Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

dexerto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 346 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#191

Post by fvdessen »

monegator wrote: post #147
l23k4 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is idiotic . "The industry" are also European citizens. It's about balancing the interests of people who pay their rent and feed their children by selling games, and the interests of people who merely enjoy games. Consulting only the group which enjoys games would be absurd to the point of being actively malicious.

Hey! That's exactly what lobbyists against regulations would say!

Your mindset is why we got rid out of nuclear energy. Nuclear lobby bad, consumer lobby good. Consumer lobby didn't care that what they wanted was impossible (risk free free, carbon free, cheap energy) and angrily demanded by law things the industry couldn't provide, and got nothing as a result. It might very well be the case for this gaming law as well, that the result would have been less games in Europe as game producer would avoid a market that makes unprofitable demands.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#192

Post by sph »

hobofan wrote: post #82
skotobaza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game How so? Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. That's mostly AAA publishers that do so (at least I can't remember the opposite from the top of my head).

> Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. Yes, they do. Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services to make their multiplayer games work to a playable standard acceptable to the users, as they can't afford to write them from scratch (and couldn't even afford to do the devops work that comes with a self-hosted a…

> PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer

How did studios deal with multiplayer in the 1990-2010? That's right, server binary and in-game server browser. These days you don't even need to enter an IP address, just use Steam to invite/join friends. Using third-party or cloud online services is just pure laziness/convenience, and allowing for players to host their games is not rocket science.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#193

Post by BlitzGeology91 »

maccard wrote: post #68
DexesTTP wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would result in fewer online games that stop working altogether when the publisher wants to stop it. All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this. It's really not that complicated. Not "free", of course, but it's not exactly expensive either if you plan to do that from the moment you write your first line of code.

Game developer here. If it were “just” that easy I’d love to support this. > All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this You’re making a huge assumption here both about the scope of the law, and about how straightforward this is to do. I’ve worked in games where we could drop a server binary over the fence an that would b…

> I’ve worked in games where we could drop a server binary over the fence an that would be fine. I’ve also worked on games that have required a bunch of different standalone services just for core logic - running it requires a combination of dynamodb, Kafka, a few microservices on lambda, and massive third party dependencies. Getting a “mini self hosted server application” out of this is a rewrite.

This is a good point. For some games, complying with a Stop Killing Games law would be easy. For those games, the developers could simply drop a server binary over the fence like you mentioned. For other games, complying with a Stop Killing Games law would be much more difficult. For those other games, the developers would have to put in significant effort or refund customers once the game is killed.

That being said, I think that what we are talking about here is short-term pain for long-term gain. In the short-term, adaptation will be difficult for some developers, but those developers will eventually learn how to make games that allow players to host their own servers on their own infrastructure.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#194

Post by walletdrainer »

infinite_spin wrote: post #185
walletdrainer wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> absurd to the point of being actively malicious No, it's not, and this is why you were called a shill .. not merely due to a disagreement, but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious, while you actively describe multi-billion dollar corporations as just people trying to "pay their rent and feed their children by selling games" Deeply dishonest indeed.

> but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious

It's extremely difficult to see how the statement quoted below is not fairly characterized as malicious

>The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens.

If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious?

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#195

Post by sph »

maccard wrote: post #85
skotobaza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game How so? Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. That's mostly AAA publishers that do so (at least I can't remember the opposite from the top of my head).

Those games are unaffected whether or not SKG is written into law. If ojr of those games has an optional multiplayer component all of a sudden it can come under the purview. One of the things SKG has pushed down the line is what is “playable”. There is a very small but very active online community for a bunch of games that would call the online part of their game a requirement. The last of us and uncharted had very u…

Are you aware that you don't need turnkey cloud services for indie multiplayer right? Even Godot lets you ship a server binary that allows people to host their own games. Many other indie multiplayer games do, we've been doing this since Doom. We're not talking about MMOs here.

There is literally zero reason that Lethal Company needs cloud services for their servers, or for it not to allow players to host their games. EOS & co. are golden handcuffs, and designing the multiplayer system from day 1 with preservation in mind is not that much more work. Of course Epic wants you to use their easy solution, it's called vendor lock in.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#196

Post by hobofan »

sph wrote: post #192
hobofan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. Yes, they do. Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services to make their multiplayer games work to a playable standard acceptable to the users, as they can't afford to write them from scratch (and couldn't even afford to do the devops work that comes with a self-hosted a…

> PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer How did studios deal with multiplayer in the 1990-2010? That's right, server binary and in-game server browser. These days you don't even need to enter an IP address, just use Steam to invite/join friends. Using third-party or cloud online services is just pure laziness/convenience, and allowing fo…

Yes, and it was an awful experience with a fraction of the playerbase. WC3 Battle.net browser is an experience that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. TF2 server browser, where many of the good servers were also not publicly listed and head to be discovered outside of the game is also not really a tractable option.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#197

Post by sph »

hobofan wrote: post #196
sph wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer How did studios deal with multiplayer in the 1990-2010? That's right, server binary and in-game server browser. These days you don't even need to enter an IP address, just use Steam to invite/join friends. Using third-party or cloud online services is just pure laziness/convenience, and allowing fo…

Yes, and it was an awful experience with a fraction of the playerbase. WC3 Battle.net browser is an experience that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. TF2 server browser, where many of the good servers were also not publicly listed and head to be discovered outside of the game is also not really a tractable option.

Somehow other multiplayer games deal with it just fine (Squad, Arma, Satisfactory, Minecraft off the top of my head) and let players host their game.

You're just spreading FUD.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#198

Post by fallat »

xeyownt wrote: post #77
p0w3n3d wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say this shows how corrupted elites are. If the "democratic" entity spends all the time with lobbyists, and not the initiative which started the discussion, this speaks volumes.

Seeing your comment, the base seems more corrupted than the elite. The corruption they suffer is to see everyone as being corrupted. Think about it: how you would implement such directive and make it implementable... Now you see the problem.

Did you even read what SKG was advocating for in detail? Because it answers your question.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#199

Post by logged4upvoting »

necovek wrote: post #22
f4stjack wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Exactly. I, for one, am following this credo: If your single player game has an “always online” clause; I am not your customer. No ifs, no buts, no “but i like this franchise”s. Vote with your wallet. Do not hesitate to boycott.

I'd like to see legislation to require publisher to clearly state if game works offline, and if not, what is the committed, guaranteed operational life ("at least to June 2030" prominently displayed, for instance).

I agree, and i think one more thing should be also explicit; save files.

Whether the game works offline, and until when the servers are guaranteed, is one part. But the savegames and progression data should also belong to the user.

The game is made by the studio, sure, but the save file is the part I construct by playing. It is my time, my choices, my progress, my world state and my memories.

So I would add a clear principle that the publisher should not be able to kidnap the user's save data.

Re: Stop Killing Games fails to secure EU law despite 1.3M signatures

#200

Post by sillysaurusx »

infinite_spin wrote: post #185
walletdrainer wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> absurd to the point of being actively malicious No, it's not, and this is why you were called a shill .. not merely due to a disagreement, but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious, while you actively describe multi-billion dollar corporations as just people trying to "pay their rent and feed their children by selling games" Deeply dishonest indeed.

The person you replied to isn’t the same person that was called a shill, by the way.
Post reply on HN