Good. Your choices are bad
The signatures are still coming and it's already making an impact
Submitted 10 months ago by Klear@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/937b9fa7-5213-40ae-9784-d540ca27ad3c.png
Comments
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Lol. We’re gamers. We know that if we encounter enemies we’re going in the right direction.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Still trying to find the right direction on animal crossing.
Gonzako@lemmy.world 10 months ago
paying your debts. The game breaks as it cannot speculate anymore on your debt
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Towards the bees!
skisnow@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
“curtail developer choice” is such a weak argument because you could equally apply it to literally every piece of regulation ever passed. Of course it curtails choice, that’s almost the dictionary definition of an industry regulation.
chrislowles@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
We saw the depths a nepo baby of Blizzard would go for this initiative to fail, can’t imagine what could happen with a body comprised of people from the biggest worms in the industry (Epic, EA, Activision, Microsoft, Ubi et al.)
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
The original article completely misrepresents the initiative:
We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.
Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
…
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:
- provide alternatives to any online-only content
- make the game P2P if it requires multiplayer (no server needed, each client is a server)
- gracefully degrading the client experience when there’s no server
Of course, releasing server code is an option.
The expectation is:
- if it’s a subscription game, I get access for whatever period I pay for
- if it’s F2P, go nuts and break it whenever you want; there is the issue of I shame purchases, so that depends on how it’s advertised
- if it’s a purchased game, it should still work after support ends
That didn’t restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they’re expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they’re done).
I argue Stop Killing Games doesn’t go far enough, and if it’s pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.
Shanmugha@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yeah… The abstract (sorry, will read article a bit later) is bunch of nonsense to me (in respect to what is written, no offense to you):
-
online experience commercially viable? The fuck they are talking about? Yeah, I know what is meant, but they would get fucking F in school for expressing thoughts in such a nonsensical way
-
protections against illegal content would not exist on private servers? Really? Like only your company’s servers can run that? What, you write them in machine code directly? Or is it all done manually? Anyhow, just release source code and it will be up to community to find a way to make it run
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
I basically quoted the whole thing, the last bit wasn’t really relevant. And yeah, it’s pretty much just BS.
-
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Another part of it is that if they discontinue support, they can’t stop the community from creating their own server software.
There are so many ways to approach this. The point is ensuring consumers retain the right to keep using what they purchased, even if they have to support it themselves.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Sort of. They need to have the tools as well. So I suppose they could release the APIs for their servers before shutting down their servers so community servers can be created, that would probably be sufficient. But they need to do something beyond just saying, “we won’t sue you if you reverse engineer it.”
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers
I don’t think this is what they mean. They say that of they provide the tools for users to deploy the servers, bad things can happen. So I think they understood SKG, they just lie about the consequences for gamers
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
If that’s their argument, then the counterargument is simple: preserve the game another way. If hosting servers is dangerous, put the server code into the client and allow multiplayer w/ P2P tech, as had been done since the 90s (e.g. StarCraft).
What they seem to be doing is reframing the problem as requiring users to host servers, and arguing the various legal issues related to that. SKG just needs to clarify that there are multiple options here, and since devs know about the law at the start (SKG isn’t retroactive), studios can plan ahead.
It’s just a disingenuous argument trying to reframe the problem into cyber security and IP contexts, while neither has been an issue for other games in the past.
Natanael@infosec.pub 10 months ago
And “would leave rights holders liable” is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Exactly, and that also includes online games like Minecraft. Nobody is going to sue Microsoft because of what someone said or did in a private Minecraft server, though they might if it’s a Microsoft hosted one.
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I understood that from a IP and trademark stand point. It could be hard to retain your copyright or trademark if you are no longer controlling a product
lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 10 months ago
The argument there is if a game is left online with no studio to care for it then they believe they would be liable for community content.
I don’t think it applies to offline games at all.
MyDarkestTimeline01@ani.social 10 months ago
The only choice it really limits from the publisher is the choice to decide to stop supporting a game out of nowhere. This new plan would just make it so you have to eventually plan to sunset the game from its “live” elements.
MITM0@lemmy.world 10 months ago
First of all, the devs don’t have any choice, the Pencil-pushers do
mechoman444@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ya…
Surp@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Good so that means they won’t pre plan bullshit games that are money grabs destined to fail. Go fuck yourselves companies that do that.
PartyAt15thAndSummit@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
1.2 million as of now. So fucking proud to be European.
Toneswirly@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Lol publishers curtail developer choice, gtfo
Deestan@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Muh business model :'(
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
You are being stopped from stopping people playing their games.
That’s a double negative bruh, as in, it reduces overrall limitations in the world for what people are allowed to do.
leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 10 months ago
Of course it’s limiting your options!
Screwing up the customer should not be an option you’re allowed to take!
rustyfish@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Even if this would be true (which it isn’t, it’s made up bullshit): I do not give a crap.
No, I do not care about the publisher.
No, I do not care about the studio.
No, I do not care about the developer anymore too.
I do not give a single fuck about any of them anymore. I want to own the game I buy. I don’t want anyone being able to pull the plug. I also want to own the hardware or console I buy. I am ready to watch their existence to crumble as long as I get what I want.
These people lied and conned this hobby of mine into monetised shite. I hope a lot of them somehow crash and burn. Would laugh and dance when they croak. I can play Factorio and Terraria until the heat death of the universe. Your new Assassins Blood Pack: Revenge of the Fortnite 2 Deluxe Bundle MMO-Life Service Definitive Expansion Season Pass DLC Dark of the Moon Surprise Mechanic won’t be missed anyway.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 10 months ago
I don’t care about publishers.
I don’t care about studios.
One of my friend is a game developer in a big studio, he basically breathes game mechanics. He develops new mechanics in his spare time, repurposing board game elements he owns. He would do that even if it wasn’t his job. He’s awesome
I do care about developers.
youngalfred@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
Choice to do what?
These are their two points:
Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
I feel like the first is fair enough at the moment, but with accompanying laws it could be resolved. Eg once a developer enacts an end of life plan, their legal culpability is removed. Plus give the right tools for moderation and the community can take care of it.
Second is just a cop out I think. “Many titles are designed from the ground up to be online only” - that’s the whole point. It’s not retroactive, so you don’t need to redesign an existing game. But going forward you would need to plan for the eventual end of life. Developers have chimed in that it can be done.
nous@programming.dev 10 months ago
once a developer enacts an end of life plan, their legal culpability is removed What legal culpability? If you are not hosting anything then you wont be liable for anything. It is not like if you create a painting and someone defaces it with something that you become liable for that… That would be insane.
Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Ah, the propaganda war has started.
Klear@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s good news. Means the initiative has a shot.
It was disquieting back when they were just flat out ignoring it.
Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
They were probably thinking that by openly opposing it before it collected enough signatures, they would have given it more publicity and hence made more people sign it.
DaddleDew@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Corporate jargon translation:
“It’s going to limit innovation” = “We won’t be able to use those new ways of ripping off our customers anymore”
maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world 10 months ago
“Developers” are the ones who are passionate about the games they make, and definitely don’t want their games dead.
“Corporations” are the ones who only want to profit from selling the game, and then ditch it once it’s no longer lucrative enough.
Decq@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is just pure fabricated bullshit. They themselves started limiting options. Remember the old days where you could host your own server with basically any game? They took that away, not us. So they themselves are 100% responsible for this ‘uprising’. Besides they could just provide/open-source the backend and disable drm. Hardly any work at all.
But of course it’s not about that. They just try to hide behind this ‘limits options’ argument. But they simply don’t want you to be able to play their old games. They want you to buy their latest CoD 42.
FreeLikeGNU@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I remember the “old days”. That was when dialup internet was still popular and running a server usually meant it was on your 10Mb LAN. When we got DSL it was better and you could serve outside your LAN. This was also the time when games had dark red code booklets, required having a physical CD inserted or weirdly formatted floppies (sometimes a combination of these). You could get around these things and many groups of people worked hard at providing these workarounds. Today, many of these games are only playable and only still exist because of the thankless work these groups did. As it was and as it is has not changed. Many groups of people are still keeping games playable despite the “war” that corporations wage on them (and by proxy on us). Ironically, now that there is such a thing as “classic games” and people are nostalgic for what brought them joy in the past, business has leapt at this as a marketing opportunity. What makes that ironic? These business are re-selling the versions of games with the circumvention patches that the community made to make their games playable so long ago. The patches that publishers had such a big problem with and sought to eradicate. This is because the original code no longer exists and the un-patched games will not run at all on modern hardware and the copy-protections will not tolerate a virtual machine. Nothing has changed.
We can even go back as far as when people first started making books or maps that had deliberate errors so that they could track when their work was redistributed. Do the people referencing these books or maps benefit from these errors?
Why do some of us feel compelled to limit knowledge even at the cost of corrupting that knowledge for those we intend it for (and for those long after who wish to learn from historical knowledge)?
roguetrick@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m speaking from ignorance but isn’t the server backend often licensed and they couldn’t release it if they wanted, even as binaries? Granted, going forward they’d have to make those considerations before they accept restrictive licenses in core parts of their game. And the market for those licenses will change accordingly. So there core of your argument is correct.
Decq@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Maybe so, but that’s a decision they make. Surely I as customer shouldn’t be taken away what i paid for because of that? And if so they should have mentioned clearly upon sale that they would take away my product after 3-4 years (though maybe that’s the case in those dense ToS?) . Everything else should be considered illegal and fraudulent if they planned/knew it from the start. Which is the case if it’s a licensing issue
Besides, I’m pretty sure after those 4 years the code is outdated and they could renegotiate the license to be more open to release a binary.
Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org 10 months ago
lots of licensed or bought code in development in general, but knowing that you’ll have to provide code to the public eventually, means that you’ll have to take this into consideration when starting a project.
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
Let’s be real, open sourcing it isn’t “hardly any work”. All the code has to be reviewed to make sure they can legally release it, no third-party proprietary stuff.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 10 months ago
It’s just one possible solution. They can just release a proprietary server application instead.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 10 months ago
honestly with online only games i’d be “okay” (not that it’d be great but okay) with them just releasing a bunch of internal docs around the spec. you’re right that open sourcing commercial code is actually non-trivial (though perhaps if they went in knowing this would have to be the outcome then maybe they’d plan better for it), but giving the community the resources to recreate the experience i think is a valid direction
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
It will be hardly any work once a law passes, because they’ll make sure it is. Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Besides, no one is saying they have to open source it. To be honest, the outcome from this petition that I would most like to see is simply a blanket indemnity to the community attempting to revive, continue and improve the software from that point forward. If the law says that it’s legal once a software is shut down, for the community to figure out a way to make it work again and make it their own, and puts no further responsibilities on the “rights holder” at all, I think that honestly solves the problem in 99% of cases. It would be nice if they gave the community a hand, released what they could, and tried not to be shit about it, (and I know some of them will be shit about it, but we’re pretty resourceful), as long as they’re not trying to sue every attempt into oblivion I think we’ll make a lot of progress on game preservation and make the gaming world a much better place.
SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Maybe they should have made sure their code was fully legal to use before releasing the game initially
Decq@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s why i also said provide, not just open source. They can release a binary.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 10 months ago
When starting a new game, don’t include that stuff. Not including proprietary stuff without meeting their licensing requirements is already a step in the process.
Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Oh but with the new rules they could do that before making their code work that way. The idea is not for the new laws to apply retroactively but for new games.
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 10 months ago
So does not allowing food companies to sprinkle lead and uranium in food. What's the point?
A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yeah sometimes their choices are bad, that is like 1/3 of the whole point of government. To stop businesses from just doing whatever nonsense they want.
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Imo, that should be the primary role of the government
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 10 months ago
Companies would still be cutting flour with chalk if they had their way. “It’s limiting blah blah blah” that’s the point you corpos, consumer rights are about the consumer not the bottom line
BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 10 months ago
History taught us that corpos would literally burn the world for a few more bucks. And by history, I mean right now.
Honytawk@feddit.nl 10 months ago
Businesses would bring back slavery if we let them.
Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Not to mention that studios like Larian have proven that it’s entirely possible to make a blockbuster game without teams of 400 heads, changing direction and leadership every few years and laying off the people who made the product in the first place. They really seethed at that one, so many salty comments lol.
deadcream@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Larian has six studios and over four hundreds of employees. They are not as big as Ubisoft of course, but they are still very much an AAA game studio.
Klear@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Larian has close to 500 employees across studios in seven different countries. They’re definitely the good guys (at least for now), but they are not an example of a small indie studio.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 10 months ago
Fuck developer choice! What about my choice as a consumer?
sirico@feddit.uk 10 months ago
That’s easy have some self control and only buy games that respect you
psud@aussie.zone 10 months ago
I don’t know how you could do that without staying exclusively on open source
I’m old enough that the games I’m nostalgic for are on floppy discs on my shelf, but now the games I play are downloaded and rely on whatever company keeping a server up to authenticate me
Who knows what Microsoft will do with Minecraft in 30 years
Who knows what Steam will do with the licences it’s sold me
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
True. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attack predatory behavior when we see it. If they want to sell me something, I need to own it, and that means I get to use it after they’ve stopped supporting it.