3 ms·

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 beca

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.
- orecros 3y ago
  I don't think a youtube video is the place to iron out edge cases. that's more a thing for regulators. Requiring complex infrastructure with big ongoing costs, and requiring a constant income stream from consumers to support it is evidence that a game is a service and not a good, and as such there's no expectation of a perpetual license. The fact remains people paid a one time fee to play the crew, and now you can't play it anymore, even offline. It was sold as a good, and not as a service. Meanwhile other games with big offline and online components such as Elden Ring are completely playable offline, and mods already exist to allow online multiplayer without utilizing centralized servers. A discussion needs to happen about what is and isn't fraud.

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.

orecros 3y ago
I don't think a youtube video is the place to iron out edge cases. that's more a thing for regulators. Requiring complex infrastructure with big ongoing costs, and requiring a constant income stream from consumers to support it is evidence that a game is a service and not a good, and as such there's no expectation of a perpetual license. The fact remains people paid a one time fee to play the crew, and now you can't play it anymore, even offline. It was sold as a good, and not as a service. Meanwhile other games with big offline and online components such as Elden Ring are completely playable offline, and mods already exist to allow online multiplayer without utilizing centralized servers. A discussion needs to happen about what is and isn't fraud.