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

191–200 of 287 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games

#191

Post by greiskul »

john_strinlai wrote: post #146
strbean wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a game is popular enough for anyone to care, some turbonerd will get the server running on a massive cloud instance, and then people will be able to play the game. Fans have reverse-engineered and stood up servers for tons of games with no access to the server binaries. The idea that they wouldn't figure it out when given much better resources (server binaries or source code) is crazy.

> The idea that they wouldn't figure it out when given much better resources (server binaries or source code) is crazy. i wasnt implying they couldnt figure it out. i was implying that you would have to be an incredibly rich turbonerd to stand up a massive cloud instance for some of these games. which sort of defeats the entire goal of the regulation.

Or maybe 100 years from now, your toaster will be powerful enough to run the game.

To me this is about both preserving the access to what consumers purchased, but also future preservation of art.

Copyright is not a natural right. It is a monopoly granted by the government to creators, specifically with the goal of the progress of art and science.

Games that completely die because their servers are shut off, in my opinion should just lose copyright outright. Why should the people via the government provide you with a monopoly on publishing something that you have stopped publishing?

Re: Stop Killing Games

#192

Post by preommr »

ryandrake wrote: post #22

If I subscribe to a service for $M/mo, I expect that service to work as long as I pay for it. If the maintainer of that service decides to turn it off and no longer charge me money, then so be it. I subscribed with eyes open about the lifetime that $M got me. If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools ov…

> So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for?

I see this argument repeated, and it's made exactly like this where it sets up a strawman and then brings up software.

No one is coming into your computer to repossess your software.

They are either turning off their servers, OR they are ending a subscription.

If you have a bus pass, you can do anything you want with the card. Your chisels being 50 years old, has nothing to do with you being able to ride the bus forever just because you bought a one-month pass.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#193

Post by habinero »

drnick1 wrote: post #163
dijit wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a game dev myself, agreed. I’m guessing nobody here has ever actually tried to make games, let alone multiplayer ones. It’s not “oh just make it better” we’re usually already stretching the limits of what’s possible financially and time wise to get a working (fun) product. You can add burdens all you want, but that means the games get simpler.. because they can’t be made cheaper (price sensitive customers) and tim…

> I’m guessing nobody here has ever actually tried to make games, let alone multiplayer ones. One possibility is to charge for online play on the "official" server. This can be done regardless of the availability of source code. Another possibility is to release the source code when the game reaches its end of life.

> Another possibility is to release the source code when the game reaches its end of life.

You might not have permission to, if it uses a lot of third party libraries.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#195

Post by cwillu »

preommr wrote: post #192
ryandrake wrote: post #22

If I subscribe to a service for $M/mo, I expect that service to work as long as I pay for it. If the maintainer of that service decides to turn it off and no longer charge me money, then so be it. I subscribed with eyes open about the lifetime that $M got me. If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools ov…

> So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for? I see this argument repeated, and it's made exactly like this where it sets up a strawman and then brings up software. No one is coming into your computer to repossess your software. They are either turning off their servers, OR they are ending a subscription. If you have a bus pas…

> They are either turning off their servers

…that are unnecessarily being checked by the local software before the local software will run the local offline functions.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#196

Post by lowbloodsugar »

Oh fuck off. [1]

To elaborate, if I make a creative experience, that requires a server, and sell it to you for $70, and you play it for a year, that's your $70 of value right there. That's the moral argument.

Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that they'll sell two versions: one that is $0, but doesnt work until you sign up for the $70 per month subscription. That's the legal argument.

What this comes down to is "I have the right to decide what my $70 actually paid for". No you don't. What you paid for is what you paid for. Now piss off.

[1] https://tenor.com/view/oh-fuck-off-alice-kristen-bell-the-pe...

Re: Stop Killing Games

#197

Post by kmeisthax »

dijit wrote: post #99
F3nd0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, thank you for the detailed answer! I understand your point much better now. I still think ‘kills any sort of multiplayer games’ (what the other dev said) is a gross exaggeration, since you list some ways this could be made to work, but it sounds like some things would cost significantly more resources and need to be done differently. But hey, maybe that’s not necessarily a bad thing. (Plus, there are multiplayer…

I think what I'm trying to explain is that we barely make it work by the skin of our teeth, and adding more requirements means fewer features. The extra point I made was that it's actually kind of costly to run these systems, and I promise you publishers would love to push that cost onto the community with community run servers (think: CS1.6) but the reason they don't is because developing systems that way takes much…

I'm not sure what you mean by "no more large multiplayer RPGs" here. It's not technically impossible to have community-hosted MMO servers. Hell, most MMORPG publishers have to have an active legal team specifically to shut those down.

As for community run servers being longer to develop... wait, what? How is that the case, when that used to be the standard way multiplayer got built prior to everyone trying to chase World of Warcraft? I can understand the anti-cheat argument, and I will begrudgingly acknowledge that you can't exactly force third-party servers to run your anti-piracy checks. But none of that is a technical argument. That's an argument about business risks, and publishers all jumped on the live service bandwagon because they consider their customers' control over their own games to be a business risk.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#198

Post by cwillu »

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.

That's funny, because most of my steam games will happily run with the network cable unplugged

Re: Stop Killing Games

#199

Post by joegibbs »

F3nd0 wrote: post #23
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. > > Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that. What you might be missing is that the author advocates for free software (which is framed differently from open source), while games typically aren’t pure software, but rely very heavily on art assets. The movement for free software traditionally draws a distinction between soft…

But why? Both the programmer and the artist have to eat, they both take pride in their work. What is the rationale for treating one side differently to the other?

Re: Stop Killing Games

#200

Post by preommr »

cwillu wrote: post #195
preommr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for? I see this argument repeated, and it's made exactly like this where it sets up a strawman and then brings up software. No one is coming into your computer to repossess your software. They are either turning off their servers, OR they are ending a subscription. If you have a bus pas…

> They are either turning off their servers …that are unnecessarily being checked by the local software before the local software will run the local offline functions.

That is irrelevant to the topic of ownership since you bought the product, you can now update the code.

If you want, you can now change that behavior.

Whether that's allowed by the TOS and what the consequences to that are is also a separate issue. At that point, people shouldn't buy the product if they disagree with the conditions.

Post reply on HN