What does that even mean in this context? What you suggest is hugely different, its not just semantics. There are clear goals of SKG and I provided quotes too. The article you linked talks about a game that is not relevant to Stop Killing Games, because the game does already everything its asking for. That is not just semantics, its plain and simple wrong.
iamthetot@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
Is the semantics I was referring to.
The Stop Killing Games initiative has a goal that they are aiming for with legislation. If you watch Ross’ vlogs or any of the other European representatives speak on the topic, they make it pretty clear many times that they are aiming for what they consider to be the bare minimum, realistic goal. However, they very frequently discuss the topic in deeper ways and generally advocate for all the things I mentioned.
This game absolutely is relevant for Stop Killing Games. After 2027, it will be partially disabled, which the SKG initiative speaks about when making their case to legislators.
And on top of the legislation they are pursuing, the SKG initiative is also just a broader consumer advocacy initiative, and this article helps raise awareness for what they are doing and how their initiative could impact game development. Or more specifically—because SKG rightly points out that devs are often just as annoyed as consumers—game publishing.