The Commission says that, not the EU. Big difference. I understand that this has a lot of support in the European Parliament, which has its own ways to try to introduce something into EU legislation.
Yep but it's harder.
Parliament can't create law, it's can only add SKG in a existing project, like Digital Fairness Act.
But with EU commission and France lobby , it's be much harder
In the end Ubisoft only has to convince Ursula and it's dead. If you look at the debacle around chat control on which MP were forced to vote again and again in hopes it would somehow pass, it's really clear how impressively large pieces of shit the current commissioners are.
Not true. Once a piece of legislation is in the Parliament and Council, they can propose any amendments they want, and the Commission cannot really do anything. That's what they apparently want to do, amend the Digital Fairness Act proposal to also address this issue. Another problem is the Council though, they can't do anything without their agreement.
That is incredibly bad understanding of the EU legislative branch. Commission has two way to prevent bad laws to going out, one is negative feedback on amendment that Parliament added which forces a unanimous vote in Council, and the second is full withdraw of the proposal, which is a nuclear option.
I'm aware of the nuclear option, I just didn't include it because I don't think it's very relevant. If the Commission does this, the Parliament can just keep proposing the amendments in any future file that is somewhat related to the topic. The Commission will not win this fight if the Parliament stays determined.
And I said that it depends on the Council, didn't I? If they let the Commission influence them or not, that's another question, but formally it's not the Commission having the power there.
Mmhm. Best we can do now is keep paying attention and once it comes to the Trilogues, as many EU Citizens as possible needs to contact their MEPs and national ministers in charge of consumer protection (since they will be the ones deciding how the amended law will go)
Well, that's exactly why I think the Commission will not even think about doing it. The political cost is just way to high for something that I suspect is not really that important for them.
Most likely, imo, the Parliament will propose the amendments, the Commission will push back, the Council will not really care but will bargain something they want from the Parliament for keeping part of them. And we will end up with some watered-down compromise as always - but not with nothing.
"The political cost is just way to high for something that I suspect is not really that important for them"
The political cost is zero to them. This is niche issue on what they are dealing with EU commission deals with foreigners to trade, energy issue, defense, and tons of other things. This is just random side quest.
What will happen is nothing. SKG won't get bolted on or water down and DFA will pass without it. Parliament isn't going to war with commission. You view the world through lens of gamer. This is very niche issue for ~450M people.
Also there is also 720 MEP, you are mistaking minority of MEP that support SKG against massive amount of MEP that exist in EU Parliament.
Lol, calling half a billion people's hobby a niche is funny. I remember seeing somewhere that videogame industry is bigger than movie and music industries combined.
In the EU, according to the industry group Video Games Europe (the one that lobbies against SKG so hard), over 50% of European population play videogames (75% of them being adults).
Also, millennials, the first generation that grew up on games to a significant degree, are now in our 30s-40s, and becoming economically and politically pretty important demographic. And a lot of the younger generations already vote. Only boomers see this as a niche issue.
We are talking about what goes through the Commission, and you brought up a focus word of 'niche' without reading the rest of the paragraph. The niche of games is small compared to the problem that is happening in the European Union. You are so focused on a single word that you ignore what the paragraph was about.
Secondly, you are trying to use the monolith fallacy. You have no opposing statistics about who actually cares about these laws versus who doesn't care about these types of laws. Automatically assuming that 225M gamers will care about SKG is a massive stretch compared to something like energy issues, or a recently more spicy topic that would derail the conversation.
Also, if there is a LOT of backing, they can sometimes force the EC to reconsider its position. Market could also potentially punish them If we get something on boxes like “WARNING: THIS GAME WILL SELF DESTRUCT IN 2028” these games will become a lot less popular incentivising games with offline patches or indies. I would bank more on them implementing SKG through the digital fairness act though. They’re already way ahead of us on all this. People really should join their discord, people are trashing SKG like we’ve lost when the fight really isn’t over, they’ve said so. They went into it knowing the EC would say no already.
The EU parliament cant amend legislation without commission approval, and they can only ask the EU commission to initiate a new legislation. This is just plainly not in the power of the parliament. If such a loophole existed they would be doing this all the time lol
259
u/Ok_Hedgehog_307 Jun 17 '26
The Commission says that, not the EU. Big difference. I understand that this has a lot of support in the European Parliament, which has its own ways to try to introduce something into EU legislation.