Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice • Hacker News Board

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#261

Post by dragonmost » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:09 PM UTC

rcxdude wrote: post #133

simion314 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Vote with your wallet I bought Minecraft from Mojang, years later I am forced to setup a Microsoft account to play the game, or risk downloading a cracked version. They did not offer a refund. Minecraft is a video game where you need to login even if you do not play online. (maybe things changed , I think this MS account thing was a few years back, it worked for my account but I read of people having big issues beca…

Minecraft is at least reasonably easy to play offline, the account mostly only stores your skins. That said, it may require a third-party launcher now.

But you won't be able to access some public servers for a game you paid for without the account.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#262

Post by chickenzzzzu » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:11 PM UTC

willi59549879 wrote: post #235

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #139

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

It seems you didn't read the initiative text. The initiative does not force game Devs to release the code or make specific technical demands. Game Devs only have to make a plan for when the game gets shut down to still allow the users to be able to play the game. How that is archived can be decided by the developers. Of course the law could be different in the future. But most people do agree that it is bad to intent…

It might be the intention of some game developers. I can tell you however that the intention of the people who run my company is to make as much money as possible.

My opinion is that you, as a consumer, should reward the companies who treat you best with your money. You should not require the government to do it for you, because if you do, the thing you end up with might not be the thing you receive, sadly.

And yes, this logic holds for most industries, but not all. I for one think there should be stringent rules for food processing, since that can actually kill you, and yet still putrid beef and tainted baby formula are sold on a relatively frequent basis.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#263

Post by akimbostrawman » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:11 PM UTC

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #243

akimbostrawman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the small ones will go bankrupt and the big ones will find a loophole. you mean the loop hole that was industry standard before 2000 and a handful of dudes in basements solved?

Sorry I am not sure what you mean, but I would actually really like to know what you are referencing

private server where the default in the past. that's why games that are 30 years old like quake, doom and unreal tournament (all created by dev teams the size of about a dozen with as much funding as current indie games) can still be played to this day and as long as software allows it forever with 0 effort or cost by the developers.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#264

Post by throw10920 » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:12 PM UTC

Hojojo wrote: post #201

throw10920 wrote: post #143

I think very few people (outside of the industry - important caveat) are opposed to the stated goals of the initiative: > This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union [...] to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state. The concern that I have is that I have no idea what the actual text of the law is going to be. You can look at laws like t…

This vague handwringing isn't any better. None of us know what the law will end up turning into. But we shouldn't let that stop this being addressed properly in our political institutions. That's what they're there for. Also, bringing up the DMCA is sort of rich, since it was always just a vehicle for the biggest content companies in publishing, film, television, music and software to protect their property online. N…

[flagged]

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#265

Post by dandersch » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

Having followed this initiative quite extensively from the beginning, the most baffling thing has been the underwhelming support from developers themselves, both from studios and individual devs.

You would think the very idea of years of your work being rendered unplayable in an instant would be enough incentive to signal boost any effort against this industry practice.

Instead, developer discourse has revolved around just how hard it would be to do what this is petition is asking for. You are an engineer for crying out loud. If you solved a problem but a new constraint arrives in the form of a law, you figure out how to solve the problem under the new constraint. Just because something is hard, doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

It's almost like flexing your skills and signalling your elite knowledge is more important to people than simply defending what's right.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#266

Post by chickenzzzzu » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

shminge wrote: post #254

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we ensure that if we legislate the games industry, then we also legislate all other industries with no special carve outs? That would make me much more supportive.

So your argument is that you won't support Stop Killing Games, but you'll support Stop Killing Things In General? That's a strange stance. Even if that was your position SKG has a good opportunity to act as a stepping stone towards something grander.

Yes that's right. My opinion is that I am against legislating anything until we legislate everything.

Put yourself in the shoes of an employee or owner of some business. Would you enjoy being forced to follow certain rules of actual consequence, while others are allowed to do whatever they want?

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#267

Post by skotobaza » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

fidotron wrote: post #118

If this happened all multiplayer titles would turn F2P. People do not appreciate quite what a narrow path has to be walked by games from an IP standpoint. Code libraries, licensed property, per platform (and platform category) restrictions, general IP restrictions (not showing vehicles being damaged, or UI overlays on certain parts of licensed objects) and so on. This is why in the recent ROG Ally announcement Micros…

> You want games with real vehicles or licensed music?

Not really if it means that I wouldn't be able to play the game in 10 or 20 years.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#268

Post by toofy » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

fidotron wrote: post #118

If this happened all multiplayer titles would turn F2P. People do not appreciate quite what a narrow path has to be walked by games from an IP standpoint. Code libraries, licensed property, per platform (and platform category) restrictions, general IP restrictions (not showing vehicles being damaged, or UI overlays on certain parts of licensed objects) and so on. This is why in the recent ROG Ally announcement Micros…

anyone ever noticed how so many completely different restaurants food tastes almost exactly the same? it’s because so many of them use the exact same food suppliers to buy their food before they cook it. [0]

gaming over the last few years feels the same way. like they all taste almost the same.

> Simply pretending these very real concerns don’t exist is nonsense land.

i don’t believe this to be true at all.

if all of the things you listed are limiting game development so much, than this isn’t “progress” in the games space. if it’s really that bad, maybe we should regress, start from the basics and let some of the incredible indie studios or midsize studios take the lead who will A) bring us actual originality, not more IP rehashed for the thousandth time, B) not bleed gamers wallets dry and C) lets us actually own the thing we buy.

sooo many amazing games were made in the past that were able to do this and do it well, the difference is they didn’t cry if they “only” made $40 million in profit.

cod3 made like $400 million in the first 24 hours.

the difference now is the AAA studios are sucking all of the air out of the room and not leaving nearly as much room for midsize studios.

[0] sysco, us foods, and pfg supply an absolute massive number of restaurants in the US. sysco alone distributes to something like 700,000 restaurants.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#269

Post by AndrewPGameDev » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:15 PM UTC

traverseda wrote: post #187

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally every industry now. Shall we "regulate" all industries to be like this, then? Is that achievable? Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point? "That's not what this is about. Ok, where are we heading then?

Paying for a subscription is explicitly not what this is about. No one is suggesting this for MMOs. Just that it be clear that it is a subscription, that you're not actually buying the game. What a one-time fee for an MMO? Give it an expiry date. You can keep pushing the expiry date, but you have to promise support up to at least that date.

AFAICT SKG doesn't really make a distinction between games bought with a one-time purchase and games that are subscribed to. In their FAQ, they explicitly say it would apply to MMOs too (see https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq "What about large-scale MMORPGs? Isn't it impossible for customers to run those when servers are shut down?) although they don't spell out whether they mean exclusively games bought with a one-time fee or games that are subscription-only.

Ross from Accursed Farms said this in a video FAQ on youtube:

" Would this initiative affect subscription games? Well, that's another question that depends on what the EU says. Personally, I think it's very unlikely because that doesn't fit well with other existing consumer laws. I think the only way you could even make that argument would be that this is necessary for preservation and most governments don't seem to care about that at all. However, I don't think this is a huge loss, since only a handful of games operate that way today. So if we can give up those but then save 99% of other games, I'm willing to make that bargain. "

so it seems like they actually are suggesting that they'd like for (a law that came out of) SKG to apply to subscription games but there's an understanding that it probably won't.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#270

Post by SpaghettiCthulu » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:15 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #184

throw10920 wrote: post #143

I think very few people (outside of the industry - important caveat) are opposed to the stated goals of the initiative: > This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union [...] to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state. The concern that I have is that I have no idea what the actual text of the law is going to be. You can look at laws like t…

> to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state. Yeah, I like the general goal, but I worry about the corner cases; is an MMO “functional/playable” if you just release a localhost server? Are we forcing indie shops to pay for servers indefinitely now? Great way to ensure no more indie MMOs get built if that ends up being the text interpretation. And, as you say, the question you should always be asking ab…

> is an MMO “functional/playable” if you just release a localhost server? Are we forcing indie shops to pay for servers indefinitely now?

The man behind Stop Killing Games has made it perfectly clear that they do not want to force game developers to continue operating servers. Rather, as you suggest, releasing server binaries would be acceptable. Although a mere "localhost" server would likely not be sufficient, because (if I interpret your suggestion correctly) it takes away the multiplayer funtionality of the game. I think it would be reasonable to require developers to release online multiplayer capable server binaries.