21–30 of 88 posts
Can someone please ELI5? I've heard much about it but still, with all the drama, I still don't get it. SKG is an initiative that will force game publishers to keep a game online, provided that people have paid for it, and the publisher is not bankrupt? Is that right? What does it have to do with democracy?
> Is that right? That's the lie being told to stop stop killing games, so no.
Can someone please ELI5? I've heard much about it but still, with all the drama, I still don't get it. SKG is an initiative that will force game publishers to keep a game online, provided that people have paid for it, and the publisher is not bankrupt? Is that right? What does it have to do with democracy?
No, they do not want to force publishers to keep a game online. The initiative just wants developers to provide a way for users to keep using a game after it has gone EOL by allowing users to run their own servers or by no longer requiring internet access. See the FAQ[1]: > Aren't you asking companies to support games forever? Isn't that unrealistic? > A: No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishe…
I think Stop Killing Games is more important than just "oh noes, they took my toys away". Looking back, video games have been the gateway to computing in more than one one way. Before home computers people had game consoles (which were cheaper than computers) or arcades. Before iTunes and app stores there was Steam. Before the modern smartphone apps there were Wii channels. Maybe in some cases the games came technica…
Have you played The Talos Principle 2? Yep, games are toys! It's nothing more than that. What we fail to realise in our industrial society is that toys are a fundamental piece of our culture, they enable learning lots of different skills that wouldn't be possible in the "real world", they foster creativity, problem solving, bonding and cooperation... Toys are just toys, and yet they are the most important things we h…
Yes, video games can be educational and entertaining, just like real world toys, but they can also be artistic and communicate stories. They're the most expressive and engaging storytelling device we have ever invented.
Not all games are all of these things, and there's nothing wrong with games that only focus on entertainment, but those that combine all of these aspects successfully are far more impactful and memorable than any other piece of media.
Can someone please ELI5? I've heard much about it but still, with all the drama, I still don't get it. SKG is an initiative that will force game publishers to keep a game online, provided that people have paid for it, and the publisher is not bankrupt? Is that right? What does it have to do with democracy?
The drama mostly stems from the fact that the head of the movement is a gamer with no knowledge of either software development or game development, so he has a VERY simplistic view of how a game server-client works and thinks that developers just have a .exe executable running from a raspberry pi that can be uploaded to github and that's it. When people with knowledge call out that there are TONS middleware used to develop a game with their own licenses and that a server nowadays is more than a single machine, he just says: well, this movement is no retroactive so new games will be develop with that in mind and automatically every software vendor will be fine with distributing their code so that everyone can keep playing.
While I support the spirit of the movement, this will ultimately end up with a warning label in a box because real life has more nuances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be, if you can set up a millions of dollars regulatory apparatus to keep online some really old MMOs for the 100 people worldwide who want to play them, there's really nothing you can't regulate.
This is a common mischaracterization of stop killing games. It does not propose publishers keep games online indefinitely, but to provide the bare minimum to the community to host them if they decide to shut the servers down for good. If the 16-year-old Unturned dev could do it, so can AAA studios
Can someone please ELI5? I've heard much about it but still, with all the drama, I still don't get it. SKG is an initiative that will force game publishers to keep a game online, provided that people have paid for it, and the publisher is not bankrupt? Is that right? What does it have to do with democracy?
Games allowed for personally hosted servers and the ability to connect to them. This is how original Call of Duty, Counter Strike, Quake III, Doom 3, Enemy Territory, and more worked. A person did not have to create a user account with the company that produced the title.
Modern day games require an user account for their services and you are only allowed to connect to their servers without being able to self-host.
Self-hosting was very beneficial during dial up days because the local ISP could run the server to reduce connection latency.
Games like Battlefield Bad Company 2 is a great example of how bad it has become.
Can someone please ELI5? I've heard much about it but still, with all the drama, I still don't get it. SKG is an initiative that will force game publishers to keep a game online, provided that people have paid for it, and the publisher is not bankrupt? Is that right? What does it have to do with democracy?
is this going to be the next "think of the children" question?
what's the point of mentioning this?
Governments cannot make you an alternative, they can only make something that already exists, different (usually worse).
I have zero interest in creating in the gaming space, however, my gut reaction would be to start down the path of how I could create competition to companies that rug pulled their games.
And yes, I get that "just make a competitor" is easier said than done. But at least by going down that road, you end up with more games, better games, and people learning skills throughout the process. And who knows, maybe one is a mega success.
Sure, you can stand there pounding your chest for "democracy," but I contend that those who are building their own things are practicing it far more than those who are demanding others make things for them.
I in no way mean this to be rude, but I think a big part of why the EU isn't in the same galaxy as the US in the realm of business in general, is in some part, the knee jerk reaction to turn to the government to make products and services better. Governments cannot make you an alternative, they can only make something that already exists, different (usually worse). I have zero interest in creating in the gaming space…
Imagine you buy a car, then a few years later the company remotely disables it because they're selling a newer model. Without giving you the money back of course. That's what's happening with games. And not just multiplayer: tons of single player games have been killed this way. The whole SKG thing started with The Crew, whose single player campaign (a massive thing with tons of content) got remotely yanked by the publisher.