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

Stop Killing Games

jxself.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 287 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games

#101

Post by strbean »

dijit wrote: post #82
ashdnazg wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs. As far as I understand that situation is accepted by the initiative. The requirement is not that it works on any specific hardware or software stack, just that it can theoretically work. > a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product Anti-cheat solutions aren't required to be released, and…

What you're saying is true for the californian legislation, but not the EU which is currently being drafted (in a different direction) - nor the direction of the authors article, and like I replied in a sibling response: it's not like people would be pleased to get our binaries. Second: anti-cheat itself is a fucking joke. A crutch, a last ditch hail-mary because we ran out of time to batten down the hatches or thing…

> but not the EU which is currently being drafted (in a different direction)

Where can we find information about the direction the EU is going on this? AFAICT there has just been one meeting on the topic?

Re: Stop Killing Games

#102

Post by Rohansi »

dijit wrote: post #76
ryandrake wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.

Yeah, but gamers in particular are against subscriptions and micro-transactions. Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.

You also pay for expansions in WoW which are a one time fee, for each expansion. The latest one includes previous ones so you don't need to pay for all eleven of the, but if you're an active player you would absolutely pay for all of them.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#103

Post by singpolyma3 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #31
figmert wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article mentions, these arguments are basically all the arguments of the FSF, and everything Richard Stallman pushed for since the 80s. So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact.

> So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact. what percent of businesses follow the FSF freedoms and turn a profit? i would love it if i could get all my games for free, and legally give additional copies to all my students, family, and friends. but the developers pumping out those games probably want to see some sort of return more substantial than whatever trickles…

I don't see how "what percent" is the right metric. There are hundreds of such companies (I work for one) but it's a small percentage due to other factors (mainly it not being the default way most founders think about these things)

Re: Stop Killing Games

#104

Post by singpolyma3 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #75
figmert wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really my point. My point is more that you suggested no one has thought about this, but yes, they have. To answer your question, there have been plenty of business who have created and published free software (albeit plenty have later closed them). Notable examples are Databricks, Hashicorp, Mongodb, RedHat. Sure they've built a moat on top of their free software, but they have (or had) free software regardless.

> My point is more that you suggested no one has thought about this, but yes, they have. i didnt say no one has thought about free software. i said that this specific llm that output this article did not think about how the freedoms would work in todays gaming industry. there are dozens of issues that immediately pop into my head, mostly specific to gaming, which are not mentioned or addressed at all.

lol. The article is obviously not written by an LLM.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#105

Post by cogman10 »

0xy wrote: post #88
cogman10 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I purchased a toy that I expect to be able to continue playing with long after the company that made that toy loses interest in it. I don't expect the company to run servers for my toy, I can do that if they gave that opportunity. The way the industry currently operates is you show up to an all you can eat buffet, pay your $10, and then they give you a 30 page contract that you have to sign before you can start eatin…

Games explicitly do not promise online features remain available perpetually. No reasonable consumer would assume perpetual access, either. I also completely disagree that "it doesn't cost Valve anything to run Half Life". Firstly, it's patently incorrect, given Half Life has received 20+ updates in the last 5 years alone. Secondly, it's technically incorrect, given Steam going offline prevents you from opening Half…

> Games explicitly do not promise online features remain available perpetually. No reasonable consumer would assume perpetual access, either.

Explicitly through a contract you HAVE to sign AFTER the purchase. That's a big problem I have with this model. It's not made explicit until after the purchase.

And, it is reasonable to expect because, as I said and other old game players can attest to, this was the status quo for games ~15 years ago. This was a change in living memory.

> Firstly, it's patently incorrect, given Half Life has received 20+ updates in the last 5 years alone.

How about Quake 1/2/3? I pulled half life just as an example. Valve is making those updates because they want to, not because they have to.

> Secondly, it's technically incorrect, given Steam going offline prevents you from opening Half Life at all.

Ok, Again Quake or Dark forces 2. But also, it's only technically incorrect today. It wasn't when HL was originally released. Valve had to backport in it's integration to the valve servers. That is, they technically had to put in effort to make the game tie to their servers.

But also, I can still dust off my old HL cds, install it, and play it without the steam integration. I can even patch it to a pre-steam version and game with people that aren't using the pre steam version.

> Steam shuts down tomorrow, guess what? None of your games are working without a third party workaround. Even if you had them installed.

That's really only because steam has gone out of it's way to install DRM on top of the games. They have purposely broken my games to be dependent on their services.

None of this makes your argument better, in fact it's a highlight of the broken nature of the games industry.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#106

Post by Rohansi »

0xy wrote: post #88
cogman10 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I purchased a toy that I expect to be able to continue playing with long after the company that made that toy loses interest in it. I don't expect the company to run servers for my toy, I can do that if they gave that opportunity. The way the industry currently operates is you show up to an all you can eat buffet, pay your $10, and then they give you a 30 page contract that you have to sign before you can start eatin…

Games explicitly do not promise online features remain available perpetually. No reasonable consumer would assume perpetual access, either. I also completely disagree that "it doesn't cost Valve anything to run Half Life". Firstly, it's patently incorrect, given Half Life has received 20+ updates in the last 5 years alone. Secondly, it's technically incorrect, given Steam going offline prevents you from opening Half…

> Steam shuts down tomorrow, guess what? None of your games are working without a third party workaround. Even if you had them installed.

Not true. Some games distributed via Steam will continue to work because they do not use (or require) Steamworks.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#107

Post by Telaneo »

wxre wrote: post #91
stronglikedan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they should reconsider charging one-time for the product You wouldn't be able to afford it. It's well known at the time of purchase that online games will eventually become obsolete. Comparing that to tools is comparing apples to oranges. Now, I do think that game companies should be compelled to make their servers available for others to host and maintain if they decide to stop hosting and maintaining them themsel…

Okay well how about my EVSE (EV car charger)? Much more akin to a tool. I can't configure it now because it relies on a cloud interface and the company that sold it to me changed hands several times and now doesn't operate in the US. Now it's stuck thinking I want it limited to 28 amps rather than the 50 amps my new car can use.

You should be entitled to a fix for that, yes (say, some way to connect it to Home Assistant, or just a physical switch somewhere). That or your money back so you can buy an equivalent product that isn't broken.

I've seen discussions about this exact topic in Europe, but it's a hard topic to tackle, since the relevant services will usually shut down bell beyond five years, and by that time, the statute of limitations will have run out, so even if the product could in theory have lasted for 20+ years longer if you could just have it talk to the computer in your closet, or just flipped a switch to turn it into a dumb-mode where is still does the basics you don't need a clown for, you're out of luck.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#108

Post by kulahan »

abetusk wrote: post #94
nerdjon wrote: post #8

This is basically advocating for open source games which is a completely different story than what stop killing games is trying to do. There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them. I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say: > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. That... basically kills the entire gaming industry. A…

> That... basically kills the entire gaming industry. Pretty dismissive, no? Jason Rohrer puts many (most?) of his games in the public domain, including "One Hour, One Life" [0] [1]. As far as I know, his game is pretty successful, by indie standards. Teeworlds was at one point accepting donations, I believe [2]. Solarus has a donation page [3]. I'm sure there are many more examples that span the spectrum of payment…

This is cool and all, but it’s been proven a million times over that surviving on donations sucks. One of the reasons a new field gets innovation in partly because it brings so many people hungry for profit in to give it a go. If your only motivation is art and “maybe someone will toss me a buck on occasion”, we’ll have as many software devs as we do street performers.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#109

Post by singpolyma3 »

dijit wrote: post #63
F3nd0 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As not a game dev myself, may I ask for clarification? How does ‘Stop Killing Games’ legislation kill any sort of multiplayer games specifically? Aren’t there already games which don’t have the problem the movement is trying to solve? Wouldn’t it only require action from you if you were trying to kill multiplayer in the first place? I feel like I may have misunderstood your point or am just lacking a lot of important…

Well, ok, you grasped at a few issues there that go off in different directions. The issue with "Stop Killing Games" is that the legislation doesn't currently look like anything, it's a broad appeal and the solution for studios will depend on where it finally lands. If it lands in the realm of "Games must be released FOSS after x years" then, aside from the fact that a lot of the times we don't own the copyrights to…

> But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs.

This doesn't seem like much of an obstacle? Can buy or rent such without too much trouble.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#110

Post by F3nd0 »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #64
F3nd0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I was trying to make is that understanding and modifying software to do your bidding is significantly more feasible if you already have the source code than if you have to reverse-engineer it yourself, to an important degree.

Sure, and then it's significantly less feasible for developers to eat, to an important degree. It just comes across as entitled - it's too much effort to reverse engineer, give everything to me for free! Never mind that it can be done, I don't want to do it, I'm entitled to 10,000 manhours of free labour because software yearns to be free!!!

I think your rhetoric is needlessly antagonistic.

The idea of free software follows from fairly simple logic: You should be in control of your computer and any software that runs on it should be distributed under form and licence which facilitate this. It’s not about what the software wants or how much work people owe you; it’s about enabling you to own your computing when the code is literally already there. Surely you can disagree with that without making up (in my view) silly-sounding arguments for the other side?

Post reply on HN