TabbsTheBat@pawb.social
on 06 Jul 12:40
nextcollapse
Companies would still be cutting flour with chalk if they had their way. “It’s limiting blah blah blah” that’s the point you corpos, consumer rights are about the consumer not the bottom line
Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 12:42
nextcollapse
Not to mention that studios like Larian have proven that it’s entirely possible to make a blockbuster game without teams of 400 heads, changing direction and leadership every few years and laying off the people who made the product in the first place. They really seethed at that one, so many salty comments lol.
Larian has close to 500 employees across studios in seven different countries. They’re definitely the good guys (at least for now), but they are not an example of a small indie studio.
Totally agree but the person they’re responding to implied they were some scrappy indie production. Ex33 (there are caveats/asterisks here but still) is a much better example. I think at its peak the whole team was like 40 people with hired hands.
Not to mention that studios like Larian have proven that it's entirely possible to make a blockbuster game without teams of 400 heads, changing direction and leadership every few years and laying off the people who made the product in the first place. They really seethed at that one, so many salty comments lol.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Jul 01:15
collapse
Show me on the doll where that comment said Larian is an indie developer. Saying that they lack corporate interference does not equal claiming that they’re an indie team.
There’s this neat thing between indie devs and AAA corporate studios called AA. Big enough to fund larger projects than indie devs while being small enough to usually still be private companies that aren’t beholden to investors and therefore can take larger risks than the AAA devs are allowed, letting them make the games that they would want to play. CD Projekt RED and FromSoft both fit into this category as well, though all 3 companies are getting big enough to potentially start being considered AAA studios.
Jesus you white knights need to calm down and let them respond for themselves.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Jul 11:26
collapse
Totally agree but the person they’re responding to implied they were some scrappy indie production. Ex33 (there are caveats/asterisks here but still) is a much better example. I think at its peak the whole team was like 40 people with hired hands.
Jesus you white knights need to calm down and let them respond for themselves.
…that’s not white knighting. I said they gave a bad example and provided a better one. Are you sure you know what that term means?
Have a nice Monday dude.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 08 Jul 02:08
collapse
And I and the other guy just said that you misunderstood the original comment. You’re the one who doubled down after the first guy.
Me making a sarcastic comment because you doubled down on the first guy by just posting a quote of the original comment isn’t white knighting. It’s just a conversation. If that’s white knighting, then 95% of all internet communication is some form of white knighting. And I can think of much better words to describe the YouTube comments section (and I bet you can, too).
Anyways, hope your Monday wasn’t as hot, humid, and disappointing as mine and I think everybody in this thread can agree that Larian isn’t Ubisoft or Activision, the world is a better place because of that, and the “live service industry” can go suck a big one and keep shaking in their boots.
So did many of the other big AAA devs, then they changed. You’re not making any point at all. And don’t get me wrong, what Larian has done is amazing, and the response from the rest of the AAA game studios is both hilarious and depressing, but sadly not surprising. Most AAA studios got big by doing good, they wouldn’t have gotten that big otherwise. But then either new people came in an fucked them up or the ones already there got greedy and lost touch with reality, it’s the same with many other things.
They don’t really need to bring it back, it’s always been there, just in other countries
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
on 06 Jul 12:58
nextcollapse
So does not allowing food companies to sprinkle lead and uranium in food. What's the point?
A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:04
collapse
Yeah sometimes their choices are bad, that is like 1/3 of the whole point of government. To stop businesses from just doing whatever nonsense they want.
This is just pure fabricated bullshit. They themselves started limiting options. Remember the old days where you could host your own server with basically any game? They took that away, not us. So they themselves are 100% responsible for this ‘uprising’. Besides they could just provide/open-source the backend and disable drm. Hardly any work at all.
But of course it’s not about that. They just try to hide behind this ‘limits options’ argument. But they simply don’t want you to be able to play their old games. They want you to buy their latest CoD 42.
Let’s be real, open sourcing it isn’t “hardly any work”. All the code has to be reviewed to make sure they can legally release it, no third-party proprietary stuff.
Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:17
nextcollapse
Oh but with the new rules they could do that before making their code work that way. The idea is not for the new laws to apply retroactively but for new games.
I think your response is coming off as kinda “oh just do it different”. But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things. (And still spend time and money evaluating things at the end, just to be sure nothing slipped through.) I’m in favor of this at least being looked at and honest conversations happening, (which will not happen without this.) But there will certainly be an adjustment period where people on ground level learn and develop new “best practices”. And invariably someone will screw up. The companies are obviously only worried about money. They’ll get over it, is my opinion. But I think it’s worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it’s worth the pain/money. And that’s open sourcing or just creating a new mode for offline play in everything.
But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things.
Companies do that all the time in response to government regulation. You like seat belts and backup cameras in your car? No sawdust in your food? Transparent pricing when buying internet access? Government regulation. None of those companies went out of business.
But I think it’s worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it’s worth the pain/money.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:21
nextcollapse
When starting a new game, don’t include that stuff. Not including proprietary stuff without meeting the licensing requirements is already a step in the process.
“That stuff” is often core to the game. Any anti-cheat library, for example. On the client site, libraries like physx, bink video, and others are all proprietary and must be replaced and tested before it can be released in a working state. Few companies would release a non-functional game and let reviewers drag them through the mud for it.
Sconrad122@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:50
nextcollapse
So you’re telling me that this could disrupt the anti-cheat industry, which is currently responsible for a lot of the Windows platform lock in the gaming industry and is tied to a lot of potential security vulnerabilities because it goes to a much higher level of privilege than a reasonable user would expect a game to need? I already wish I was in the right geographic area to sign, you don’t need to sell me on it twice!
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games. No one wants to play a game against cheaters since they typically have an unfair advantage. If you can’t combat cheating then you might as well not make the game since no one will want to play it. Fine by me since I don’t care for such games but I could imagine people who like playing them might prefer to play against as few cheaters as possible. What are the alternatives?
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 15:42
nextcollapse
EvE Online doesn’t use root access anticheat software. I know it doesn’t because it runs on Linux just fine. That particular player base is the worst hive of scum and villainy that you’ll find outside of government. Clearly the anticheat software isn’t as essential as game studios would have you believe. The only major cheating I’m aware of in EvE was the BoB scandal, and that involved Devs cheating because they were Devs.
Can the EvE online method be applied to dissimilar games like e.g. fps games?
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 17:04
collapse
No clue, I just know that it exists and seems to work with the scammiest scammers that ever scammed
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 17:36
nextcollapse
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games
Client-side anti-cheat is useless. It’s not a necessary evil, it’s just evil. The minute the cheater/hacker has direct access to the system, you’ve already lost.
Much like every form of security measure, the intention is not to completely eliminate the possibility of an attack (which is impossible in most cases). Instead, the intention is to increase the amount of effort that’s required to make an attack.
What you’re referring to is deterrence, and it doesn’t apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn’t ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.
And the efficacy being so bad is the reason why client-side anti-cheat keeps getting more and more invasive to the point of being literally, by definition, a type of malware and system rootkit. And yet it’s still not enough to defeat cheaters, because the cheaters have full access to the system itself.
And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.
What you’re referring to is deterrence, and it doesn’t apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn’t ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.
Why are you comparing theft to game hacking out of nowhere? Did you accidentally reply to the wrong person?
And the efficacy being so bad…
Source?
full access to the system itself.
What do you mean by system in “full access to the system”? Too vague to even say anything about.
And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.
The potential guys that can write the cheat software and how quickly it can be developed is the part that matters. Much like when it’s easy to use an exploit once it’s already discovered. Someone still has to discover the exploit.
Why are you comparing theft to game hacking out of nowhere?
You made the comparison: “Much like every security system”
Source?
It’s out there, my dude. It’s a constant complaint in literally every competitive online game. If people are complaining about it, then it’s not working well enough. This isn’t an esoteric thought either. You ask anyone if cheating is a big issue in online gaming and anyone with knowledge about it will tell you it’s a constant problem that’s getting worse.
What do you mean by system in “full access to the system”?
If you own the hardware and have admin/root access to the OS. Then it’s yours and you have “full access” to everything. And I do mean everything. You can modify the OS. You can read the values of protected parts of memory. And so on.
If you don’t understand what I mean by “full access to the system” in the context of anti-cheat running on your own hardware, then there’s nothing I can say in a short comment to get you up to speed.
Someone still has to discover the exploit.
The cheat and anti-cheat battle is a constant cat and mouse game. The advantage is always with the cheaters because they outnumber the developers 100:1 at the least. Plus they have the will and determination to find ways around anti-cheats. In fact, building security against exploits is by far way harder than finding exploits.
The reality is that client-side anti-cheat is a losing battle.
Battlefield and cod have cheaters running rampant in their official servers despite using anti cheats. They could employ a team to monitor cheating reported by players. But clearly they just don’t want to expend resources to combat that.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:54
nextcollapse
None of those things will be affected because this isn’t about making games open source. It is about making games that have a design that allows them to potentially function indefinitely instead of allowing the companies to design them with planned obsolescence like tying single player games to server verification.
This is why code should be written to be library-agnostic. Or, rather, libraries should be written to a particular open source interface standard to make library agnosticism easier.
truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
on 06 Jul 13:47
collapse
There is a reason it’s included though. Stuff like fmod, bink video etc. does complicated things that you otherwise need to implement yourself.
When the law passes, the owners of proprietary functionality will adapt their licensing to meet the requirrments or go out of business when everyone stops using them.
truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
on 06 Jul 17:28
collapse
Look I get it. The planet is dying, income inequality, it seems everything is unfair and going to shit. People yearn at an opportunity to help make things better. But yelling for simple solutions is the opposite of helpful. Because there are no simple solutions.
Saying to “just open source it” does not make sense.
What do you do about:
proprietary codecs
proprietary software that just does not exist as open source
the fact you need a copy of the game engine to actually build the game from sources
assets that have been bought on asset stores. Do the people who make those for a living not have a right to continue to make a living?
Making single player games without always online DRM: yes totally doable
Running game servers of online games forever: not really doable, as soon as all the libraries etc. they depend on are unsupported they will shut down one way or another. You need staff basically forever. Not even mentioning the maintenance headache that every legacy system always turns into.
Letting people run their own dedicated servers: sometimes doable, depends on the game though. Some games do not have “a server” but a whole infrastructure of stuff, look at foxhole. Some “servers” are a house of cards barely held together by duct tape.
This initiative all comes down to the definition of “reasonable”. What is reasonable, actually? Running an infrastructure at a loss until bankruptcy? Or just keeping it online until it starts making a loss.
Their licensing will change so that it doesn’t restrict keeping the game alive after servers go down or their license can’t be used to kill an otherwise functional game. That’s it.
Games will be designed to include the ability to do private servers after the company servers go down. It will be a cost of development just like anything else they are required to do. If they don’t want to include that, then they can choose not to make an online game.
That’s why i also said provide, not just open source. They can release a binary.
SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 15:36
nextcollapse
Maybe they should have made sure their code was fully legal to use before releasing the game initially
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 06 Jul 16:11
collapse
What? There’s a big difference between “legal to sell as a compiled binary” and “legal to release as source”.
SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 16:15
collapse
Just saying, if my highschool programming classes are any indicator, there’s a ton of released binaries out there that use copywritten and otherwise plaigarized code
It will be hardly any work once a law passes, because they’ll make sure it is. Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Besides, no one is saying they have to open source it. To be honest, the outcome from this petition that I would most like to see is simply a blanket indemnity to the community attempting to revive, continue and improve the software from that point forward. If the law says that it’s legal once a software is shut down, for the community to figure out a way to make it work again and make it their own, and puts no further responsibilities on the “rights holder” at all, I think that honestly solves the problem in 99% of cases. It would be nice if they gave the community a hand, released what they could, and tried not to be shit about it, (and I know some of them will be shit about it, but we’re pretty resourceful), as long as they’re not trying to sue every attempt into oblivion I think we’ll make a lot of progress on game preservation and make the gaming world a much better place.
Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Heh. You are still overestimating the average developer. Random code gets copy-pasted into files without attribution all the time. One guy might know, but if he gets moved to a different team, the new guy has no idea. That can be a ticking legal time-bomb.
Again, if you know going in that is an absolute requirement, processes can be put in place to ensure things like that doesn’t happen. (at least not as often) vs what you’re thinking of trying to do it after the game is already shipped.
honestly with online only games i’d be “okay” (not that it’d be great but okay) with them just releasing a bunch of internal docs around the spec. you’re right that open sourcing commercial code is actually non-trivial (though perhaps if they went in knowing this would have to be the outcome then maybe they’d plan better for it), but giving the community the resources to recreate the experience i think is a valid direction
Cool, so after they are legally required to then they will start creating the documentation.
The point is making them change how they do things when how they do it is shitty for consumers.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
on 07 Jul 04:36
collapse
It’s just one possible solution. They can just release a proprietary server application instead.
roguetrick@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:21
nextcollapse
I’m speaking from ignorance but isn’t the server backend often licensed and they couldn’t release it if they wanted, even as binaries? Granted, going forward they’d have to make those considerations before they accept restrictive licenses in core parts of their game. And the market for those licenses will change accordingly. So there core of your argument is correct.
Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
on 06 Jul 13:45
nextcollapse
lots of licensed or bought code in development in general, but knowing that you’ll have to provide code to the public eventually, means that you’ll have to take this into consideration when starting a project.
Which is doable, but is additional time and money.
Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
on 06 Jul 13:58
nextcollapse
codifying in law that your customers must be able to run a server for your game, when you stop running them has the consequence, that you’ll have to buy licenses that allow you to give binaries or code for those things to your customers. every middleware or library that does not allow that won’t be a viable product anymore. It’s not more dev work, it will change how licensing in game development for middleware and such will be done.
It doesn’t, that’s why companies rarely open-source their code. If you want to publish it you have to make sure you have all the rights to do so, you have to code in a way that’s readable for outside users, you have to make sure people can reproduce your build process, and ideally you provide support.
On the other hand, if you’re not developing the source for publication, you can leave undocumented dirty hacks, only have to make sure it builds on your machine, and include third-party proprietary code wherever you want. That’s faster and cheaper, so naturally companies will prefer it.
There’s no requirement that the open source code released after EoL has to be pretty or maintained, just functional to meet legal requirements. Using other 3rd party code would be a hurdle to get over I suppose. It would definitely take a different approach to design, but after the initial shock of changing, it wouldn’t be more difficult to do long term.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 06 Jul 16:13
collapse
Because you can buy other people’s code for cheaper than developing it yourself, as long as you use it within the restrictions of the license you paid for.
Maybe so, but that’s a decision they make. Surely I as customer shouldn’t be taken away what i paid for because of that? And if so they should have mentioned clearly upon sale that they would take away my product after 3-4 years (though maybe that’s the case in those dense ToS?) . Everything else should be considered illegal and fraudulent if they planned/knew it from the start. Which is the case if it’s a licensing issue
Besides, I’m pretty sure after those 4 years the code is outdated and they could renegotiate the license to be more open to release a binary.
I remember the “old days”. That was when dialup internet was still popular and running a server usually meant it was on your 10Mb LAN. When we got DSL it was better and you could serve outside your LAN. This was also the time when games had dark red code booklets, required having a physical CD inserted or weirdly formatted floppies (sometimes a combination of these). You could get around these things and many groups of people worked hard at providing these workarounds. Today, many of these games are only playable and only still exist because of the thankless work these groups did. As it was and as it is has not changed. Many groups of people are still keeping games playable despite the “war” that corporations wage on them (and by proxy on us). Ironically, now that there is such a thing as “classic games” and people are nostalgic for what brought them joy in the past, business has leapt at this as a marketing opportunity. What makes that ironic? These business are re-selling the versions of games with the circumvention patches that the community made to make their games playable so long ago. The patches that publishers had such a big problem with and sought to eradicate. This is because the original code no longer exists and the un-patched games will not run at all on modern hardware and the copy-protections will not tolerate a virtual machine. Nothing has changed.
We can even go back as far as when people first started making books or maps that had deliberate errors so that they could track when their work was redistributed. Do the people referencing these books or maps benefit from these errors?
Why do some of us feel compelled to limit knowledge even at the cost of corrupting that knowledge for those we intend it for (and for those long after who wish to learn from historical knowledge)?
maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:08
nextcollapse
“Developers” are the ones who are passionate about the games they make, and definitely don’t want their games dead.
“Corporations” are the ones who only want to profit from selling the game, and then ditch it once it’s no longer lucrative enough.
DaddleDew@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:11
nextcollapse
Corporate jargon translation:
“It’s going to limit innovation” = “We won’t be able to use those new ways of ripping off our customers anymore”
They were probably thinking that by openly opposing it before it collected enough signatures, they would have given it more publicity and hence made more people sign it.
youngalfred@lemmy.zip
on 06 Jul 13:24
nextcollapse
Choice to do what?
These are their two points:
Private servers are not always a viable alternative 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 leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
I feel like the first is fair enough at the moment, but with accompanying laws it could be resolved. Eg once a developer enacts an end of life plan, their legal culpability is removed. Plus give the right tools for moderation and the community can take care of it.
Second is just a cop out I think. “Many titles are designed from the ground up to be online only” - that’s the whole point. It’s not retroactive, so you don’t need to redesign an existing game. But going forward you would need to plan for the eventual end of life. Developers have chimed in that it can be done.
once a developer enacts an end of life plan, their legal culpability is removed
What legal culpability? If you are not hosting anything then you wont be liable for anything. It is not like if you create a painting and someone defaces it with something that you become liable for that… That would be insane.
rustyfish@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 13:26
nextcollapse
Even if this would be true (which it isn’t, it’s made up bullshit): I do not give a crap.
No, I do not care about the publisher.
No, I do not care about the studio.
No, I do not care about the developer anymore too.
I do not give a single fuck about any of them anymore. I want to own the game I buy. I don’t want anyone being able to pull the plug. I also want to own the hardware or console I buy. I am ready to watch their existence to crumble as long as I get what I want.
These people lied and conned this hobby of mine into monetised shite. I hope a lot of them somehow crash and burn. Would laugh and dance when they croak. I can play Factorio and Terraria until the heat death of the universe. Your new Assassins Blood Pack: Revenge of the Fortnite 2 Deluxe Bundle MMO-Life Service Definitive Expansion Season Pass DLC Dark of the Moon Surprise Mechanic won’t be missed anyway.
One of my friend is a game developer in a big studio, he basically breathes game mechanics. He develops new mechanics in his spare time, repurposing board game elements he owns. He would do that even if it wasn’t his job. He’s awesome
I do care about developers.
leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
on 06 Jul 13:34
nextcollapse
Of course it’s limiting your options!
Screwing up the customer should not be an option you’re allowed to take!
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
on 06 Jul 13:35
nextcollapse
You are being stopped from stopping people playing their games.
That’s a double negative bruh, as in, it reduces overrall limitations in the world for what people are allowed to do.
First of all, the devs don’t have any choice, the Pencil-pushers do
MyDarkestTimeline01@ani.social
on 06 Jul 14:18
nextcollapse
The only choice it really limits from the publisher is the choice to decide to stop supporting a game out of nowhere. This new plan would just make it so you have to eventually plan to sunset the game from its “live” elements.
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
on 06 Jul 14:46
collapse
It also means there will never be another F2P game. They have to make their money upfront from every user. They can't just turn it off when the profit slows and/or stops.
Genshin Impact is a F2P game that makes stupid amounts of money. If it stopped making money, they could very well just stop developing for it and let it be as it is.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 14:55
nextcollapse
We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.
Private servers are not always a viable alternative 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 leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
…
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:
provide alternatives to any online-only content
make the game P2P if it requires multiplayer (no server needed, each client is a server)
gracefully degrading the client experience when there’s no server
Of course, releasing server code is an option.
The expectation is:
if it’s a subscription game, I get access for whatever period I pay for
if it’s F2P, go nuts and break it whenever you want; there is the issue of I shame purchases, so that depends on how it’s advertised
if it’s a purchased game, it should still work after support ends
That didn’t restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they’re expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they’re done).
I argue Stop Killing Games doesn’t go far enough, and if it’s pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.
If server code is released such that people can run private servers after the official servers are shut down, then legally the people running the servers should be the ones liable for illegal activity that happens on them.
I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them. Maybe a subscription service that provides access to servers for several different online service games.
Of course, it would be more likely that it would be just a player who hosts a server for themselves and their friends and doesn’t attempt to be profitable. That would be fine too.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 16:23
collapse
I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them
That kind of already exists, you can buy hosting for Minecraft and other games. AFAIK, moderation isn’t a part of it, but many private groups exist that run public servers and manage their own moderation. It exists already, and that should absolutely be brought up as a bill is being considered.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 16:55
nextcollapse
We have had that exact model for decades. Hosting companies use to and probably still offer rack space for arena shooters. The main company managed the master server, which was just a listing of IP addresses, but there were only ever a few official game servers with defaults loaded.
Minecraft has private servers (at least on Minecraft java) as well as their own server platform “Realms”, also every client is also a server. Though the authentication system is a Microsoft account so that’s likely to still be online well into the future
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jul 06:28
collapse
Yup, I run a Minecraft server at home, and it’s great. I’d love for more games to do the same.
Only applicable if they run the servers themselves, not if they let others run their own servers.
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 16:15
nextcollapse
I understood that from a IP and trademark stand point. It could be hard to retain your copyright or trademark if you are no longer controlling a product
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 16:20
nextcollapse
They retain copyright based on existing law, and trademark is irrelevant since it’s defended in courts, not EULAs.
No, copyright isn’t relinquished from any of that (not even any effect on damages if you still require players to have bought the game to use the private servers), and trademarks wouldn’t be affected at all if you simply require that 3rd party servers are marked as unofficial
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 16:25
collapse
Exactly, and that also includes online games like Minecraft. Nobody is going to sue Microsoft because of what someone said or did in a private Minecraft server, though they might if it’s a Microsoft hosted one.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 15:55
nextcollapse
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers
I don’t think this is what they mean. They say that of they provide the tools for users to deploy the servers, bad things can happen. So I think they understood SKG, they just lie about the consequences for gamers
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 16:19
collapse
If that’s their argument, then the counterargument is simple: preserve the game another way. If hosting servers is dangerous, put the server code into the client and allow multiplayer w/ P2P tech, as had been done since the 90s (e.g. StarCraft).
What they seem to be doing is reframing the problem as requiring users to host servers, and arguing the various legal issues related to that. SKG just needs to clarify that there are multiple options here, and since devs know about the law at the start (SKG isn’t retroactive), studios can plan ahead.
It’s just a disingenuous argument trying to reframe the problem into cyber security and IP contexts, while neither has been an issue for other games in the past.
Yeah, I agree. We have been hosting servers at friend houses with consumer (mostly our own gaming PCs) forever.
The risk involved exists, but it’s far from the threat they make it be.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 17:04
nextcollapse
Another part of it is that if they discontinue support, they can’t stop the community from creating their own server software.
There are so many ways to approach this. The point is ensuring consumers retain the right to keep using what they purchased, even if they have to support it themselves.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 17:08
collapse
Sort of. They need to have the tools as well. So I suppose they could release the APIs for their servers before shutting down their servers so community servers can be created, that would probably be sufficient. But they need to do something beyond just saying, “we won’t sue you if you reverse engineer it.”
Yeah… The abstract (sorry, will read article a bit later) is bunch of nonsense to me (in respect to what is written, no offense to you):
online experience commercially viable? The fuck they are talking about? Yeah, I know what is meant, but they would get fucking F in school for expressing thoughts in such a nonsensical way
protections against illegal content would not exist on private servers? Really? Like only your company’s servers can run that? What, you write them in machine code directly? Or is it all done manually? Anyhow, just release source code and it will be up to community to find a way to make it run
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jul 06:38
collapse
I basically quoted the whole thing, the last bit wasn’t really relevant. And yeah, it’s pretty much just BS.
chrislowles@lemmy.zip
on 06 Jul 15:14
nextcollapse
We saw the depths a nepo baby from Blizzard would go to for this initiative to fail, can’t imagine what could happen with a body comprised of people from the biggest worms in the industry (Epic, EA, Activision, Microsoft, Ubi et al.)
“curtail developer choice” is such a weak argument because you could equally apply it to literally every piece of regulation ever passed. Of course it curtails choice, that’s almost the dictionary definition of an industry regulation.
bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 15:35
nextcollapse
Lol. We’re gamers. We know that if we encounter enemies we’re going in the right direction.
That’s easy have some self control and only buy games that respect you
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 17:02
nextcollapse
True. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attack predatory behavior when we see it. If they want to sell me something, I need to own it, and that means I get to use it after they’ve stopped supporting it.
When I pay to see a film in a theater, I don’t own the film. I don’t get to watch the film again after it leaves the theater.
While I pay to see a concert, a play, or a musical, I don’t own those performances. I don’t get to see them again. They generally aren’t recorded (Although that is changing in some limited cases.)
I do think a game dying is terrible and I do think games should be clearly labeled (so people can make an education decision if they want to rent the game).
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
on 06 Jul 18:00
nextcollapse
This isn’t paying to see a concert, play, or musical. This is buying a book for amazon’s e-reader, and them not allowing you to read the book anymore when they put out the book’s sequel.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 18:06
nextcollapse
Or buying a physical book where they printed it with ink that fades after 2 years so it is no longer readable.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 20:27
collapse
Fun fact a company did this with DVDs back in the day, once you broke the seal on it the air would react with a coating on the disk which would become increasingly dark until it became unreadable.
But you are not buying a game, you are renting it.
I absolutely agree that companies shouldn’t be able to say they’re selling you a game. They should make it 100% clear that you are renting it.
I’m also onboard with requiring p2p/LAN functionality for multiplayer.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 18:30
collapse
Sure, you’re paying for a performance when you watch a film or play at a theater. If I pay to watch a video game tournament, I’m likewise paying for a performance, not the game.
When you buy a film (DVD, Bluray, or Digital Copy) or a recording of a play performance, you own that copy and can watch it as often as you want for as many years into the future as you want. What we’re saying is that video games should work the same way, if I buy a game, I should be able to play it whenever I want at any point in the future. That’s it, it’s the same thing as with a film.
I don’t know how you could do that without staying exclusively on open source
I’m old enough that the games I’m nostalgic for are on floppy discs on my shelf, but now the games I play are downloaded and rely on whatever company keeping a server up to authenticate me
Who knows what Microsoft will do with Minecraft in 30 years
Who knows what Steam will do with the licences it’s sold me
Most likely, if they are forced to allow public servers after they shut down the official ones, they will pull some other bullshit. Like claim the game is still available, but the 300$ cosmetics you bought are not allowed on public servers because they are separate from the game.
Goodeye8@piefed.social
on 06 Jul 18:26
nextcollapse
Honestly I'd even prefer that because it diminishes the value of in game purchases and would be a step towards getting rid of them as well.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 18:33
collapse
They should be compelled to either make those cosmetics available for everyone or have some technical means to prove ownership (e.g. blockchain or cryptographically signed file). You can’t lose stuff you bought just because the publisher shut down the servers.
You can’t lose stuff you bought just because the publisher shut down the servers.
I mean that’s exactly how it works right now. And depending on the exact wording of any laws passed as a result of this petition only the game itself or some or all micro transactions will have to be made available after official support ends.
Public servers will either sell micro transactions themselves to finance servers or make all in game content available to everyone for free. I can see publishers having a problem with that.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jul 06:43
collapse
that’s exactly how it works right now
Right, I’m explaining how Stop Killing Games would change things if adopted.
Public servers will either sell micro transactions themselves
That can certainly be restricted, since they’re profiting off someone else’s IP. Selling hosting is one thing, reselling assets in the game is another thing entirely and AFAIK would be a violation of copyright’s fair use provisions.
If they’re no longer profiting from a game, surely releasing access to gated content isn’t an issue any more? It’s not like they are losing anything. So I think unlocking cosmetics for everyone would be fine, but it’s up to them. If they want to preserve the restriction, they can find a way that doesn’t reauire ongoing costs, such as the ones I mentioned.
they say “developer choice” because they know those words have positive connotations but what they mean is “publisher greed”
restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jul 16:40
nextcollapse
So, a shitton of game developers just got laid off from Microsoft, another in a string of “restructuring” nonsense that’s been rampant in the industry.
That’s a lot of people with gaming expertise who could be put to work helping companies transition their games to single player experiences or at least making them accessible to customers after support stops. If the EU ends up pushing this forward, there’s a decent business opportunity in there.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 16:46
nextcollapse
Honestly I don’t see it as the developers losing anything. They still make the same products, they still sell the same products, and when they’re done with those products forever they have to give hosting capability up to the public.
What are they afraid of? That we won’t play their new games if they can’t shut the old games down?
Giant corporations have proven no amount of profit is too much. There needs to be some guardrails. And some form of preservation of the games your loyal customers have enriched your company to access.
Because most devs are just codemonkeys implementing what they’re told to. This is pure manipulative propaganda from the suits who are already robbing wages from good devs.
Oh no?! It developer’s choices vs purchaser’s options. Who will win, it’s a mystery only time can solve. Just kidding, we all know who the courts will side with, as it is never “the people”.
This initiative sure would make things more complicated for the game publishers, yes.
Because they’re currently not doing the bare minimum.
If they weren’t so accustomed to not doing the bare minimum, maybe they would have different opinions! Just saying.
Edit: Just signed the petition. Didn’t think this was necessary before because, as soon as I heard of it, Finland was already top of the list percentage wise. But I did sign it, just for the hell yeah of it.
Invalid votes will be removed when it’s time for the final tally, so the initiative needs a solid buffer to still he over a million after.
There’s been a talk of some people using bots to inflate the numbers in a misguided attempt to help the initiative, so every vote is still very welcome.
Also, I kinda want to see just how high Finland can go above the threshold.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the game industry isn’t also using bots to inflate the numbers to make people procrastinating not feel the need to contribute and make the petition look less valid.
Because I think the real problem here is that people actually are buying=buying and that’s why they keep doing it.
Shanmugha@lemmy.world
on 06 Jul 22:09
nextcollapse
Developer choice, ha-ha, very funny. I am not familiar with the industry and still feel safe to bet most of them (edit: actual software developers making games) just want to get enough money for doing what they can do without too much stress/disgust and also most of them don’t have a desire to see their work die just because some manager decided it is time to make some other games instead
I bet they’re really pissed off with ubisoft right now. They basically started this whole movement by being so egregious with The Crew. Less than a month before they shut the servers down the game was still on sale for the full price that it had launched with.
Granted it was shut down because it was the most mediocre game ever made but that still isn’t an excuse.
Tbh when I read of it, being an open world driving game where you can just drive around a very large area, I kind of wanted it. Not as a game, but simply for driving around. MarioKart is too happy for that. I just want to get lost in thoughts while driving.
RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
on 07 Jul 04:39
nextcollapse
Gran Turismo has similar stuff and is just better as a driving sim game.
baatliwala@lemmy.world
on 07 Jul 06:55
nextcollapse
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz
on 07 Jul 05:34
nextcollapse
Copyright was invented so artists would be able to sell their art, and more art would be made.
When copyright is protected on a product that’s no longer sold, less art is made.
When a copyright holder stops selling their art, copyright protections should immediately cease, and they should be responsible for copyright obligations - releasing the source code to the public. Use it or lose it!
Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
on 07 Jul 06:11
nextcollapse
This is the most level headed approach to IP I’ve seen. If you’re not willing to use the property you forfeit it. It’s a common contact for licensing rights for movies that forces a studio to make a movie or lose rights. That way people can’t squat on a licence to prevent others using it.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz
on 07 Jul 07:46
nextcollapse
Sony has to make a Spiderman movie every few years even though DVDs of the old ones are still being sold, but Ubisoft can just delete games forever and they can never be played again.
MunkyNutts@lemmy.world
on 07 Jul 14:43
nextcollapse
A good book on this is: Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity by Lawrence Lessig
Pretty sure it was so publishers (printing press owners) could have a guaranteed profit. Those two things (publisher and artist profits) were correlated at the time. Not so much anymore. Streaming/subscription mentality is like planned obsolescence for IP.
Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
on 07 Jul 09:08
nextcollapse
Anti-murder laws are cuttailing my choice! What if I someday would like to make a choice to murder someone?
lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world
on 07 Jul 14:31
collapse
Yes!
When I read that, I immediately thought “curtailing developer choice is exactly the point.”
It needs way more people, because I guess a lot of people from all over the world used VPNs to sign the petition and will get nullified.
So if you planned to do it, don’t, you will hurt your goals more than you’re doing an good.
TwinTitans@lemmy.world
on 07 Jul 15:32
nextcollapse
Well when the choice is anti consumer, too fucking bad.
TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
on 08 Jul 02:27
nextcollapse
I think people are overestimating what this petition is going to do. It will likely just end up in a response from the EU listing pros and cons but effectively saying “can’t really do anything about it, sorry!”. It’s still good, even MMOs have server software gaming companies could release if legislation forced them instead of causing fandoms to die. Games are culture. They may also be entertainment, but that’s culture as well. But I wouldn’t hold out hope.
I think forcing MMOs to release software is a bit much.
Opted for large scaled systems. It’s more than just simple software. There is a ton of infrastructure and proprietary solutioning that goes into it. That’s likely used for other games as well.
It may not even be possible to release the software because it is not just software and the resources to prepare it for releasing may not be available.
However, if a game company shut down their servers, they should not be allowed to prevent other people from try to reverse engineer and make their own servers.
Single player and local games 100% though should not be allowed to be killed.
TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
on 09 Jul 07:40
collapse
Opted for large scaled systems. It’s more than just simple software. There is a ton of infrastructure and proprietary solutioning that goes into it. That’s likely used for other games as well.
Doesn’t mean it can’t be released, just that it might be difficult to reproduce. It would still be much, much easier to reverse engineer that than to reverse engineer everything from the client and network communication captures.
It may not even be possible to release the software because it is not just software and the resources to prepare it for releasing may not be available.
In other words, so you don’t know, and vague assumptions on a closed box because closed boxes allow you to make them.
Most MMOs usually have multiple instances running, each which need to be maintained separately. That means they have usually gone through the process of encapsulating the server functionality in a way that can be reproduced and recreated into new instances. They have to be maintained at the same time, so they need to be relatively standard. At one point those supposedly absent resources to duplicate the instance of a server have likely existed, and just need to be packaged for public release. Proprietary portions can simply be excluded - an incomplete release is preferable to an absent one. Can’t release databases, they can release schemas, etc. Incomplete > absent.
You largely seem to be giving MMO companies the excuse that if their server solution could theoretically be proprietary and convoluted enough, even if it really isn’t, that they not be subject to the Stop Killing Games initiative. MMOs, unlike single player games, have a far more notable sociable and persistence factor to them, a bigger cultural footprint within those communities, that makes the Stop Killing Games Initiative particularly applicable to them. There’s one simply way not to be subject to its demands - don’t kill the games.
threaded - newest
Companies would still be cutting flour with chalk if they had their way. “It’s limiting blah blah blah” that’s the point you corpos, consumer rights are about the consumer not the bottom line
Not to mention that studios like Larian have proven that it’s entirely possible to make a blockbuster game without teams of 400 heads, changing direction and leadership every few years and laying off the people who made the product in the first place. They really seethed at that one, so many salty comments lol.
Larian has close to 500 employees across studios in seven different countries. They’re definitely the good guys (at least for now), but they are not an example of a small indie studio.
BG3 being DRM-free and playable indefinitely also demonstrates that you can have plenty of success and not break your own product to do so.
Totally agree but the person they’re responding to implied they were some scrappy indie production. Ex33 (there are caveats/asterisks here but still) is a much better example. I think at its peak the whole team was like 40 people with hired hands.
They did not, they said you can be successful without corpo overhead and bullshittery.
Show me on the doll where that comment said Larian is an indie developer. Saying that they lack corporate interference does not equal claiming that they’re an indie team.
There’s this neat thing between indie devs and AAA corporate studios called AA. Big enough to fund larger projects than indie devs while being small enough to usually still be private companies that aren’t beholden to investors and therefore can take larger risks than the AAA devs are allowed, letting them make the games that they would want to play. CD Projekt RED and FromSoft both fit into this category as well, though all 3 companies are getting big enough to potentially start being considered AAA studios.
Jesus you white knights need to calm down and let them respond for themselves.
Jesus you white knights need to calm down and let them respond for themselves.
…that’s not white knighting. I said they gave a bad example and provided a better one. Are you sure you know what that term means?
Have a nice Monday dude.
And I and the other guy just said that you misunderstood the original comment. You’re the one who doubled down after the first guy.
Me making a sarcastic comment because you doubled down on the first guy by just posting a quote of the original comment isn’t white knighting. It’s just a conversation. If that’s white knighting, then 95% of all internet communication is some form of white knighting. And I can think of much better words to describe the YouTube comments section (and I bet you can, too).
Anyways, hope your Monday wasn’t as hot, humid, and disappointing as mine and I think everybody in this thread can agree that Larian isn’t Ubisoft or Activision, the world is a better place because of that, and the “live service industry” can go suck a big one and keep shaking in their boots.
👍
Larian has six studios and over four hundreds of employees. They are not as big as Ubisoft of course, but they are still very much an AAA game studio.
But they got that big by doing what the previous poster said
So did many of the other big AAA devs, then they changed. You’re not making any point at all. And don’t get me wrong, what Larian has done is amazing, and the response from the rest of the AAA game studios is both hilarious and depressing, but sadly not surprising. Most AAA studios got big by doing good, they wouldn’t have gotten that big otherwise. But then either new people came in an fucked them up or the ones already there got greedy and lost touch with reality, it’s the same with many other things.
History taught us that corpos would literally burn the world for a few more bucks. And by history, I mean right now.
Businesses would bring back slavery if we let them.
They don’t really need to bring it back, it’s always been there, just in other countries
So does not allowing food companies to sprinkle lead and uranium in food. What's the point?
Yeah sometimes their choices are bad, that is like 1/3 of the whole point of government. To stop businesses from just doing whatever nonsense they want.
Imo, that should be the primary role of the government
I think providing human rights to it’s citizens is definitely more important, not sure if it is necessarily the primary one though.
This is just pure fabricated bullshit. They themselves started limiting options. Remember the old days where you could host your own server with basically any game? They took that away, not us. So they themselves are 100% responsible for this ‘uprising’. Besides they could just provide/open-source the backend and disable drm. Hardly any work at all.
But of course it’s not about that. They just try to hide behind this ‘limits options’ argument. But they simply don’t want you to be able to play their old games. They want you to buy their latest CoD 42.
Let’s be real, open sourcing it isn’t “hardly any work”. All the code has to be reviewed to make sure they can legally release it, no third-party proprietary stuff.
Oh but with the new rules they could do that before making their code work that way. The idea is not for the new laws to apply retroactively but for new games.
I think your response is coming off as kinda “oh just do it different”. But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things. (And still spend time and money evaluating things at the end, just to be sure nothing slipped through.) I’m in favor of this at least being looked at and honest conversations happening, (which will not happen without this.) But there will certainly be an adjustment period where people on ground level learn and develop new “best practices”. And invariably someone will screw up. The companies are obviously only worried about money. They’ll get over it, is my opinion. But I think it’s worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it’s worth the pain/money. And that’s open sourcing or just creating a new mode for offline play in everything.
Companies do that all the time in response to government regulation. You like seat belts and backup cameras in your car? No sawdust in your food? Transparent pricing when buying internet access? Government regulation. None of those companies went out of business.
This is exactly why I said:
When starting a new game, don’t include that stuff. Not including proprietary stuff without meeting the licensing requirements is already a step in the process.
“That stuff” is often core to the game. Any anti-cheat library, for example. On the client site, libraries like physx, bink video, and others are all proprietary and must be replaced and tested before it can be released in a working state. Few companies would release a non-functional game and let reviewers drag them through the mud for it.
So you’re telling me that this could disrupt the anti-cheat industry, which is currently responsible for a lot of the Windows platform lock in the gaming industry and is tied to a lot of potential security vulnerabilities because it goes to a much higher level of privilege than a reasonable user would expect a game to need? I already wish I was in the right geographic area to sign, you don’t need to sell me on it twice!
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games. No one wants to play a game against cheaters since they typically have an unfair advantage. If you can’t combat cheating then you might as well not make the game since no one will want to play it. Fine by me since I don’t care for such games but I could imagine people who like playing them might prefer to play against as few cheaters as possible. What are the alternatives?
EvE Online doesn’t use root access anticheat software. I know it doesn’t because it runs on Linux just fine. That particular player base is the worst hive of scum and villainy that you’ll find outside of government. Clearly the anticheat software isn’t as essential as game studios would have you believe. The only major cheating I’m aware of in EvE was the BoB scandal, and that involved Devs cheating because they were Devs.
Can the EvE online method be applied to dissimilar games like e.g. fps games?
No clue, I just know that it exists and seems to work with the scammiest scammers that ever scammed
Client-side anti-cheat is useless. It’s not a necessary evil, it’s just evil. The minute the cheater/hacker has direct access to the system, you’ve already lost.
Much like every form of security measure, the intention is not to completely eliminate the possibility of an attack (which is impossible in most cases). Instead, the intention is to increase the amount of effort that’s required to make an attack.
What you’re referring to is deterrence, and it doesn’t apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn’t ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.
And the efficacy being so bad is the reason why client-side anti-cheat keeps getting more and more invasive to the point of being literally, by definition, a type of malware and system rootkit. And yet it’s still not enough to defeat cheaters, because the cheaters have full access to the system itself.
And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.
Why are you comparing theft to game hacking out of nowhere? Did you accidentally reply to the wrong person?
Source?
What do you mean by system in “full access to the system”? Too vague to even say anything about.
The potential guys that can write the cheat software and how quickly it can be developed is the part that matters. Much like when it’s easy to use an exploit once it’s already discovered. Someone still has to discover the exploit.
You made the comparison: “Much like every security system”
It’s out there, my dude. It’s a constant complaint in literally every competitive online game. If people are complaining about it, then it’s not working well enough. This isn’t an esoteric thought either. You ask anyone if cheating is a big issue in online gaming and anyone with knowledge about it will tell you it’s a constant problem that’s getting worse.
If you own the hardware and have admin/root access to the OS. Then it’s yours and you have “full access” to everything. And I do mean everything. You can modify the OS. You can read the values of protected parts of memory. And so on.
If you don’t understand what I mean by “full access to the system” in the context of anti-cheat running on your own hardware, then there’s nothing I can say in a short comment to get you up to speed.
The cheat and anti-cheat battle is a constant cat and mouse game. The advantage is always with the cheaters because they outnumber the developers 100:1 at the least. Plus they have the will and determination to find ways around anti-cheats. In fact, building security against exploits is by far way harder than finding exploits.
The reality is that client-side anti-cheat is a losing battle.
So just don’t let them join/kick them from your server?
Before you can do that, you need to determine whether someone is cheating. This is the purpose of anti-cheat software.
Do you have spies behind you when playing cards too?
Battlefield and cod have cheaters running rampant in their official servers despite using anti cheats. They could employ a team to monitor cheating reported by players. But clearly they just don’t want to expend resources to combat that.
None of those things will be affected because this isn’t about making games open source. It is about making games that have a design that allows them to potentially function indefinitely instead of allowing the companies to design them with planned obsolescence like tying single player games to server verification.
This is why code should be written to be library-agnostic. Or, rather, libraries should be written to a particular open source interface standard to make library agnosticism easier.
There is a reason it’s included though. Stuff like fmod, bink video etc. does complicated things that you otherwise need to implement yourself.
When the law passes, the owners of proprietary functionality will adapt their licensing to meet the requirrments or go out of business when everyone stops using them.
Look I get it. The planet is dying, income inequality, it seems everything is unfair and going to shit. People yearn at an opportunity to help make things better. But yelling for simple solutions is the opposite of helpful. Because there are no simple solutions.
Saying to “just open source it” does not make sense.
What do you do about:
Making single player games without always online DRM: yes totally doable
Running game servers of online games forever: not really doable, as soon as all the libraries etc. they depend on are unsupported they will shut down one way or another. You need staff basically forever. Not even mentioning the maintenance headache that every legacy system always turns into.
Letting people run their own dedicated servers: sometimes doable, depends on the game though. Some games do not have “a server” but a whole infrastructure of stuff, look at foxhole. Some “servers” are a house of cards barely held together by duct tape.
This initiative all comes down to the definition of “reasonable”. What is reasonable, actually? Running an infrastructure at a loss until bankruptcy? Or just keeping it online until it starts making a loss.
This has nothing to do with open source.
Nothing.
Open source has zero relevance.
None whatsoever.
Nada.
Their licensing will change so that it doesn’t restrict keeping the game alive after servers go down or their license can’t be used to kill an otherwise functional game. That’s it.
Games will be designed to include the ability to do private servers after the company servers go down. It will be a cost of development just like anything else they are required to do. If they don’t want to include that, then they can choose not to make an online game.
That’s why i also said provide, not just open source. They can release a binary.
Maybe they should have made sure their code was fully legal to use before releasing the game initially
What? There’s a big difference between “legal to sell as a compiled binary” and “legal to release as source”.
Just saying, if my highschool programming classes are any indicator, there’s a ton of released binaries out there that use copywritten and otherwise plaigarized code
And that’s one of the big reasons companies don’t even think about open-sourcing their code.
It will be hardly any work once a law passes, because they’ll make sure it is. Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Besides, no one is saying they have to open source it. To be honest, the outcome from this petition that I would most like to see is simply a blanket indemnity to the community attempting to revive, continue and improve the software from that point forward. If the law says that it’s legal once a software is shut down, for the community to figure out a way to make it work again and make it their own, and puts no further responsibilities on the “rights holder” at all, I think that honestly solves the problem in 99% of cases. It would be nice if they gave the community a hand, released what they could, and tried not to be shit about it, (and I know some of them will be shit about it, but we’re pretty resourceful), as long as they’re not trying to sue every attempt into oblivion I think we’ll make a lot of progress on game preservation and make the gaming world a much better place.
Heh. You are still overestimating the average developer. Random code gets copy-pasted into files without attribution all the time. One guy might know, but if he gets moved to a different team, the new guy has no idea. That can be a ticking legal time-bomb.
Again, if you know going in that is an absolute requirement, processes can be put in place to ensure things like that doesn’t happen. (at least not as often) vs what you’re thinking of trying to do it after the game is already shipped.
honestly with online only games i’d be “okay” (not that it’d be great but okay) with them just releasing a bunch of internal docs around the spec. you’re right that open sourcing commercial code is actually non-trivial (though perhaps if they went in knowing this would have to be the outcome then maybe they’d plan better for it), but giving the community the resources to recreate the experience i think is a valid direction
Bold of you to assume such spec or docs exist. Usually it’s all cowboyed and tightly coupled, with no planning for reuse.
Cool, so after they are legally required to then they will start creating the documentation.
The point is making them change how they do things when how they do it is shitty for consumers.
It’s just one possible solution. They can just release a proprietary server application instead.
I’m speaking from ignorance but isn’t the server backend often licensed and they couldn’t release it if they wanted, even as binaries? Granted, going forward they’d have to make those considerations before they accept restrictive licenses in core parts of their game. And the market for those licenses will change accordingly. So there core of your argument is correct.
lots of licensed or bought code in development in general, but knowing that you’ll have to provide code to the public eventually, means that you’ll have to take this into consideration when starting a project.
Which is doable, but is additional time and money.
codifying in law that your customers must be able to run a server for your game, when you stop running them has the consequence, that you’ll have to buy licenses that allow you to give binaries or code for those things to your customers. every middleware or library that does not allow that won’t be a viable product anymore. It’s not more dev work, it will change how licensing in game development for middleware and such will be done.
Why would coding something with less restrictions take more time and money?
It doesn’t, that’s why companies rarely open-source their code. If you want to publish it you have to make sure you have all the rights to do so, you have to code in a way that’s readable for outside users, you have to make sure people can reproduce your build process, and ideally you provide support.
On the other hand, if you’re not developing the source for publication, you can leave undocumented dirty hacks, only have to make sure it builds on your machine, and include third-party proprietary code wherever you want. That’s faster and cheaper, so naturally companies will prefer it.
There’s no requirement that the open source code released after EoL has to be pretty or maintained, just functional to meet legal requirements. Using other 3rd party code would be a hurdle to get over I suppose. It would definitely take a different approach to design, but after the initial shock of changing, it wouldn’t be more difficult to do long term.
Because you can buy other people’s code for cheaper than developing it yourself, as long as you use it within the restrictions of the license you paid for.
The thing is either that license model changes, or those other companies selling the code cease to exist when nobody buys something they can’t use.
Making games online is also additional time and money.
Yes, but that’s immediately profitable, which is why so many companies do it.
Maybe so, but that’s a decision they make. Surely I as customer shouldn’t be taken away what i paid for because of that? And if so they should have mentioned clearly upon sale that they would take away my product after 3-4 years (though maybe that’s the case in those dense ToS?) . Everything else should be considered illegal and fraudulent if they planned/knew it from the start. Which is the case if it’s a licensing issue
Besides, I’m pretty sure after those 4 years the code is outdated and they could renegotiate the license to be more open to release a binary.
I remember the “old days”. That was when dialup internet was still popular and running a server usually meant it was on your 10Mb LAN. When we got DSL it was better and you could serve outside your LAN. This was also the time when games had dark red code booklets, required having a physical CD inserted or weirdly formatted floppies (sometimes a combination of these). You could get around these things and many groups of people worked hard at providing these workarounds. Today, many of these games are only playable and only still exist because of the thankless work these groups did. As it was and as it is has not changed. Many groups of people are still keeping games playable despite the “war” that corporations wage on them (and by proxy on us). Ironically, now that there is such a thing as “classic games” and people are nostalgic for what brought them joy in the past, business has leapt at this as a marketing opportunity. What makes that ironic? These business are re-selling the versions of games with the circumvention patches that the community made to make their games playable so long ago. The patches that publishers had such a big problem with and sought to eradicate. This is because the original code no longer exists and the un-patched games will not run at all on modern hardware and the copy-protections will not tolerate a virtual machine. Nothing has changed.
We can even go back as far as when people first started making books or maps that had deliberate errors so that they could track when their work was redistributed. Do the people referencing these books or maps benefit from these errors?
Why do some of us feel compelled to limit knowledge even at the cost of corrupting that knowledge for those we intend it for (and for those long after who wish to learn from historical knowledge)?
“Developers” are the ones who are passionate about the games they make, and definitely don’t want their games dead.
“Corporations” are the ones who only want to profit from selling the game, and then ditch it once it’s no longer lucrative enough.
Corporate jargon translation:
“It’s going to limit innovation” = “We won’t be able to use those new ways of ripping off our customers anymore”
Ah, the propaganda war has started.
That’s good news. Means the initiative has a shot.
It was disquieting back when they were just flat out ignoring it.
They were probably thinking that by openly opposing it before it collected enough signatures, they would have given it more publicity and hence made more people sign it.
Choice to do what?
These are their two points:
I feel like the first is fair enough at the moment, but with accompanying laws it could be resolved. Eg once a developer enacts an end of life plan, their legal culpability is removed. Plus give the right tools for moderation and the community can take care of it.
Second is just a cop out I think. “Many titles are designed from the ground up to be online only” - that’s the whole point. It’s not retroactive, so you don’t need to redesign an existing game. But going forward you would need to plan for the eventual end of life. Developers have chimed in that it can be done.
Even if this would be true (which it isn’t, it’s made up bullshit): I do not give a crap.
No, I do not care about the publisher.
No, I do not care about the studio.
No, I do not care about the developer anymore too.
I do not give a single fuck about any of them anymore. I want to own the game I buy. I don’t want anyone being able to pull the plug. I also want to own the hardware or console I buy. I am ready to watch their existence to crumble as long as I get what I want.
These people lied and conned this hobby of mine into monetised shite. I hope a lot of them somehow crash and burn. Would laugh and dance when they croak. I can play Factorio and Terraria until the heat death of the universe. Your new Assassins Blood Pack: Revenge of the Fortnite 2 Deluxe Bundle MMO-Life Service Definitive Expansion Season Pass DLC Dark of the Moon Surprise Mechanic won’t be missed anyway.
I don’t care about publishers.
I don’t care about studios.
One of my friend is a game developer in a big studio, he basically breathes game mechanics. He develops new mechanics in his spare time, repurposing board game elements he owns. He would do that even if it wasn’t his job. He’s awesome
I do care about developers.
Of course it’s limiting your options!
Screwing up the customer should not be an option you’re allowed to take!
You are being stopped from stopping people playing their games.
That’s a double negative bruh, as in, it reduces overrall limitations in the world for what people are allowed to do.
Muh business model :'(
Lol publishers curtail developer choice, gtfo
1.2 million as of now. So fucking proud to be European.
Good so that means they won’t pre plan bullshit games that are money grabs destined to fail. Go fuck yourselves companies that do that.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ya…
First of all, the devs don’t have any choice, the Pencil-pushers do
The only choice it really limits from the publisher is the choice to decide to stop supporting a game out of nowhere. This new plan would just make it so you have to eventually plan to sunset the game from its “live” elements.
It also means there will never be another F2P game. They have to make their money upfront from every user. They can't just turn it off when the profit slows and/or stops.
Genshin Impact is a F2P game that makes stupid amounts of money. If it stopped making money, they could very well just stop developing for it and let it be as it is.
The original article completely misrepresents the initiative:
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:
Of course, releasing server code is an option.
The expectation is:
That didn’t restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they’re expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they’re done).
I argue Stop Killing Games doesn’t go far enough, and if it’s pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.
And “would leave rights holders liable” is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did
The argument there is if a game is left online with no studio to care for it then they believe they would be liable for community content.
I don’t think it applies to offline games at all.
If server code is released such that people can run private servers after the official servers are shut down, then legally the people running the servers should be the ones liable for illegal activity that happens on them.
I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them. Maybe a subscription service that provides access to servers for several different online service games.
Of course, it would be more likely that it would be just a player who hosts a server for themselves and their friends and doesn’t attempt to be profitable. That would be fine too.
That kind of already exists, you can buy hosting for Minecraft and other games. AFAIK, moderation isn’t a part of it, but many private groups exist that run public servers and manage their own moderation. It exists already, and that should absolutely be brought up as a bill is being considered.
We have had that exact model for decades. Hosting companies use to and probably still offer rack space for arena shooters. The main company managed the master server, which was just a listing of IP addresses, but there were only ever a few official game servers with defaults loaded.
Minecraft has private servers (at least on Minecraft java) as well as their own server platform “Realms”, also every client is also a server. Though the authentication system is a Microsoft account so that’s likely to still be online well into the future
Yup, I run a Minecraft server at home, and it’s great. I’d love for more games to do the same.
Only applicable if they run the servers themselves, not if they let others run their own servers.
I understood that from a IP and trademark stand point. It could be hard to retain your copyright or trademark if you are no longer controlling a product
They retain copyright based on existing law, and trademark is irrelevant since it’s defended in courts, not EULAs.
No, copyright isn’t relinquished from any of that (not even any effect on damages if you still require players to have bought the game to use the private servers), and trademarks wouldn’t be affected at all if you simply require that 3rd party servers are marked as unofficial
Exactly, and that also includes online games like Minecraft. Nobody is going to sue Microsoft because of what someone said or did in a private Minecraft server, though they might if it’s a Microsoft hosted one.
I don’t think this is what they mean. They say that of they provide the tools for users to deploy the servers, bad things can happen. So I think they understood SKG, they just lie about the consequences for gamers
If that’s their argument, then the counterargument is simple: preserve the game another way. If hosting servers is dangerous, put the server code into the client and allow multiplayer w/ P2P tech, as had been done since the 90s (e.g. StarCraft).
What they seem to be doing is reframing the problem as requiring users to host servers, and arguing the various legal issues related to that. SKG just needs to clarify that there are multiple options here, and since devs know about the law at the start (SKG isn’t retroactive), studios can plan ahead.
It’s just a disingenuous argument trying to reframe the problem into cyber security and IP contexts, while neither has been an issue for other games in the past.
Yeah, I agree. We have been hosting servers at friend houses with consumer (mostly our own gaming PCs) forever.
The risk involved exists, but it’s far from the threat they make it be.
Another part of it is that if they discontinue support, they can’t stop the community from creating their own server software.
There are so many ways to approach this. The point is ensuring consumers retain the right to keep using what they purchased, even if they have to support it themselves.
Sort of. They need to have the tools as well. So I suppose they could release the APIs for their servers before shutting down their servers so community servers can be created, that would probably be sufficient. But they need to do something beyond just saying, “we won’t sue you if you reverse engineer it.”
Yeah… The abstract (sorry, will read article a bit later) is bunch of nonsense to me (in respect to what is written, no offense to you):
online experience commercially viable? The fuck they are talking about? Yeah, I know what is meant, but they would get fucking F in school for expressing thoughts in such a nonsensical way
protections against illegal content would not exist on private servers? Really? Like only your company’s servers can run that? What, you write them in machine code directly? Or is it all done manually? Anyhow, just release source code and it will be up to community to find a way to make it run
I basically quoted the whole thing, the last bit wasn’t really relevant. And yeah, it’s pretty much just BS.
Keep signing it! Don't stop!
We saw the depths a nepo baby from Blizzard would go to for this initiative to fail, can’t imagine what could happen with a body comprised of people from the biggest worms in the industry (Epic, EA, Activision, Microsoft, Ubi et al.)
“curtail developer choice” is such a weak argument because you could equally apply it to literally every piece of regulation ever passed. Of course it curtails choice, that’s almost the dictionary definition of an industry regulation.
Lol. We’re gamers. We know that if we encounter enemies we’re going in the right direction.
Still trying to find the right direction on animal crossing.
Towards the bees!
paying your debts. The game breaks as it cannot speculate anymore on your debt
Good. Your choices are bad
Fuck developer choice! What about my choice as a consumer?
That’s easy have some self control and only buy games that respect you
True. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attack predatory behavior when we see it. If they want to sell me something, I need to own it, and that means I get to use it after they’ve stopped supporting it.
When I pay to see a film in a theater, I don’t own the film. I don’t get to watch the film again after it leaves the theater.
While I pay to see a concert, a play, or a musical, I don’t own those performances. I don’t get to see them again. They generally aren’t recorded (Although that is changing in some limited cases.)
I do think a game dying is terrible and I do think games should be clearly labeled (so people can make an education decision if they want to rent the game).
This isn’t paying to see a concert, play, or musical. This is buying a book for amazon’s e-reader, and them not allowing you to read the book anymore when they put out the book’s sequel.
Or buying a physical book where they printed it with ink that fades after 2 years so it is no longer readable.
Fun fact a company did this with DVDs back in the day, once you broke the seal on it the air would react with a coating on the disk which would become increasingly dark until it became unreadable.
But you are not buying a game, you are renting it.
I absolutely agree that companies shouldn’t be able to say they’re selling you a game. They should make it 100% clear that you are renting it.
I’m also onboard with requiring p2p/LAN functionality for multiplayer.
Sure, you’re paying for a performance when you watch a film or play at a theater. If I pay to watch a video game tournament, I’m likewise paying for a performance, not the game.
When you buy a film (DVD, Bluray, or Digital Copy) or a recording of a play performance, you own that copy and can watch it as often as you want for as many years into the future as you want. What we’re saying is that video games should work the same way, if I buy a game, I should be able to play it whenever I want at any point in the future. That’s it, it’s the same thing as with a film.
I don’t know how you could do that without staying exclusively on open source
I’m old enough that the games I’m nostalgic for are on floppy discs on my shelf, but now the games I play are downloaded and rely on whatever company keeping a server up to authenticate me
Who knows what Microsoft will do with Minecraft in 30 years
Who knows what Steam will do with the licences it’s sold me
If it means developers won’t make “live-service”/trash games anymore, we should hasten the SKG movement.
They still will, this will just limit their ability to force you to move to the next one once the servers shut down.
Most likely, if they are forced to allow public servers after they shut down the official ones, they will pull some other bullshit. Like claim the game is still available, but the 300$ cosmetics you bought are not allowed on public servers because they are separate from the game.
Honestly I'd even prefer that because it diminishes the value of in game purchases and would be a step towards getting rid of them as well.
They should be compelled to either make those cosmetics available for everyone or have some technical means to prove ownership (e.g. blockchain or cryptographically signed file). You can’t lose stuff you bought just because the publisher shut down the servers.
I mean that’s exactly how it works right now. And depending on the exact wording of any laws passed as a result of this petition only the game itself or some or all micro transactions will have to be made available after official support ends.
Public servers will either sell micro transactions themselves to finance servers or make all in game content available to everyone for free. I can see publishers having a problem with that.
Right, I’m explaining how Stop Killing Games would change things if adopted.
That can certainly be restricted, since they’re profiting off someone else’s IP. Selling hosting is one thing, reselling assets in the game is another thing entirely and AFAIK would be a violation of copyright’s fair use provisions.
If they’re no longer profiting from a game, surely releasing access to gated content isn’t an issue any more? It’s not like they are losing anything. So I think unlocking cosmetics for everyone would be fine, but it’s up to them. If they want to preserve the restriction, they can find a way that doesn’t reauire ongoing costs, such as the ones I mentioned.
FPS games with community servers coming back is my dream
Only server browser, no matchmaking.
they say “developer choice” because they know those words have positive connotations but what they mean is “publisher greed”
So, a shitton of game developers just got laid off from Microsoft, another in a string of “restructuring” nonsense that’s been rampant in the industry.
That’s a lot of people with gaming expertise who could be put to work helping companies transition their games to single player experiences or at least making them accessible to customers after support stops. If the EU ends up pushing this forward, there’s a decent business opportunity in there.
Honestly I don’t see it as the developers losing anything. They still make the same products, they still sell the same products, and when they’re done with those products forever they have to give hosting capability up to the public.
What are they afraid of? That we won’t play their new games if they can’t shut the old games down?
Giant corporations have proven no amount of profit is too much. There needs to be some guardrails. And some form of preservation of the games your loyal customers have enriched your company to access.
It’s almost like government was made to create and enforce those guardrails.
Why are publishers speaking for devs about how much choice devs would have? Why not get devs to speak?
Because sometimes publishers like to be the ones curtailing dev choices
Because most devs are just codemonkeys implementing what they’re told to. This is pure manipulative propaganda from the suits who are already robbing wages from good devs.
Curtailing developer choice is rather the point, no?
Yeah just the choices that fucks over paying customers. They are saying they would like to keep doing that and this laws would curtail that.
Will someone think of the poor shareholders? /s
Yes, it curtails you from making absurd choices about how to fuck customers out of the money they paid for your games
Yeah, because the choices they have now is working great for quality games…
Backpedaling to “defending creators” - that’s a bold move, Cotton.
Oh no?! It developer’s choices vs purchaser’s options. Who will win, it’s a mystery only time can solve. Just kidding, we all know who the courts will side with, as it is never “the people”.
“Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the
childrendevs!?”The last refuge of a dying argument 😴
The devs would probably prefer if their work for several years wasn’t thrown in the trash. It’s the publishers and suits killing games.
This initiative sure would make things more complicated for the game publishers, yes.
Because they’re currently not doing the bare minimum.
If they weren’t so accustomed to not doing the bare minimum, maybe they would have different opinions! Just saying.
Edit: Just signed the petition. Didn’t think this was necessary before because, as soon as I heard of it, Finland was already top of the list percentage wise. But I did sign it, just for the hell yeah of it.
It’s not just for the hell of it!
Invalid votes will be removed when it’s time for the final tally, so the initiative needs a solid buffer to still he over a million after.
There’s been a talk of some people using bots to inflate the numbers in a misguided attempt to help the initiative, so every vote is still very welcome.
Also, I kinda want to see just how high Finland can go above the threshold.
Tell your friends!
I wouldn’t be surprised if the game industry isn’t also using bots to inflate the numbers to make people procrastinating not feel the need to contribute and make the petition look less valid.
Eh, doubtful. The initiative got a shitton of extra coverage as it was nearing/reached the goal. They would have preferred if it went a lot slower.
Major game publishers aren’t known for their good ideas.
I agree wholeheartedly and I also signed late while being Finnish.
Whenever a large games company talks about “developer choice” you know they’re referring to one of a few things:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/ecd5367a-de2f-446c-ad87-8c8394a330cc.webp">
From the mind of the one Free Man
All games become subscription only in 3…2…
Subscribe to see how the countdown finishes!
Let them try. Most game will utterly fail with that approach and I would love to see that.
I don’t know why these companies think they can talk their way out of this. No one is buying your BS. Just STFU.
It’s to give talking points to the politicians they paid for.
They can and they will just lobby commission or EU Parliament if needed.
Do you mean Buying = believing Or Buying = buying
Because I think the real problem here is that people actually are buying=buying and that’s why they keep doing it.
Developer choice, ha-ha, very funny. I am not familiar with the industry and still feel safe to bet most of them (edit: actual software developers making games) just want to get enough money for doing what they can do without too much stress/disgust and also most of them don’t have a desire to see their work die just because some manager decided it is time to make some other games instead
I bet they’re really pissed off with ubisoft right now. They basically started this whole movement by being so egregious with The Crew. Less than a month before they shut the servers down the game was still on sale for the full price that it had launched with.
Granted it was shut down because it was the most mediocre game ever made but that still isn’t an excuse.
Tbh when I read of it, being an open world driving game where you can just drive around a very large area, I kind of wanted it. Not as a game, but simply for driving around. MarioKart is too happy for that. I just want to get lost in thoughts while driving.
Gran Turismo has similar stuff and is just better as a driving sim game.
Forza Horizon is good for that experience
I hear thats what European Truck Simulator 1, 2, and American truck simulator are excellent for. Driving around on long roads with meditative scenery.
When you work hard to create a consumer economy, the first rule is, don’t piss off the consumers!
Uh, yeah, that’s the point of all regulations. To make you not pick bad things.
“… curtail developer choice” - This from a bunch of people for whom the term ‘executive meddling’ was created.
Sounds like they just put together a bunch of meaningful sounding words. I know what they want to say though: "Noooo! But mah freedumbs! NOOOO 😭 "
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/18e99570-6a38-4c79-bd7f-974f5ab33c3b.jpeg">
Cold Take has a counterargument video if anyone actually cares enough to take this seriously
Copyright was invented so artists would be able to sell their art, and more art would be made.
When copyright is protected on a product that’s no longer sold, less art is made.
When a copyright holder stops selling their art, copyright protections should immediately cease, and they should be responsible for copyright obligations - releasing the source code to the public. Use it or lose it!
This is the most level headed approach to IP I’ve seen. If you’re not willing to use the property you forfeit it. It’s a common contact for licensing rights for movies that forces a studio to make a movie or lose rights. That way people can’t squat on a licence to prevent others using it.
Sony has to make a Spiderman movie every few years even though DVDs of the old ones are still being sold, but Ubisoft can just delete games forever and they can never be played again.
A good book on this is: Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity by Lawrence Lessig
The same thing should apply to private property, especially in cities.
Pretty sure it was so publishers (printing press owners) could have a guaranteed profit. Those two things (publisher and artist profits) were correlated at the time. Not so much anymore. Streaming/subscription mentality is like planned obsolescence for IP.
Anti-murder laws are cuttailing my choice! What if I someday would like to make a choice to murder someone?
Yes! When I read that, I immediately thought “curtailing developer choice is exactly the point.”
It needs way more people, because I guess a lot of people from all over the world used VPNs to sign the petition and will get nullified.
So if you planned to do it, don’t, you will hurt your goals more than you’re doing an good.
Well when the choice is anti consumer, too fucking bad.
I think people are overestimating what this petition is going to do. It will likely just end up in a response from the EU listing pros and cons but effectively saying “can’t really do anything about it, sorry!”. It’s still good, even MMOs have server software gaming companies could release if legislation forced them instead of causing fandoms to die. Games are culture. They may also be entertainment, but that’s culture as well. But I wouldn’t hold out hope.
I think forcing MMOs to release software is a bit much.
Opted for large scaled systems. It’s more than just simple software. There is a ton of infrastructure and proprietary solutioning that goes into it. That’s likely used for other games as well.
It may not even be possible to release the software because it is not just software and the resources to prepare it for releasing may not be available.
However, if a game company shut down their servers, they should not be allowed to prevent other people from try to reverse engineer and make their own servers.
Single player and local games 100% though should not be allowed to be killed.
Doesn’t mean it can’t be released, just that it might be difficult to reproduce. It would still be much, much easier to reverse engineer that than to reverse engineer everything from the client and network communication captures.
In other words, so you don’t know, and vague assumptions on a closed box because closed boxes allow you to make them.
Most MMOs usually have multiple instances running, each which need to be maintained separately. That means they have usually gone through the process of encapsulating the server functionality in a way that can be reproduced and recreated into new instances. They have to be maintained at the same time, so they need to be relatively standard. At one point those supposedly absent resources to duplicate the instance of a server have likely existed, and just need to be packaged for public release. Proprietary portions can simply be excluded - an incomplete release is preferable to an absent one. Can’t release databases, they can release schemas, etc. Incomplete > absent.
You largely seem to be giving MMO companies the excuse that if their server solution could theoretically be proprietary and convoluted enough, even if it really isn’t, that they not be subject to the Stop Killing Games initiative. MMOs, unlike single player games, have a far more notable sociable and persistence factor to them, a bigger cultural footprint within those communities, that makes the Stop Killing Games Initiative particularly applicable to them. There’s one simply way not to be subject to its demands - don’t kill the games.
“but black dynamite!.. i sell drugs to the community!”
Yup, that’s correct. What about it?