5 ms·

I'm absolutely against involving the government to require indefinite support or anything like this suggests. It will have the opposite effect to "ending killin

by nuz 3y ago

I'm absolutely against involving the government to require indefinite support or anything like this suggests. It will have the opposite effect to "ending killing games", it'll increase indie costs and basically kill development of some games rather than the opposite.

_dain_ 3y ago
It does not advocate requiring indefinite support by the publisher/developer. It is about making publishers provide whatever tools are necessary to let players keep the game running without a central server. It's basically right-to-repair for videogames. Read the FAQ: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
wadefletch 3y ago
Wouldn't shifting online-first games to access-subscription based pricing make better accounting sense for the publishers too? Seems like this is less an issue of actual support and more an issue of pricing/access model disconnect. When a SaaS product ends, it can be frustrating for sure, but it rarely feels like a betrayal in the way ending access to a one-time payment product does.
Minor49er 3y ago
Is there a history of indie developers running SaaS-modeled games who have shut down central servers without letting fans still play the games that they paid for?
- sph 3y ago
  Indie developers tend to be very OK with people running their dedicated servers. It's also cheaper for them. The issue are the big publishers like EA, Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard, Microsoft, where the goal is to squeeze every cent out of players.
wheybags 3y ago
Just release server binaries, at least when you decide to shutter support (preferably just release them with the game). Then the community can take over at zero cost to the developer.
- slg 3y ago
  What does the server infrastructure actually look like for these games? "Just release server binaries" kinda implies there is a simple .exe file that an average user can run to host their own server. In today's age of cloud computing, microservices, and serverless computing, I'm not sure if it is as simple as the suggestion implies. Especially for some of the bigger companies that likely have their own shared infrastructure across games. For example, is it even possible to separate the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare server code from the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 server code?
  - wheybags 3y ago
    Yes, it's probably complex, but if you release everything required, then a sufficiently dedicated community will figure it out. Or maybe nobody will bother because the game was bad. Either way you lose nothing. Re: shared infra - there will probably be some testing component used for local dev, you can release that instead of the full thing. For example: just the dedicated server part that I can connect to using a dev command line flag to play a game, but not the shared infra login system, lobby server, inventory server, matchmaking etc. Sure, there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible to disentangle from a live, profitable other game - but I would wager the vast majority of games could be covered with very low effort.
    - slg 3y ago
      >Sure, there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible to disentangle from a live, profitable other game - but I would wager the vast majority of games could be covered with very low effort. I don't think we should be making laws in which "there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible" to comply. I get and empathize with the spirit, but you and the people behind this campaign can't just dismiss the complexities involved here with "I would wager" type responses. It shows a lack of insight into the realities of both game development and legislation.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
The government (at least in the US) is heavily involved in supporting the status quo here by blocking preservation efforts through DMCA. Often times asking the government to take action means asking them to take their boot off your neck. It is important to take a moment to check what the issue is before assuming that asking the government to take action implies expansion of powers.
Sewblon 3y ago
Ross Scott, the guy behind this campaign, addressed that in one of his Youtube videos. But I am not sure which one. But anyway, he is not in favor of requiring companies to run their servers forever. He is in favor of requiring companies to patch the games when they turn off the servers, so that the players can run the game locally, on their own servers. We know that that is possible, because Epic Games has done it before, when they shut down the servers for Unreal Tournament. Even if this does raise the cost of game development, speaking strictly as a consumer, I will gladly take a $60 game that will run long after the people who made it die, over a $50 game that will only last for 5 years.
- voussoir 3y ago
  The other video you're referring to is "Games as a service is fraud": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw
  - Sewblon 3y ago
    Thanks. I was thinking of one of the update videos he made later. But as long as there is proof of what he said, it still works.
    - hn_acker 3y ago
      Maybe it was the one called "The largest campaign ever to stop publishers destroying games". Check timestamp 24:55 (&t=1495s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE
- Sewblon 3y ago
  Like Someone Else said, Ross also addressed this in the FAQ. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
hurrdurr1 3y ago
[flagged]
uaserussia 3y ago
[dead]

by nuz 3y ago

_dain_ 3y ago

It does not advocate requiring indefinite support by the publisher/developer. It is about making publishers provide whatever tools are necessary to let players keep the game running without a central server. It's basically right-to-repair for videogames. Read the FAQ: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

wadefletch 3y ago

Wouldn't shifting online-first games to access-subscription based pricing make better accounting sense for the publishers too? Seems like this is less an issue of actual support and more an issue of pricing/access model disconnect. When a SaaS product ends, it can be frustrating for sure, but it rarely feels like a betrayal in the way ending access to a one-time payment product does.

Minor49er 3y ago

Is there a history of indie developers running SaaS-modeled games who have shut down central servers without letting fans still play the games that they paid for?

sph 3y ago
Indie developers tend to be very OK with people running their dedicated servers. It's also cheaper for them. The issue are the big publishers like EA, Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard, Microsoft, where the goal is to squeeze every cent out of players.

wheybags 3y ago

Just release server binaries, at least when you decide to shutter support (preferably just release them with the game). Then the community can take over at zero cost to the developer.

slg 3y ago
What does the server infrastructure actually look like for these games? "Just release server binaries" kinda implies there is a simple .exe file that an average user can run to host their own server. In today's age of cloud computing, microservices, and serverless computing, I'm not sure if it is as simple as the suggestion implies. Especially for some of the bigger companies that likely have their own shared infrastructure across games. For example, is it even possible to separate the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare server code from the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 server code?
- wheybags 3y ago
  Yes, it's probably complex, but if you release everything required, then a sufficiently dedicated community will figure it out. Or maybe nobody will bother because the game was bad. Either way you lose nothing. Re: shared infra - there will probably be some testing component used for local dev, you can release that instead of the full thing. For example: just the dedicated server part that I can connect to using a dev command line flag to play a game, but not the shared infra login system, lobby server, inventory server, matchmaking etc. Sure, there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible to disentangle from a live, profitable other game - but I would wager the vast majority of games could be covered with very low effort.
  - slg 3y ago
    >Sure, there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible to disentangle from a live, profitable other game - but I would wager the vast majority of games could be covered with very low effort. I don't think we should be making laws in which "there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible" to comply. I get and empathize with the spirit, but you and the people behind this campaign can't just dismiss the complexities involved here with "I would wager" type responses. It shows a lack of insight into the realities of both game development and legislation.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

The government (at least in the US) is heavily involved in supporting the status quo here by blocking preservation efforts through DMCA. Often times asking the government to take action means asking them to take their boot off your neck. It is important to take a moment to check what the issue is before assuming that asking the government to take action implies expansion of powers.

Sewblon 3y ago

Ross Scott, the guy behind this campaign, addressed that in one of his Youtube videos. But I am not sure which one. But anyway, he is not in favor of requiring companies to run their servers forever. He is in favor of requiring companies to patch the games when they turn off the servers, so that the players can run the game locally, on their own servers. We know that that is possible, because Epic Games has done it before, when they shut down the servers for Unreal Tournament. Even if this does raise the cost of game development, speaking strictly as a consumer, I will gladly take a $60 game that will run long after the people who made it die, over a $50 game that will only last for 5 years.

voussoir 3y ago
The other video you're referring to is "Games as a service is fraud": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw
- Sewblon 3y ago
  Thanks. I was thinking of one of the update videos he made later. But as long as there is proof of what he said, it still works.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    Maybe it was the one called "The largest campaign ever to stop publishers destroying games". Check timestamp 24:55 (&t=1495s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE
Sewblon 3y ago
Like Someone Else said, Ross also addressed this in the FAQ. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

hurrdurr1 3y ago

[flagged]

uaserussia 3y ago

[dead]