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

Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

videocardz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#71

Post by meheleventyone »

rcxdude wrote: post #68
meheleventyone wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games. I’m sure you have a point but this attempt at articulating it is confusing.

What else is a completely unnecessary requirement to sign in to an account to play a single-player game?

A form of copy-protection basically. I get the desire for the emotive framing though but I think the EOL implications were simply not considered. I also agree with the idea that at EOL that copy-protection should be removed. There are however a vanishingly small number of games that are built this way so I'm not sure regulation is the best way of approaching it.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#72

Post by panick21_ »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #29

I in no way mean this to be rude, but I think a big part of why the EU isn't in the same galaxy as the US in the realm of business in general, is in some part, the knee jerk reaction to turn to the government to make products and services better. Governments cannot make you an alternative, they can only make something that already exists, different (usually worse). I have zero interest in creating in the gaming space…

> Governments cannot make you an alternative

There are many cases where we know for a fact this isn't true.

Many things that governments now do used to be private. Trains for example. Airbus wouldn't have happened without government. French movie industry and so on.

But I agree that its not as easy as government randomyl getting into every random entertainment market and trying to create competitors for everything.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#73

Post by archievillain »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #29

I in no way mean this to be rude, but I think a big part of why the EU isn't in the same galaxy as the US in the realm of business in general, is in some part, the knee jerk reaction to turn to the government to make products and services better. Governments cannot make you an alternative, they can only make something that already exists, different (usually worse). I have zero interest in creating in the gaming space…

I mean, yes, you could attempt to take over the largest entertainment market in the world, already dominated by a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations, in the hope that your "mega success" game is so world-shattering that EA, Ubisoft, etc have a Scrooge-ian change of heart and start following your pro-consumer, pro-conservation ideology.

Now, if you want to actually do something that has a chance of having any effect at all, you go for the legislature. Unlike America's entirely feckless regulatory bodies, the EU does occasionally dislodge itself from the corps' backsides to provide a quick, timid reprimand. It's not very much but it's much better than nothing at all.

Although, I have to wonder, do you believe this should apply to every market? Should asbestos be made legal in buildings on the account you could build houses without it? Should we remove all kind of sanitary requirements for food processing, on the account of the fact that some food companies might not let their plants wallow in filth?

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#74

Post by Timon3 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #71
rcxdude wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else is a completely unnecessary requirement to sign in to an account to play a single-player game?

A form of copy-protection basically. I get the desire for the emotive framing though but I think the EOL implications were simply not considered. I also agree with the idea that at EOL that copy-protection should be removed. There are however a vanishingly small number of games that are built this way so I'm not sure regulation is the best way of approaching it.

But this is an additional and much less effective layer of copy protection compared to the actual copy protection. The game wouldn't be meaningfully easier to pirate without it.

IMO this means it isn't a form of copy protection.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#75

Post by Timon3 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #60
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been a few, and they make fantastic examples to bring up when explaining the concept to people without a broad understanding of the market.

There were about 20,000 games released on Steam last year how many worked that way?

Why would it be acceptable for a single one to do this?

And why do you think that games released last year are a good yardstick when we're talking about games being shut down at the end of their lifetime?

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#76

Post by gchamonlive »

imiric wrote: post #46
gchamonlive wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, video games can be educational and entertaining, just like real world toys, but they can also be artistic and communicate stories. Storytelling and art isn't exclusive to video games though. Board games for instance have tons of storytelling and are very rich in art. They are, however nothing more than toys, and they don't need to be. That's my whole point. Being "just a toy" is pejorative only in the industri…

I suppose it's a matter of semantics and perspective. The definition of "toy" seems too narrow to me to properly encompass the complexities of board and video games. A ball is a toy, but clearly it's unable to provide the same experience as a board or video game. At a certain point these experiences can be deeply engaging in ways that simpler toys can't provide. Not necessarily better, but certainly different. Maybe…

I stand corrected: "an object that is used by an adult for pleasure rather than for serious use". Video games, board games etc... can very well be used for serious use cases, so they don't fit the definition of a toy.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#77

Post by meheleventyone »

Timon3 wrote: post #74
meheleventyone wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A form of copy-protection basically. I get the desire for the emotive framing though but I think the EOL implications were simply not considered. I also agree with the idea that at EOL that copy-protection should be removed. There are however a vanishingly small number of games that are built this way so I'm not sure regulation is the best way of approaching it.

But this is an additional and much less effective layer of copy protection compared to the actual copy protection. The game wouldn't be meaningfully easier to pirate without it. IMO this means it isn't a form of copy protection.

License verification via a server is a pretty common and normal method of copy protection. For example the JetBrains IDE I'm using at work right now does this.

If it didn't work then players would have no issue with the server being taken offline! But that isn't the case so clearly it impacts people.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#78

Post by meheleventyone »

Timon3 wrote: post #75
meheleventyone wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were about 20,000 games released on Steam last year how many worked that way?

Why would it be acceptable for a single one to do this? And why do you think that games released last year are a good yardstick when we're talking about games being shut down at the end of their lifetime?

I'm trying to understand the scope of the issue.

The reason I picked the last year is to see what the current landscape is. If this is a common practice in need of regulation then I'd expect a large number of current titles present the issue. If it's a 'few' then how many exactly does that imply? If we're talking less than ten then that would be less than 0.05% of games released last year (let alone the number releaded over the last ten).

Someone linked this page which has 440 dead games over the past few decades which is 2.2% of the output of 2025 but obviously includes many more years, mobile, console releases and so on: https://stopkillinggames.wiki.gg/wiki/Dead_game_list

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#79

Post by BlitzGeology91 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #59
BlitzGeology91 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at least by going down that road, you end up with more games, better games, and people learning skills throughout the process. And who knows, maybe one is a mega success. Yes, but in that scenario, some really good games would still die. So it would good to make it illegal to kill games in addition to making more games. > Sure, you can stand there pounding your chest for "democracy," but I contend that those wh…

There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games. I’m sure you have a point but this attempt at articulating it is confusing.

> There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games.

That’s not accurate. I used to play the Android version of EA Tetris [1]. I liked the game so much that I paid to remove ads from it. One day, I opened the game, and the game told me that I wasn’t allowed to play it unless I installed an update for it. I installed the update, and launched the game again. The game then told me that I would not be allowed to play it after a specific date. After that date passed, I tried opening the game again, and it refused to let me play the game.

For more examples of games that contain self-destruct mechanisms, see the Stop Killing Games wiki [2].

[1]: https://tetris.wiki/Tetris_(2011,_Electronic_Arts)>

[2]: https://stopkillinggames.wiki.gg/wiki/Dead_game_list>

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#80

Post by meheleventyone »

BlitzGeology91 wrote: post #79
meheleventyone wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games. I’m sure you have a point but this attempt at articulating it is confusing.

> There are no self-destruct mechanisms put into games. That’s not accurate. I used to play the Android version of EA Tetris [1]. I liked the game so much that I paid to remove ads from it. One day, I opened the game, and the game told me that I wasn’t allowed to play it unless I installed an update for it. I installed the update, and launched the game again. The game then told me that I would not be allowed to play…

Thanks for the list!

Mobile presents even larger problems as games and apps get orphaned by quickly moving APIs which don't have backwards compatability. It's not clear to me what the Stop Killing Games answer to that problem would be.

Post reply on HN