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

Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

stopkillinggames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#131

Post by johnnyanmac »

Sakos wrote: post #42
worble wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive. The problem is that piracy doesn't help for always online "games as a service" games where the game is killed after the server has shut down. You can't pirate the server because it was never available, and outside of being lucky enough that a few hackers dedicate a lot of spare time to reverse engineering it, that gam…

There is a historical and cultural loss involved when online only games are shutdown. This isn't simply a problem of "oh there was never an expectation of eternal access". It's a problem of us losing historical artifacts because of financial incentives.

>It's a problem of us losing historical artifacts because of financial incentives.

If I may be frank, most history isn't worth remembering. There will always be a dozen fans of some niche MMO that lasted a year in the 00's, but people just move on eventually. It's entertainment at the end of the day.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#132

Post by johnnyanmac »

sofixa wrote: post #41
Yeul wrote: post #18

As I understand it copyright on a videogame is 50 years but the vast majority of games- or all entertainment really- stops making money after a few years. It gets worse if your game has licensed music in it! I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive. Publishers just aren't going to spend a dime if it doesn't make a buck.

> but the vast majority of games- or all entertainment really- stops making money after a few years I don't think that's universally true. Paradox Interactive are a studio with grand strategy games, and even decades-old games still get new sales of the base game and the DLCs, with a strong user base.

it becomes less true by the year. almost half the playtime of 2023 came from games 6+ years old: https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-mostly-played-older-game...

this is not just a GaaS thing (though GaaS is the biggest in the list), even evergreen indie titles can choose to just add more content to a single player game for years instead of making a new title. titles like Terraria and Binding of Isaac more than passed a decade at this point.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#133

Post by johnnyanmac »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #65
cchi_co wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy undermines the creators' rights still. And I think that a legal framework should do its job

Creators were never supposed to have indefinite rights. Copyright has an expiration date to balance fhe rights of the public and author.

sure, and we can adjust that without abolishing copyright, nor justifying what is basically theft to go around it. I don't know why every-time this conversation comes up peopel instantly go to "abolish copyright". Is no one else here a creator of some kind?

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#134

Post by johnnyanmac »

netcan wrote: post #82

Imo... even if they win this, they still lose. Requiring companies to do things they don't want to do... has limits. It's hard to prevent them from doing a crap job. The actual "solution" is radically reducing copyright duration. Most revenue is generated during the first N years.

I agree, but nit:

>Most revenue is generated during the first N years.

With the shift to GaaS models this is becoming less true. once you get a hit, you will easily have a steady income stream for 5,10+ years. WOW is well over 20 at this point.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#135

Post by johnnyanmac »

BlackFly wrote: post #96
dalmo3 wrote: post #90

> Require video games sold Wouldn't this just incentivise companies to move to a F2P and/or subscription model? There's no expectation that, just because I've downloaded the client , I should be able to use a VPN service after the servers are discontinued. Or use AutoCAD after my licence has expired. You don't need to leave the gaming realm to imagine the unintended consequences of this petition - just look at the he…

Possibly, but it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly. People approach free-to-play games and subscription based games with different attitudes than purchased games. A purchase carries a reasonable expectation of durability. On the other hand, if you sell cosmetic items in your subscription based or free-to-play game, then you have sold something with…

> it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly.

Yeah, good luck with that. these companies have wasted that goodwill for almost a decade now. The real unfortunate part is that most consumers don't care, so companies can keep doing it.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#136

Post by johnnyanmac »

Nullabillity wrote: post #85
RHSeeger wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really as simple as that, though. What if your server code uses paid, 3rd party libraries?

Too bad, should have thought of that before taking on the dependency?

That's not how indies work. By using an engine like Unreal or Unity, you take on dozens of third party dependencies on top of whatever Epic's licenses are.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#137

Post by johnnyanmac »

Sakos wrote: post #44
maccard wrote: post #23

Why does this only apply to video games? Why doesn't this apply to apps in general? I don't want to suggest that I'm in favour of sunsetting every game once a publisher or developer is done with it, but there's got to be a middle ground between "you must ensure that your game can have all online components replaced" and what we have right now. And I think the sheer amount of work involved in the former for every game…

> perverse incentives from a very small subset of users This is to the benefit of everybody now and in the future. It doesn't matter if only an insignificant fraction of people recognize the importance.

I'm not so optimistic. These are just games at the end of the day, and much bigger issues have had friction even if it's for the benefit of everyone.

>It doesn't matter if only an insignificant fraction of people recognize the importance.

that's literally how petitions work. If not enough people care, it doesn't even get looked at by Parliment. The first pass of this didn't look too hot.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#138

Post by johnnyanmac »

Moldoteck wrote: post #87
RHSeeger wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> release the source and people will maintain it for you for free What about cases where just having the source code isn't enough. Things that use paid third party libraries are a good example.

it's up to the ppl. Without server code you can do nothing, with it & third parties it's up to you/volunteers to decide if it's worth it or not to keep alive

If this does miraculously pass, I think people will be severely disappointed by how much goodwill there is to spread. Lots of games and not a lot of reverse engineers.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#139

Post by johnnyanmac »

pjc50 wrote: post #29
oleganza wrote: post #6

People want to be hooked up on subscription because schools and parents do not preach long-term values (well, maybe only orthodox religious minorities do). We are in this situation because of a shrinking time horizon for the modern society (aka "high time preference"). People want instant gratification, buy-now-pay-later, pay attention to the packaging, not content. Most citizens are conditioned to live here and now.…

Customers generally do not want to be hooked on subscriptions, that's a choice that's forced on them by the "you will own nothing and be happy" rentier faction. > Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical No need for "hysterical" in there. But the more and sooner action is taken the better the outcome.

>Customers generally do not want to be hooked on subscriptions,

Gamepass seems to disagree. You are free to buy any game so far that has been on gamepass but people would rather buy a rental Smörgåsbord than keep some sense of ownership of the game. I don't think the choice is force; it just aligns with most people's real feelings on the media they consume.

Re: Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

#140

Post by johnnyanmac »

pawelmurias wrote: post #21
close04 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical right now, otherwise the world's gonna end tomorrow. This looks more like a consequence of the issue you described previously, than part of the issue itself. If everyone is concerned only with the next 5 minutes (and even if they are with the next 5 years), how would you pos…

It's normal and expected that people won't care much what happens in 50 or 500 years. You will possibly be dead and it's too far away to reliably predict the consequence of event in that time span.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” — Greek Proverb

Despite the tagline in various points of history, we seem to have in fact not grown great, especially not great again.

Post reply on HN