Live data from Hacker News

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

dexerto.com

211–220 of 346 posts

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

#211
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ARMA has famously awful netcode.

Minecraft has mandatory hosted servers that are so non-trivial to host that it spawned a $XXmillion industry of third-party hosting, and first party hosting is also a paid service. Also bad netcode in the Java edition.

I'm not sure if I'd call either of those "just fine". That system also only works for games that are able to attract some minimum viable community where some enthusiasts volunteer to host any servers at all. Great for a really long-lived community, bad for any new game trying to make a splash.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. > Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore,…

> There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.

> > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment

>

> Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase".

And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but often barely viable.

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

#213
> The Commission’s full communication said a legal obligation to keep games playable, as requested by the initiative, “would not be proportionate.”

Making games playable is not proportionate but mass surveillance of private messages is complete fine.

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument. SKG specifically excludes: - Existing games (they only aim to have regulation for newer game, as existing games may be locked into technical choices like a cloud based multiplayer backend that can't be replaced) - Non live-service games (ergo games where you have a monthly subscription of some kind, which makes it obvious you're "renting" the game for a limited time). Within these co…

> a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. > Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore,…

> Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS.

We're talking about EOL plans here. You don't have to care about DDOS.

> This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing).

I have multiple issues with this framing:

1. We're talking about regulation about _future games_ that haven't been made yet. SKG doesn't want to regulate existing games. So we're not talking about retrofitting an EOL plan on games that already rely on complex backend. If you're planning for it from the get-go, getting an architecture that isn't so cloud-reliant isn't that complicated.

2. Even if we accept the premise that a game _absolutely needed_ a cloud only architecture to function for one reason or another, that doesn't prevent releasing the architecture binaries.

3. Licensed libraries may have redistribution prohibitions _today_, but should EOL regulations come in place, you'd find that those libraries would quickly move to allow redistribution for EOL purposes, as otherwise studios would just _not use them_.

> Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced.

AFAICT, Photon Fusion is fully compliant with SKG already - it supports games where one player is the "host" and all comms are P2P. Players can direct connect to one another. While it does work better with a STUN server or with Photon's cloud, they are not *necessary* for the game to function.

Photon's Voice offering might be different, but turning that off for an EOL plan is totally acceptable according to the SKG's wanted regulation - they would fall within the same category of "extra services" that aren't part of the core game.

And _furthermore_, of the three games you cited, I know for sure that PEAK and CW are playable fully offline. They're already SKG-compliant even if photon fusion was somehow not. I haven't played Gorilla Tag or looked into it, but I think I've already made my point clear.

> Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase".

WoW still has active players in the millions. FF14 has a 25k peak concurrent players in the past 24h. There are other success stories. But sure, it "tanks your playerbase".

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

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.

> > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment > > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but…

WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape. That's a lot of outlier I can cite off the top of my head.

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

#217
post #43

Well, it's a million signatures for something to be brought up, not for something to definitely become law. A decade or so ago I (among millions) signed to abolish daylight saving time. Still waiting for that heh.

The daylight saving time shit is such a fucking fumble from the EU. We have an instance of direct democracy, we have EU politicians parading around saying “we’re gonna end it” and then absolutely nothing happens. Council points fingers at Commission, Commission points fingers at Council. “It’s their job.” How am I as an EU citizen supposed to be proud of being part of this dysfunctional mess?

Does your member state - as an EU citizen - block the process perhaps? The daylight savings process has stopped because your countries can't agree on which timezone they'd like to be in.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment > > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but…

WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape. That's a lot of outlier I can cite off the top of my head.

> WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape

There are in total ~15-30mil paying subscriber that pay subscription fees to a single game. That's 1% of all gamers globally.

But sure, let's slap a $5/month subscription fee on all upcoming games that would have the chance to be the next Among Us / PEAK, and let's see how well that works out for indie developers.

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

#219

I am mixed here. On the one hand there is the decision part from a game publisher, on the other hand the player. Subscription businesses is simply a usage over time. That's the troubling thing here. You don't really own games physically as we did during the 80th and 90th. Update-mania and buggy games were introduced first as consequence of the internet, then came the registration phase and after that the subsciption…

> Did I keep my machines from back then? The SNES, the i486 etc? What if the hardware has an defect 30 years after?

For this you have options: emulators, FPGAs, fixing the original hardware. So as long as you have your copy of the game, there is a way for you to play it.

But with modern games that is not the case anymore. Publisher can decide on a whim that they don't want to support their game and shut down the servers, which renders the whole game unplayable. It even happens with singleplayer games. This is not OK and should not be accepted as the norm.

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

#220
How about a “stop buying games” movement where people just don’t buy this live service garbage?

It’s all shovelware. It’s all the same crap over and over. There are plenty of non live service games being released every day, buy those instead. If a game is actually important to people they’ll figure out a way to play it (as people did with WoW classic before classic).

The idea that we should spend time and energy to regulate the big studios (who will just find loopholes anyway) instead of just supporting the indies who are making good stuff is wild to me.

Post reply on HN