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

Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

citizens-initiative.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#71

Post by spookie »

ldoughty wrote: post #14
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state. > Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames wit…

Who will pay devs to convert World of Warcraft into a single-player game? This is probably covered by "reasonable means to continue functioning" and the answer will be "there are no reasonable means".. but the comment parent's point somewhat stands. Even moving a DLC check can be complicated. When you game is done, do you disable all DLC since you can't verify someone purchased it, or do you make it freely available?…

It doesn't necessarily mean to turn WoW in a simgle player game. Just being able to setup servers in a reasonable way (i.e. not reverse engineering and emulating how they work, like people have done for WoW).

Look into World in Conflict, its a great example of what to do: https://github.com/ubisoft/massgate

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#72

Post by triceratops »

georgeecollins wrote: post #55
brigadier132 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably pay a lot more for a pacemaker. Also, these kinds of analogies are not good arguments, pacemakers and video games are not in any way comparable. Pass this law, fine. Just expect to pay $100 for a game + a monthly fee to play it online

I am surprised this reply gets down voted because it is pretty accurate. Video game makers/publishers (I am one!) design and distribute games based on what they can make money on. People tend to be cheap about entertainment, particularly the biggest consumers who have more time than money. So they complain about free to play but probably download 20 free to play games for every premium one they pay for. It's their ri…

It's being downvoted because there are plenty of DRM-free, no server-required games in existence today and they don't cost $100 + a monthly fee. AAA games back in the days when they were distributed by CD-ROM or disk didn't charge a monthly fee either.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#73

Post by throwaway14356 »

nox101 wrote: post #3
thmsths wrote: 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…

if you buy something it shouldn't be tied to their backend either.

I use to type the ip from a security cam and get a web page with a video stream on it. I thought it was hilarious when it turned into a 404.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#74

Post by horsawlarway »

brigadier132 wrote: post #61
horsawlarway wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

[flagged]

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#75

Post by brigadier132 »

rimunroe wrote: post #70
brigadier132 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 peopl…

> would be more important than anyone else

The world will quickly go to shit if people stopped creating and building new things. Literally everything you own was built by someone's labor. Maybe stop mandating that these people do more for you?

> If Blizzard updates their user agreement and sneak a clause in there where I agree to give away my house

Where are you going with this argument? In what way does being biased mean I just agree with everything a group decides?

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#76

Post by rimunroe »

brigadier132 wrote: post #40
rimunroe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not how most regulation (and law in general) works? You make a rule to stop someone from doing some undesirable thing, often without compensating them for whatever they've lost as part of doing it. These things are (ideally) done because we see the benefit outweighing the burden.

This law is not stopping anything, it's mandating something be done. And yes, many laws are like this and that's why Europe's startup ecosystem does not exist. Laws like this are a pain for large companies but they are fatal for small ones.

Stopping someone from doing something necessarily requires them to change their behavior. E.g. creating a rule saying you can't dispose of waste in a river forces people who were doing that to find another method of disposal.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#77

Post by anon_cow1111 »

OK as usual there's a ton of misunderstanding on this issue so I feel the need to summarize it:

The goal is to require publishers to leave the game in a working state when they end support.

For single player focused games, this means removing the phone-home verification or drm so it can function offline.

For multiplayer focused games, this means allowing users to run their own server. It DOES NOT mean keeping official servers running forever.

I'm sure there's going to be someone saying "NOOOOO they'll have to do more work to make sure the game is still playable!" Ok, and? You're saying they should legally be allowed to sell the game on a DVD that self-destructs after a year because it's "too much work" to sell non-destructing discs? This is why new regulations are needed, because this is a bad practice that only recently started, and it needs to be stopped before it gets worse.

And also it needs to be clear this DOES NOT APPLY to games that have a monthly subscription fee like WoW, or games that are completely free to play.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#78

Post by brigadier132 »

rimunroe wrote: post #76
brigadier132 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law is not stopping anything, it's mandating something be done. And yes, many laws are like this and that's why Europe's startup ecosystem does not exist. Laws like this are a pain for large companies but they are fatal for small ones.

Stopping someone from doing something necessarily requires them to change their behavior. E.g. creating a rule saying you can't dispose of waste in a river forces people who were doing that to find another method of disposal.

Please stop with the analogies to life saving medical devices or polluting the planet with toxic chemicals. Not all situations are equivalent. It's obviously good to mandate that other people shouldn't be poisoned. That doesn't mean all mandates are good.

Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

#80

Post by rimunroe »

brigadier132 wrote: post #78
rimunroe wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stopping someone from doing something necessarily requires them to change their behavior. E.g. creating a rule saying you can't dispose of waste in a river forces people who were doing that to find another method of disposal.

Please stop with the analogies to life saving medical devices or polluting the planet with toxic chemicals. Not all situations are equivalent. It's obviously good to mandate that other people shouldn't be poisoned. That doesn't mean all mandates are good.

Your response was to me and yet I hadn't made any analogies to life saving medical devices.

I wasn't using the example of dumping waste in rivers to illustrate an equivalence in severity with the video game issue. I was trying to show that drawing a distinction between forcing someone to stop doing something and forcing someone to do something is nonsensical in this context.

Post reply on HN