Gimme a rundown of the points he discusses.
-Could be huge if it not's overturned on appeal
-The court ruling vindicates his previous video on GAAS = fraud
-Will end up being EU wide and then good luck keeping it locked down just to the EU
-It is unlikely it will be limited to Valve in the long run
-used digital games for 'non-subscription games' would be a thing
-publishers will hate it, as they have all forms of previously owned
-Big AAA games will adapt or at least survive - smaller titles and indies might not be able to
-he's not seeing it as a good thing because of the indie/smaller title issue
-there will be a swath of users who want to sell their games
-He's fine not being able to resell in exchange for benefits - money to devs, sales
-game flipping and middlemen will benefit most - not as valuable as physical special editions to them though anyway
-scarcity for digital games is artificial
-delisted games become most valuable in such a system
-developers eat the cost for people flipping/reselling
-The problem is not about gaining the right to own their games, but the ability to lose/remove the right to a game (ie people dont want to keep the game, they want the right to give it away/sell it)
-games industry waging war on ownership still - this case will help towards stopping publishers shutting down and games lost to history will be fewer and farther between - may also be good for right to repair/preservation/etc in the future, even if it's not the desired goal here.
-subscription games are left out of the loop on this (MMO type games - World of Warcraft), as are free to play
-incentivises subscription fees - but market/infrastructure not there to support over a certain amount of actual subscription services (see MMO wars)
-games where no subscription fee is part of the problem - selling games as goods, running them as services but providing responsibilities for neither is the problem
-being sold 'clients' or 'games bought as a good' that is shutdown (Anthem, destiny) - would be frowned upon as the good ceases to function without the servers/access themselves still being there
-selling games as actual services - giving games an actual end date would lower sales OR if a game bombs - publishers would have to provide the game service for the entire time frame promised even if it was financially unprofitable
-used games hit in pocketbook < paying for all games as actual service; in terms of which could view as worse
-loopholes in what 'games as a service' actually defined as might be the publisher reaction - free to play also a grey area
-he believes there should be something for after end of life support - allow patching/fan servers/etc
-Publishers fault for moving the industry to this and the court's verdict is the nth degree as a result of how shitty a business model it
-He wants 'everybody wins' result, believes publishers want to give gamers even less - believes it's unlikely his outcome will occur - at least not in full
-Valve is enabler of loss of ownership, not the source of the problem
-government not the problem here - working as intended in this case and not overreaching - consumer group brought the case, not government itself
-the consumer group may have gone too all in and not intended such a drastic outcome, sees it as a bad move on their part in away
-wants to contact this group, as they are successful at getting things changed/done and he wants to see if they can be helped with game preservation/etc
www.pcgamer.com
metacouncil.com
