Live data from Hacker News

Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

citizens-initiative.europa.eu

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You yourself as the publisher are stating that you don't believe that those exact same trade secrets are valuable enough to continue selling (soooooo which is it????) Code doesn't get thrown away because a game isn't being used anymore. The networking code for one game will not be completely different for the next game.

[flagged]

I'm not talking about licensing servers. I'm talking about multiplayer game hosting.

edit: oh, I see, you are just misrepresenting my argument, cool.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#63
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Build games to be used after servers are decommissioned, or don't built games. To my knowledge you are talking about games that all of the core data is stored on the client side and don't rely on updates being able to be applied to servers on data required for the game to work. How would you propose WoW, FFXIV, or other MMO's continue to be run after? There are fan projects to make private servers for some of those…

> It isn't realistic to expect that these companies would release the source code for their servers. Why is that not realistic? If the company is ending support, surely that code is ancient at that point. What's the risk? The company is ending support, by virtue of that fact, they are conceding they are not making any/enough money to continue the work. So leave it for someone else to do then, if they're inclined. I p…

> surely that code is ancient at that point.

We have seen plenty of games shut down after only a year or so to know that is not the case.

But also as I said in my response, reusing code is a thing. Maybe it relies on another internal tool that is used in some of their other games. They are not going to release that part, which would make the first part they released unusable.

Just because they are ending support doesnt mean that the some of the serverside code is not being used elsewhere or is not a shared service with another game.

> I posit the opposite question to you: why is it normal and acceptable for Blizzard to say "WoW is done and no one can play anymore" and an entire vibrant community and player-base just doesn't get to play their favorite game anymore,

I mean, I highly doubt if it was a "vibrant community" it would be shutting down at this point.

> because Blizzard decided it wasn't profitable enough? Yeah sure Blizzard made it, fine enough,

Regardless of any of our other opinions on this work, that is exactly it. They own it, they run the servers, they update it, it is their creation and with the example of an MMO it has always been clear that it relies on an online connection to work since that is the very basis of the game.

> but that's not the sum total of all work involved. Probably millions of hours at this point of streams, guides, explainers, millions of wiki pages, guides, all kinds of shit that tons of people have invested thousands of hours into. What right does Blizzard have to simply take all of that and turn it off? What about people who make their own living in turn with WoW?

You could say that about anything. Even if Blizzard did nothing, the popularity of WoW going down would still impact all of those people.

What about people that covered a tv show for several seasons just for it to be canceled (or just ending)? Maybe they made a living covering that show, are they somehow owed something because they no longer have new episodes that come out? No of course not.

Are people that made a living on Instagram or whatever owed something if those platforms shut down?

No, they boxed themselves in instead of diversifying. That should be a normal practice and recognize the risk to your livlyhood of relying on a single platform, game, tv show, or whatever other niche.

Also should be worth mentioning that all of that content that was made, won't be disappearing. There obviously won't be new content, but it would still be there and likely for a while there will be people looking it up for nostalga.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#64

My problem with things like this is that they mandate labor from others without compensating them.

This is a software architecture issue. It doesn't necessarily mean there's more work, just different goals when starting out.

Look at the case of Massive Entertainment and World in Conflict [1]. All reasons for not doing something similar boil down to decisions made early on in development.

[1] https://github.com/ubisoft/massgate

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#65

My problem with things like this is that they mandate labor from others without compensating them.

My problem with things like this is that companies expect to sell a product to me and then steal it back from me without compensating me.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#66
post #3
post #2

Video games is a good starting point, but this should basically apply to all software.

It should apply to all things period? If you buy an appliance (refrigerator, washing machine, Nest thermostat, TV), it feels like it should be required to function regardless of internet connection, availability of servers? I get that it shouldn't be required to provide communication between the device and some app but it should at least be required to do it's basic function? (can't be remote shut off, can't stop wor…

Well, I guess I can dust off my old RS232 interface dot-matrix printers and 10MB SCSI drives, then. Anyone got any paper for an old Alps dot-matrix printer?

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#67
post #17

We had a similar discussion about this before and I feel like this is an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. How many games actually only phone home and have been rendered unplayable for that reason? I am struggling to find any examples of this happening, but I am sure there are a few. Unless I am missing it, I don't even see an example listed here. If the game relies on servers for data, online play, or oth…

Minecraft, PC. 33 million copies sold.

Game purchases were originally linked to a Mojang account, and even single-player mode required you to log in at least once before you could play. Fair enough.

The servers are still up, but they forced people to migrate from Mojang accounts to Microsoft accounts. There was a reasonable grace period, but I didn't want a Microsoft account, so now I can't legally play the game anymore.

https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/19615552270221

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, I don't think they understand that running these games isn't free, modifying the games to be self hostable is not free, and giving away the code for other people to run it is ip suicide. And none of that would be an issue if not for the fact that so many companies are creating games that become paperweights when they shut down the servers. It used to be very commonplace to include server binaries with multipla…

And when the binaries inevitably stop working 50 years after release what should be done?

Why would they stop working?

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not free if you weren't considering this when designing your game. It's 100% free if you keep this requirement in mind when making your game in the first place. Some publishers having to spend money today because they played with fire by eroding consumer rights seems like a worthwhile price to pay.

Is everything a right now?

Property ownership has been a right for quite a while now, actually.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of people thinking something isn't a good argument. I don't think you can get to a much more foundational definition of democracy than "decisions are made because a lot of people agree they should". You might disagree with the results, but it's an excellent argument for something becoming law. > Unless stated by the law your rights are what you agreed to when signing the terms of service for the game. Laws ma…

> Democracies literally function via consent of the people. Do I really need explain why the majority thinking something is good does not make it good? Look-up tyranny of the majority. Obviously the vast majority of people are consumers and create nothing so it's naturally good that we just leech off creators to the largest extent possible since they are a smaller group. I am always biased in favor of people that cre…

> Do I really need explain why the majority thinking something is good does not make it good? Look-up tyranny of the majority.

No, of course not, but if you look at what I wrote you'll note that I did not say that. Majority is obviously a terrible way to decide what's morally/ethically right. Within a democratic system though, it is the way we decide what rights to grant people.

> I am always biased in favor of people that create. They are a smaller group but vastly more important.

I'm glad you point out your bias. I don't know why people who "create" (this seems to have a specific meaning for you) would be more important than anyone else. How far does this bias lean? If Blizzard updates their user agreement and sneak a clause in there where I agree to give away my house if the other party asks for it, am I wrong to think that shouldn't be enforceable?

Post reply on HN