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

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 confines, it seems _very obvious_ to me that you can design just about any multiplayer game in a way that's compatible with SKG's desired regulations. In the vast majority of multiplayer games, you can:

- Provide a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that. Too many examples to cite.)

- Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers (Many survival games, or games with a persistent world, can do that. See v-rising for a recent example.)

- Provide a local multiplayer mode (split screen/couch coop style)

And if you don't want to go through any of that for [insert reason here], you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment like WoW and you're no longer subject to the regulation!

Now, please give me an example of a game that doesn't fit within that framework if you want to continue this argument.

> disgusting anti-democratic suggestion [...] denying them representation

I assume the idea isn't that developing a game means you don't get to vote as a citizen, but that the industry can't lobby for special access ("spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups").

> develop your game with offline playability in mind from the beginning

> players churn on their own without social features

you say one thing but the market votes the other way. Game developers are under pressure to turn a profit. If you want a game your way, develop them yourself! Thats how I started making games for myself. Projecting or pressuring others to do so yield no productive consequence.

I guess that they forgot to put a big "Protect the children" title on top of their proposal to have it accepted blindly.

> Like....what licencing issues? After the game is "dead" and the parent company doesn't want to support it anymore, we could easily release the source code or even just the executables for the servers.

I can't speak to the parent's stance, but more generally this would be referring to IP licensing and patent encumbrance. I've worked on a number of large systems where non-trivial parts of the codebase were licensed from external parties with distribution restrictions in place. Even the executable versions would be problematic as the contracts go to great lengths to lock it down to strictly company XYZ may modify and use the IP, but nothing else regardless of the form or means of distribution.

Releasing said systems as-is would require either relicensing to allow distribution (very costly and potentially impossible if the vendor declines), or replacing that functionality with a cleanroom implementation. Which is both costly, time consuming and difficult. You may also run into further issues there if the contract forbids cloning functionality, or even worse: if there is patent encumbrance you have to go back to the relicensing option.