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

51–60 of 287 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games

#51

Post by jasonlotito »

0xy wrote: post #35
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…

Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs. At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually. It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant a…

> At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way.

The legislation specifically carves out for things like this.

> Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs.

The legislation doesn't add this requirement at all.

> It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.

No. It's paying $10 and eating until 10pm and then leaving because they are done.

Your entire comment just reads as someone who has made assumptions about what is being asked for rather than actually looked into it.

Just the opening of your first two paragraphs proves that.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#52

Post by krupan »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #4
truelson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not always planned obsolescence. Good ol' "only the cheapest survive" plays a role, too.

Never heard that phrase. I think their point is the most cheaply made units aren't surviving into the future. They're just getting replaced often. Unless perhaps it means only companies selling the cheapest are surviving. Which also doesn't seem broady true. Maybe we can say "whoever sells the cheapest acceptable units survives".

Amazing nitpicking of the phrase, well done

Re: Stop Killing Games

#53

Post by cogman10 »

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.

My reading of this was it was in terms of multiplayer games and servers. It was that the server should be freely redistributable and accessible. Much like you can download and run a minecraft server without owning a minecraft license.

The next sentence

> A multiplayer game cannot survive if only one person has the server files.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#54

Post by jasonlotito »

delichon wrote: post #33
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…

Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly. See also 'Juicero'.

> Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it

There are carve-outs in the legislation for this. It's a moot point.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#55

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #45
0xy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs. At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually. It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant a…

I'm not asking for free labor. I'm asking that if someone sells me a product for a one-time cost, then I expect that product to continue working as it did when I bought it. If ensuring it "continues working" represents a cost to the developer, then they should reconsider charging one-time for the product.

[deleted]

Re: Stop Killing Games

#56

Post by F3nd0 »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #39
F3nd0 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. It’s never been about what’s possible in theory, but what’s feasible in practice. By the same kind of logic you apply here, every country in the world is as good as democratic because you can work your way to free elections eventually, even if it takes a while.

The literal next sentence after your quote was addressing the feasibility, of which it is clearly feasible because people actually are reverse engineering games at scale.

The point I was trying to make is that understanding and modifying software to do your bidding is significantly more feasible if you already have the source code than if you have to reverse-engineer it yourself, to an important degree.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#57

Post by stronglikedan »

ryandrake wrote: post #45
0xy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs. At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually. It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant a…

I'm not asking for free labor. I'm asking that if someone sells me a product for a one-time cost, then I expect that product to continue working as it did when I bought it. If ensuring it "continues working" represents a cost to the developer, then they should reconsider charging one-time for the product.

> they should reconsider charging one-time for the product

You wouldn't be able to afford it. It's well known at the time of purchase that online games will eventually become obsolete. Comparing that to tools is comparing apples to oranges.

Now, I do think that game companies should be compelled to make their servers available for others to host and maintain if they decide to stop hosting and maintaining them themselves. Some do, but all should be required to.

Re: Stop Killing Games

#59

Post by CobrastanJorji »

For a multiplayer game, especially for something like an MMO where there's lots and lots of content that exists only on the server, there's an interesting question. How do you keep the game going? Do you force the company to release a full working server with all of its content? I'm not opposed to that, but it's a much taller ask than "allow the end users to keep using their clients."

But then who's allowed to run servers? Can I modify the servers and mod them and republish my changes? Does killing the game also need to cancel any copyright on any server-side assets?

But then we need to get into licensing. What if Fortnite goes offline and they publish their server assets? Does that give me the right to use Naruto and Family Guy avatars on my homebrew server?

Re: Stop Killing Games

#60

Post by zuzululu »

F3nd0 wrote: post #30
saghm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that vein, the other day this got posted to HN: https://twilitrealm.dev/ It uses an independent reimplementation of the code of a Zelda game from the GameCube and combines them with the assets from the actual game to make native binaries for various platforms, which blows my mind a bit but demonstrates the power of this sort of split abstraction.

Yes! And there are many other re-implementation projects, like OpenMW, OpenGothic, fheroes2, and others, which allow you to play the games if you can provide the original assets. Largely for older games, but the point stands. https://openmw.org/ https://github.com/Try/OpenGothic https://ihhub.github.io/fheroes2/

WTF!

That is impressive there is OSS Gothic 2

I wonder if its legal, how is it MIT

Post reply on HN