“Buka” has prepared commentary on the law regulating the Russian gaming industry

Disclaimer: On January 28, the Association of Professionals of the Game Operating and Developing Industry (APRORI) held a discussion about the draft law. More than 30 representatives of the gaming industry participated. During the meeting, it was noted that comments on the draft law could be submitted until February 5, which lawmakers would see. As Tebuev noted, "Buka" was among those who expressed a willingness to draft comments.

Alexander Semenov, App2Top: Do I understand correctly that the proposed comments are the result of the industry participants' meeting with APRORI?

Alexander Tebuev, "Buka": Not exactly. The draft law was discussed during the meeting. The organizers stated that there is currently an opportunity to submit our comments to the legislators, but it needs to be done quickly before their next meeting, which was supposed to occur on February 5.

Comments were encouraged from all interested parties, emphasizing the importance of doing so to demonstrate that the industry cares, is alive, well-developed, and eager to participate actively in the discussion.

"Buka" volunteered to provide comments and amendments by the specified deadline, which we did.

In other words, the comments were written in connection to the meeting but do not reflect its outcome or the opinions of other participants. The opportunity to write comments was (and remains) available to all meeting participants.

In turn, we are grateful to APRORI and Alexander Mikheev personally for the opportunity to both discuss the draft law and deliver our comments directly to the lawmakers.

What do you see as the main objective of the feedback on the document proposed by officials?

Alexander: Our main objective is to ensure that the law adopted is beneficial rather than harmful to the domestic video game industry. We tried to identify and highlight the weaknesses in the draft law and the unaddressed factors that could negatively impact the industry. We hope this influences lawmakers to refine the draft in consideration of the industry’s opinions and interests.

Furthermore, we wanted to draw the industry’s participants' attention to the issue, motivating more developers and distributors, and possibly even users (gamers themselves), to study the draft law and voice their opinions.

"Buka" provided about 30 comments on the draft law. Can you highlight the key points?

Alexander: The comments are formulated as specific proposals for amendments to certain points, with notes on why we believe these amendments are correct. In summary, our comments request:

• not to stigmatize or demonize video games by equating them with alcohol and gambling. Video games are modern art, a sport, not a harmful habit;
• not to prohibit or complicate the work of foreign services with Russian users, developers, and distributors;
• to look to international experience when introducing new requirements.

If we elaborate, accepting the draft law in its current form will lead to major problems and could even damage the domestic video game industry.

As it stands, the draft law will not allow Russian users and developers to use foreign platforms, forcing them to use domestic ones, with mandatory authorization not on game servers but on governmental services or those same Russian platforms, which would deter most users.

Currently, some phrases in the draft law suggest a negatively biased stance towards video games, which, as we understand from the President’s Directives and general rhetoric, as well as the actions of authorities, is not the case. This means these aspects in the law also need to be changed to reflect the government’s actual positive attitude toward video games. For instance, the initial articles of the draft law are taken from the law on gambling and speak more about restrictions and control than support and assistance.

All this could lead to users leaving, reviving (or rather strengthening) the black market, which, though it exists, doesn’t significantly impact the industry thanks to our efforts and the work of foreign services (especially Steam and GOG).

We propose altering this to prevent such outcomes.

Assuming that a user, deprived by the draft law of their Steam library (i.e., their collection of games acquired over the years) and the option to legally purchase games they're interested in, will seamlessly shift to possibly less appealing titles on domestic services, is a big mistake.

Domestic developers, without the ability to sell their games on international platforms, will lose a significant portion of potential profits—they will either go bankrupt or relocate. This would be highly unfortunate, as our developers are gaining recognition in the global community, their games are valued, earning awards, and generating good profits.

Moreover, while large companies may attempt to recoup development costs through funds and grants, for small studios, this will be exceedingly challenging due to numerous legal and accounting complexities, and it may sometimes be very difficult to meet requirements for specific volumes of sales/downloads. Guaranteeing the popularity of a particular video game is difficult, almost impossible for a new game from young developers, especially in an unknown setting. Investing only in well-known titles, as has become popular in the West recently, means burying talents, which contradicts the state's declared policy.

Considering communication with other market participants, can it be said that the comments reflect the overall stance of the Russian gaming industry on the draft law?

Alexander: I would not like to speak on behalf of everyone, so I suggest discussing only the facts.

Our comments represent "Buka’s" position. As mentioned above, industry participants have the opportunity to propose their own amendments to the draft law.
In response to publishing the comments, we received a fair amount of supportive feedback and some criticism. We took this into account and sent our comments to be handed to lawmakers within the agreed meeting timelines.

Some of our colleagues have already engaged not only in the discussion but also in formulating amendments, for which we thank them greatly. And we hope that publishing our comments will motivate even more industry participants to express their ideas and opinions. As mentioned earlier, a goal of publishing the comments was to shed light on the draft law, draw attention from gaming industry participants, and encourage them to take this seriously and actively express their positions.

Should we expect all proposed changes to be adopted?

Alexander: No, such an expectation is unwarranted. Of course, we would be very happy, but also very surprised if this happened. Nevertheless, the main goal is to highlight shortcomings and possible negative consequences of adopting the draft law in its current form, as well as to demonstrate that the industry cares.

Thus, we hope that our comments will point to problems in the draft law and it will be refined considering these and other comments and amendments from industry participants.

Additionally, beyond the amendments, the comments also contain questions regarding support measures for the industry. We noted there that the best support is the absence of obstacles, suggesting the draft not be adopted or at least revised and deferred to better times. We understand that this is unlikely to happen, but we intended to show that the industry already faces problems, and it is managing them. If changes are to be made, they should simplify life for developers, users, distributors, and publishers, not complicate it.

For instance, the Federal Law of August 8, 2024, No. 330-FZ “On the Development of Creative (Artistic) Industries in the Russian Federation” is coming into effect, aimed at supporting creative activities, including game development. Additionally, there were recent announcements about confirming the use of a patent taxation system for computer clubs in Moscow. These are examples of good government support and development for the gaming industry.