumer,

then you go out of business. That's what happens. We set the price. They don't set the price. Now, they try to sell it for that much, but that doesn't mean that we have to buy it for that much. How many times you've been spamming? What about licensing with third parties?

You'd have to give me a more specific example. Yeah, you'd really have to give me a more specific example about that. And also, by the way, this is my general opinion about intellectual copyright. I think it's way too overreaching and it's way too strong and it's overpowered and it needs a rebalancing. It's way too overpowered in favor of companies and individual users and people that own, you know, media need to have more rights in general. So I don't really give a fuck about third-party licenses and, oh, my God, somebody using my character or something like that, then don't put it in the game. Back-in services typically have turns of third-party products that you use for licensing fees. Too bad.

Why would I care about that as a consumer? Nothing about that justifies taking away the product that I paid for as a consumer. your business licensing problems have nothing to do with my rights as a consumer. That's not my problem. Your problem is licensing. Not mine. The rules are retarded? Yeah.

You didn't pay for it. Needs to read what you pay for. Well, I mean, then we redefine what paying for something means. You really went soft on pirate software. His arguments are very similar to the article that you read. Well, I've already addressed that. I already talked about all of the arguments. I already said it in general.

And also the reason why I went soft on pirate soccer is because pirate software has no power or influence, but this company and this initiative and lobbying group does. Why do I... I don't feel threatened by a YouTuber, but I would feel threatened by a lobbying group. What are you fucking retarded? Of course.

So I totally support this. Obviously, when Ross comes out with the video on it, we will just keep pushing this. And then also here's another really big problem is that this is an issue for all forms of media and as soon as this can be addressed and people can understand it, then I think it's going to help a lot.

Sarah, thanks to the 20 subs, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Why weren't licenses an issue in the past when single player games were offline? Because they created this problem. That's the reason why. They created this problem in order to justify doing things that were unfriendly to consumers.

That's the reason why. They invented the problem, and now they say, well, we've created this issue, and now you have to exist inside of the confines of these issues. No, it's an artificial problem. Never accept the premises of somebody that's acting disingenuous.