Stop Killing Games • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop Killing Games

#251

Post by duped » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #223

duped wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but you don't link in Oracle/MS's database cluster orchestrators to your server, right?

THat really depends on how you define "the server",doesn't it? The intent of the bill seems to be a thing that actually play that game.

The "server" being the computer program not running on a user device. The intent of the initiative is to allow people to substitute or replace that program to allow the game to continue to function even if the original publisher/developer disables access to it.

It's pretty obvious to me as a gamer and engineer what the intent and design constraints are here, so I'm just wondering what makes this seem impossible?

Re: Stop Killing Games

#252

Post by MYEUHD » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC

Podrod wrote: post #228

MYEUHD wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Games will get pirated regardless whether they're on GOG or not. > This model works for games on GOG because they tend to be priced so low that most users are okay with paying for convenience. Many of the games in that catalog are essentially back catalog that have been paid off for years and whose sales are quite insignificant to the publisher. This is not always the case. For example this game will be available on…

You're wrong about Cyberpunk, it was released on both platforms on the same day. I mean it was CD Projekt's own store front.

You're right. My bad. I was looking at the price changes in gogdb, and price tracking started a few months after launch. But the details page shows the Global release date and the GOG release date.

https://www.gogdb.org/product/2093619782#details

Re: Stop Killing Games

#253

Post by MYEUHD » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #188

MYEUHD wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Games will get pirated regardless whether they're on GOG or not. > This model works for games on GOG because they tend to be priced so low that most users are okay with paying for convenience. Many of the games in that catalog are essentially back catalog that have been paid off for years and whose sales are quite insignificant to the publisher. This is not always the case. For example this game will be available on…

I think you are at least partially reinforcing my point here. Two of your three examples had a delayed release on GOG, and that's pretty telling especially considering one of those two was developed and published by GOG's former parent company. Two of the three examples are solidly in the realm of indie titles. Yes, there are big release games on the platform. I see, for example, that Silent Hill f is on GOG. I will…

> Two of your three examples had a delayed release on GOG, and that's pretty telling especially considering one of those two was developed and published by GOG's former parent company.

It turns out I was wrong about Cyberpunk. It was released on GOG on day 1. https://www.gogdb.org/product/2093619782#details

The price chart on gogdb mislead me.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#254

Post by duped » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #248

duped wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it absolutely is, but that's not an answer to the question.

Of the 7 AAA games I’ve been part of making, not a single one used HTTP (well, not as a primary driver of anything), HTML, CSS or anything that could be construed as a “web technology” so, what are you talking about please?

s/web/networked computers/g

What I'm saying is you have programs running on user machines, and programs running on your machines. There's an interface between those two over a network. There's a problem that consumers face today where they pay to play games that are not functional without data flowing over that interface.

There's a claim that implementing the backend side of that interface is so complex and impossible or too difficult/time consuming/etc to design in a way without 3rd party dependencies.

I'm asking: what are those 3rd party libraries doing? And why can't you design server APIs and client code in a way to provide a different backend if consumers need to do it themselves when you stop supporting the game?

Re: Stop Killing Games

#255

Post by singpolyma3 » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

john_strinlai wrote: post #238

ben-schaaf wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BG3 is actually a perfect counterexample here. It doesn't have DRM, doesn't require an online account to play and uses direct connections for multiplayer. Nothing needs to be done to preserve it.

right, but if BG3 had to be free as in FSF free, it would not have been made.

This is almost certainly untrue. it would have cost the same amount and all the same people would have bought it for all the same reasons.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#256

Post by singpolyma3 » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

john_strinlai wrote: post #236

singpolyma3 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously not. No one is talking about donations

if the games are free, and we aren't talking about donations, how are the studios being paid?

Same way as now. Selling the game.

Free as in freedom not as in price

Re: Stop Killing Games

#257

Post by lowbloodsugar » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

djaro wrote: post #244

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #196

Oh fuck off. [1] To elaborate, if I make a creative experience, that requires a server, and sell it to you for $70, and you play it for a year, that's your $70 of value right there. That's the moral argument. Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that th…

Yes, as a society we can collectively decide what companies should and shouldn't do. It's called living in a society with rules and regulations. > Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that they'll sell two versions: one that is $0, but doesnt work until…

It won’t be a lie it will be a contract. It will be the opposite of a lie. You will then have to decide if you want to spend $70 on a game that you an are only guaranteed to get a year out of. Maybe you won’t. But at least we’ll be spared your entitled tantrums.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#258

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:46 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #233

doctorpangloss wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP law is peak law nerd, regular lawyers can't make any definitive statements about IP situations, what makes you think that you could?

Do you honestly think that most lawyers couldn't tell you that downloading the Linux source code for personal use is legal under IP law, or that dumping games from a Nintendo Switch and serving them on a website for public download is a violation? If you think that neither of those definitive statements are something regular lawyers could tell you, I think we just have mutually incompatible perceptions of reality. Ot…

[deleted]

Re: Stop Killing Games

#259

Post by doctorpangloss » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #233

doctorpangloss wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP law is peak law nerd, regular lawyers can't make any definitive statements about IP situations, what makes you think that you could?

Do you honestly think that most lawyers couldn't tell you that downloading the Linux source code for personal use is legal under IP law, or that dumping games from a Nintendo Switch and serving them on a website for public download is a violation? If you think that neither of those definitive statements are something regular lawyers could tell you, I think we just have mutually incompatible perceptions of reality. Ot…

> those definitive statements are something regular lawyers could tell you

go ahead and ask. non-IP lawyers will tell you to talk to IP lawyers. another way to think of your two questions is, "in what scenarios would ... be permissible and not permissible, in your opinion?" if you were sincerely interested in learning something.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#260

Post by lowbloodsugar » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

skotobaza wrote: post #221

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #196

Oh fuck off. [1] To elaborate, if I make a creative experience, that requires a server, and sell it to you for $70, and you play it for a year, that's your $70 of value right there. That's the moral argument. Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that th…

No, the moral argument is "I want to be able to (re)play the experience ten years from now". If the servers aren't available in any form (so I can't event self-host), then it's an issue. That is the moral part, not the financial one.

“What you want” isn’t a moral issue. It’s an entitlement issue. I want a Ferrari. $70 doesn’t buy a Ferrari just like it doesn’t buy unlimited expense running a server or the intellectual property of that server.

Fascinating to me that, on the one hand, so many people up in arms about AI stealing work from poor devs but then here you are demanding free use of their work because you made a one time payment ten years ago.

"Well, just make it open source, so anyone can run it". Ok, and someone sets up a server and modifies it to be "Nazi world" still using my recognizable assets. Do I have any rights there, to stop my IP from bieng used for that purpose? Is "IP" a dirty word? Isn't IP what we're up in arms about AI stealing?

You haven't thought it through.