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

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

dexerto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 346 posts

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

#281

Post by akramachamarei »

skotobaza wrote: post #275
akramachamarei wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power to say "that product you are selling is not okay with me! If the customer is willing to buy, it must be because you have deceived him. We cannot trust customers to buy games on their own, they need help from the state to do that!" Shall I go on? CU: I consent. GD: I consent. EU: Isn't there someone you forgot to ask? "Oh, won't someone think of the gamers?"

The initiative is not about telling which games customers can and cannot buy, it's about customers getting to play a game they paid for without the fear of it becoming bricked after the publisher stops supporting it.

This is equivalent to the government making certain kinds of contracts unlawful. It's the same kind of situation as in prostitution and illicit drug markets. The government claims that certain kinds of agreements should simply not be available to customers and sellers. This is not the government's business.

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

#282

Post by [deleted] »

systemdev wrote: post #274

I’m so skeptical of the “making it work offline is too hard” argument, I’ve personally RE’d dozens of these titles with no source access, often with anti tamper, and succeeded. Very few titles are genuinely unpreservable to some extent. For example, the VAST majority of Unreal Engine games are trivially preservable unless the developers have taken steps to strip server code, and even when devs do take those steps “re…

[deleted]

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

#283

Post by rookderby »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #7

As is stated in the article, but is not clear just from the headline, this was not an unexpected outcome from the initiative. The Commission did not seek discussions with SKG, and spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups. SKG was prepared for this, and their intention has been to join up with the group putting together the new Digital Fairness Act, since the objective there is very simi…

Digital fairness act for those that want to check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Fairness_Act

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

#284

Post by BlitzGeology91 »

hobofan wrote: post #196
sph wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer How did studios deal with multiplayer in the 1990-2010? That's right, server binary and in-game server browser. These days you don't even need to enter an IP address, just use Steam to invite/join friends. Using third-party or cloud online services is just pure laziness/convenience, and allowing fo…

Yes, and it was an awful experience with a fraction of the playerbase. WC3 Battle.net browser is an experience that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. TF2 server browser, where many of the good servers were also not publicly listed and head to be discovered outside of the game is also not really a tractable option.

> Yes, and it was an awful experience with a fraction of the playerbase.

“awful experience”? That’s a very very surprising thing to read. My personal experience has been the exact opposite. I’ve personally experienced two types of games:

1. Games where you can choose a server manually (i.e., by using a server browser or by manually entering an IP address).

2. Games where you have let some sort of matchmaking system choose a server for you.

For games in the first category, I end up building up a favorites list of servers where I fit in and am appreciated. For games in the second category, I am not able to do that. As a result, I get a lot of hate.

I love being cheery and spreading positive vibes in voice chat. Some people like it when I do that. Other people hate it when I do that because they think that my behavior is gay and because they hate gay people. For games in the first category, I am able to avoid the haters by playing on servers where haters are not welcome. For games in the second category, I have to just hope that I get lucky. In practice, I end up being unlucky so often that it makes me never want to play games that fall into the second category.

So from my perspective, the older way of doing things was not an awful experience. It’s the newer way of doing things (the way that allows for games to be killed) that has been an awful experience.

> TF2 server browser, where many of the good servers were also not publicly listed and head to be discovered outside of the game is also not really a tractable option.

I love TF2. I play it all the time. I didn’t know that there was a bunch of good servers that are not publicly listed and had to be discovered outside of the game. Could you link to some of them? I would love to check them out.

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

#285

Post by keybored »

hobofan wrote: post #91
nairboon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this argument to work, you'd need to show that a generic politician is somehow immune to misinformation campaigns/lobbyism.

It's reasonable to at least expect that. It's their job after all, while for any single voter there is a lower standard you can realistically hold them too and less time available to verify/debunk claims. On top of that, there are also instruments that help the voters track whether politicians are engaging in corrupt lobbyism like voting records + donation / campaign contribution records, though few countries do that…

> On top of that, there are also instruments that help the voters track whether politicians are engaging in corrupt lobbyism like voting records + donation / campaign contribution records, though few countries do that to a degree that it forms a cohesive anti-corruption framework. None of those measures exist for individual voters.

Corruption by definition is intentional, compare getting hoodwinked by "misinformation". Curious what "measures [] for individual voters" even means with regards to voters. A voter cannot be corrupt since they only represent themselves.

There’s interestingly all this hoopla and indirection, tracking corruption and misaligned priorities, even now adding the burden to the feeble voter mind to not only stay clear of misinformation campaigns but to watch out for corruption in their own representatives. This seems ripe for simplification.

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

#286

Post by s1artibartfast »

monegator wrote: post #147
l23k4 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is idiotic . "The industry" are also European citizens. It's about balancing the interests of people who pay their rent and feed their children by selling games, and the interests of people who merely enjoy games. Consulting only the group which enjoys games would be absurd to the point of being actively malicious.

Hey! That's exactly what lobbyists against regulations would say!

SkG is a lobbyist too!

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

#287

Post by throwaway85825 »

Razengan wrote: post #33

When was the last time any law in any of the so-called democracies was influenced by common citizens? Serious question not snark

For UK parliament petitions it was 1 in 800. And only because one MP was really against importing shark fins and pushed it themselves as well. Democracy is fake.

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

#288

Post by throwaway85825 »

akramachamarei wrote: post #281
skotobaza wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initiative is not about telling which games customers can and cannot buy, it's about customers getting to play a game they paid for without the fear of it becoming bricked after the publisher stops supporting it.

This is equivalent to the government making certain kinds of contracts unlawful. It's the same kind of situation as in prostitution and illicit drug markets. The government claims that certain kinds of agreements should simply not be available to customers and sellers. This is not the government's business.

Real lolbertarianism has never been tried. Maybe in somalia.

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

#289

Post by skotobaza »

akramachamarei wrote: post #281
skotobaza wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initiative is not about telling which games customers can and cannot buy, it's about customers getting to play a game they paid for without the fear of it becoming bricked after the publisher stops supporting it.

This is equivalent to the government making certain kinds of contracts unlawful. It's the same kind of situation as in prostitution and illicit drug markets. The government claims that certain kinds of agreements should simply not be available to customers and sellers. This is not the government's business.

But nobody is trying to block "certain kinds of agreements". You can still make whatever games you could make before. Nothing changes in that regard.

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

#290

Post by skotobaza »

l23k4 wrote: post #263
Folcon wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are you arguing that activities that make people happy have little to no value? I mean, we only spend money when we believe that what we buy with it is more valuable than the money we've spent, so there is some underlying activity or follow up to spending the money that naturally follows otherwise, the buyer would perceive no benefit and would not buy again So how are you equating collection and enjoyment of yo…

Surely they must have value at an individual level, for people are willing to pay to engage in those. The time you spend playing games does very little to help the society around you, and might in fact distract you from more productive activities. Perhaps gamers would go outside instead, and reduce the burden on the healthcare system. This essentially amounts to government intervention to reduce the already incredibl…

> Is that good public policy?

Yes, because you will not be limited in time to enjoy a single title. Like it's the case with other media - books, music, movies, etc. This is good because future people (who haven't even been born yet) will be able to enjoy the same slice of entertainment that we enjoy right now. Just like we can still enjoy games made 40 years ago.

Post reply on HN