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

Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 452 posts

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#331

Post by Levitating »

TheFreim wrote: post #323
Levitating wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you're an indie game studio developing an MMORPG, both your server and client is likely under constant development and you may only have one or two actual production servers running your server code. Now this proposal requires you to also continually release your server code.[1] While adding documentation, support for different systems, while ensuring safety as the server can now be reverse engineered and whi…

> Now this proposal requires you to also continually release your server code. This is not accurate. From the FAQ: > Q: Won't this consumer action result in the end of "live service" games? > A: No, the market demand and profitability of these games means the video games industry has an ongoing interest in selling these. Since our proposals do not interfere with existing business models, these types of games can rema…

I was actually reading the FAQ just now.

From my understanding, a company does not have to release a private server alongside the client while the official servers are live, what I said previously was inaccurate. But when the official servers are closed, they are required to provide them.

However, I don't see how a bankrupt studio can release their server code when they don't have enough money to keep their servers running. An MMORPG shutting down it's servers may not even have any developers left. It may also not have any players left.

The FAQ suggests that this won't burden developnent at all, but I believe that it will.

Regardless if they continuously release their server code or not, they still need to develop an "end of life" plan which means having the server code ready to release when they want to kill their servers.

I think one of the most relevant part of the FAQ is:

Q: Isn't it impractical, if not impossible to make online-only multiplayer games work without company servers.

A: Not at all. The majority of online multiplayer games in the past functioned without any company servers and were conducted by the customers privately hosting servers themselves and connecting to each other. Games that were designed this way are all still playable today. As to the practicality, this can vary significantly. If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. If a game has been designed with that as an eventual requirement, then this process can be trivial and relatively simple to implement. Another way to look at this is it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.

I too want online games to be killed responsibly, but I don't think Stop Killing Games is being honest about how this will influence small budget game development as opposed to the big publishers they keep talking about.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#332

Post by kergonath »

chithanh wrote: post #42
kergonath wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not how it works. The EU does not care about what Apple does in the US. It’s Apple’s choice to either tweak their products to adapt to the laws of their different markets or apply these changes across the board. We’ve seen that with recent iOS versions where EU regulations imposed changes, some of which were done only for devices in the EU. For some time Microsoft had EU specific versions of Windows. EULA some…

> The EU does not care about what Apple does in the US. Well, partially they do. For example when it comes to the Right to be forgotten , there were attempts to apply this also to data which is stored and displayed outside the EU. Only after ECJ ruling (C-507/17) such attempts were stopped. > For some time Microsoft had EU specific versions of Windows. Microsoft does have the N (formerly called "Reduced Media") editi…

> For example when it comes to the Right to be forgotten, there were attempts to apply this also to data which is stored and displayed outside the EU. Only after ECJ ruling (C-507/17) such attempts were stopped.

They care to the extent that the situation in the EU is resolved. They did not make any extraterritorial jurisdiction arguments like the US government did with Microsoft’s data centres in Ireland.

> Microsoft does have the N (formerly called "Reduced Media") editions of Windows created in response to legal demands from the EU, but these are available worldwide.

You are right, I got confused. The browser ballot screen was shown only in the EU, but it was not a separate product. Regarding Windows N, I don’t think the ruling forced them to sell it worldwide; it did not even stop them from selling their usual Windows versions in the EU.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#333

Post by whaleofatw2022 »

pointlessone wrote: post #140
danaris wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about a single-player game that relies on the company's server being online in order to allow you to play it?

The dev, having access to source code, issues the final patch that disables that feature. Better yet, the dev, having access to source code, never implements this feature in the first place as it doesn’t improve the player experience in any shape or form.

Well thats more or less what people are asking for with this.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#334

Post by Ukv »

maccard wrote: post #324
Ukv wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my understanding the idea is that if a company licenses some 3rd-party component for their game, the component would either need to be severable from the game while still leaving it reasonably playable, or the license would need to permit people who have purchased the game to use that component. This is going foward, not applying retroactively to existing games. I think that's still fairly favorable to game publis…

> If you manufacture an office chair and license a patented swivel mechanism, the license you acquire cannot require you to break purchasers' chairs after the license expires, nor even to go around their homes swapping out the mechanism (which analogously may still be permitted for games). The big difference here is that you’re applying B2C terms on B2B licenses. This would essentially ban enterprise B2B licenses for…

> The big difference here is that you’re applying B2C terms on B2B licenses.

Both are cases of B2B licensing with the latter business then selling a product on to consumers.

> This would essentially ban enterprise B2B licenses for video game software which is insanity

I don't see how. If for instance some company develops an audio processing library, they can still license it out to a game development company for a limited time - just that the license would be "the company can no longer sell games with this technology after the license expires", opposed to anything that would prevent functioning of the already-sold games. Or rather, they could stipulate the latter in their license, but then their market would be limited to game development companies willing to patch it out after the license expires.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#335

Post by DrillShopper »

dekrg wrote: post #248
Hojojo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This vague handwringing isn't any better. None of us know what the law will end up turning into. But we shouldn't let that stop this being addressed properly in our political institutions. That's what they're there for. Also, bringing up the DMCA is sort of rich, since it was always just a vehicle for the biggest content companies in publishing, film, television, music and software to protect their property online. N…

And if the end result of this legislation is that videogames in EU aren't licensed or sold but are instead all streamed and you are instead just buying access to stream a game, then what? TO me it's just amazing how the advocates for SKG ignore any possibility that it could make things much worse that they already.

> And if the end result of this legislation is that videogames in EU aren't licensed or sold but are instead all streamed and you are instead just buying access to stream a game, then what?

Then the industry is honest, and I can spend my money on an indie developer that doesn't do that.

Companies that do that will likely be completely outcompeted by studios that give a shit.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#336

Post by glimshe »

I agree with "Stop Killing Games"' vision of what games should be like. But I don't understand why people care to turn it into a movement...

There is SO MUCH choice in games nowadays, including decades of classic games, that people should simply stop supporting player-hostile companies.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#337

Post by [deleted] »

throw10920 wrote: post #276
simion314 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Vote with your wallet I bought Minecraft from Mojang, years later I am forced to setup a Microsoft account to play the game, or risk downloading a cracked version. They did not offer a refund. Minecraft is a video game where you need to login even if you do not play online. (maybe things changed , I think this MS account thing was a few years back, it worked for my account but I read of people having big issues beca…

I was forced to not only setup a Microsoft account, but hand over my phone number - after creating an account without a phone number and transferring my Minecraft license over, they immediately locked my account. Someone at Microsoft should go to jail for this.

[deleted]

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#338

Post by DrillShopper »

zamalek wrote: post #190
bluefirebrand wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup Something I am noticing more and more is how stagnant the North American game industry is. Meanwhile Europe and Japan are still killing it Larian with BG3 - Europe Cd Projekt with Witcher and Cyberpunk - Europe Nintendo rocking on as normal Monster hunter wilds and the RE remakes? Capcom, Japan Elden Ring and Nightreign. FromSoft, Japan Helldivers 2. Arrowhead Studios, Sweden Kingdom Come Deliverance 2. Warhorse…

> Certainly not a AAA studio anyways Almost every time I have spent more than $35 on a game in the past year I have wound up regretting it. It seems as though the quality of games typically increases til that point (exceptions exist, Terraria) and then declines sharply (again, exceptions exist). It has turned out to be a useful signal to be way more careful about a purchase for me.

I refuse to buy any game, AAA studio or indie, that costs more than $25.

I have shit to do and not a lot of time to game, so I can be patient for games to go on sale.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#339

Post by [deleted] »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #284
skotobaza wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if anyone (including this initiative) requires the release or maintenance of server builds or code, I am against it Why? What do you personally lose because of that?

There is a competitive advantage for being able to hold onto your code and builds. It currently requires quite a lot of effort and skill and persistence to resurrect live service games. This allows us to make money by re-releasing games and remastering them and so on. If you require us to release server builds and or code "while still respecting copyright", the result will be that countries like Russia and China will…

[deleted]

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#340

Post by dijit »

charcircuit wrote: post #296
meheleventyone wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I’m talking about the distribution of games. With physical media that’s all fine because once the license expires they stop making new copies. People that own a copy are fine. With digital distribution once you’ve EOL’d a product you still need to make it available right? Otherwise how do people that have paid for it get it? But that means you can’t distribute elements you no longer have the license to.

Games already handled this today on Steam, Apple Store, Play Store, etc by taking down the store page preventing new copies from being sold. Users can still redownload it. That's how things work today, and is how they would still work if SKG gets what they want. This isn't a new problem and is already the industry standard for how expiring IP works for the digital distribution for games.

then why can't you buy Need for Speed: Most Wanted from 2005?

(small hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/needforspeed/comments/1ceaq0r/where...)

Post reply on HN