10 ms·

Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

146 points by purkka 2y ago

mey 2y ago
It is worth reading up on this at https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ and Ross Scott has a recent video about this Initiative going up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI He needs to get more credit in the media as the central lightning rod, organizer and driver of this work.
grogenaut 2y ago
I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this as people seem to be very much of an opposite opinion, but my $0.02 based on having launched a server backed game. It was a AAA game by a major publisher and a well known studio. I was the only one at the studio working on the game with some help (~10 heads) from the publisher. First people are not taking into account proprietary software licenses. We used software to build the servers we didn't have a distribution license for, only a server license. Ripping that out was non-trivial work if even possible. That doesn't include the proprietary internal platform stuff like crypto validation, telemetry, harm reporting, etc. I was the only one from the studio working on the server feature directly, client and server. At the time I was the only one with that skillset. It would have taken me around 3 months to change the client to work with non-auth'd servers. This may sound long but we didn't have standard apis; it took me 2 weeks to get TLS working. Beyond that it would have been another 3-5 months to do legal and security review to make sure we hadn't introduced a platform vulnerability through a malicious server, work we skipped originally because we were able to lock everything down internally. The servers would have taken another 2 months or so to setup. However they were built to some very specific software and specific to AWS, if I were to change it to not be cluster based, run in a single app, I'd call it 6 total. None of this includes documentation or making it nice. So we're talking a year with marketing, documentation, testing, etc. Which is a large percentage of what it took me to build the server features in the first place. This was also a little big planet / mario maker type feature, not full on multiplayer / match making. I would greatly increase my estimate for those. Instead, with that same time I: 1) helped greatly improved the internal engine tools, speeding up all of the developers and artists enabling them to do more on the next game, 2) Built internal and external player telemetry getting us a lot better QA coverage and great details on what players were doing which helped our DLC, 3) altered the server feature for internal use as well, letting us publish several extra free missions for the main game and DLC to fill in parts that were missing, 4) build a render farm which improved the artists cycle time from weeks to hours. 5) taught several of the more technical artists C++ to bind UI to shader features saving developer and artist time. Not doing each of these would materially have diminished the game or subsequent titles. And finally, before you downvote, I did in fact work to make the system work after we shut it down, just not the same way people want to mandate. I ensured that it would work locally and all of your downloaded content was saved. I also make it trivially easy for us to dump the database to s3 json for the top 10,000 missions, well into the long tail. And finally and most importantly, I spent time making the system as cheap as possible to run, which turns out to be THE key feature for businesses. It's been 13 years and I'm not at the studio anymore and and the servers are still running, mainly because they cost almost nothing to run. Maybe big studios could amortize this over time. It'd make smaller studios much less likely to build the server features in the first place. Many might chose to close to not deal with it and re-form. It would have made us think twice, so really I think it'd have a chilling effect, not the effect you want.
- SleepyMyroslav 2y ago
  (meta comment) I dont think downvotes will come. Only search can find this comment. As someone working in gamedev on live service game I think you are right about chilling effects. EU is a large market but if they will regulate themselves out of online gaming its their loss. It will not going to be completely empty - many projects will adapt to comply. I think chilling effect will be minor tbh.
amai 2y ago
Maybe museums and/or libraries could operate servers for old games?
thmsths 2y ago
Video games is a good starting point, but this should basically apply to all software.
- nox101 2y ago
  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 working if no internet, can't stop working if it can't contact servers, ...)
  - georgeecollins 2y ago
    I have gotten to the point where I assume everything with a CPU and a wireless connection is going to self-destruct at some point soon. When we were getting a new oven we paid extra for the lowest tech one we could find! Please no touch screens! Example: My wife gave me a google mini that I use as a talking alarm clock. That's all: what time is it, please set an alarm. Period. Recently it told me it no longer works because I didn't install "Google Home" on my phone. Nothing changed on the device or its circumstances. Someone at Google decided to make a change that broke it.
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      You're lucky that you got it working from the store. You can't actually activate most IoT devices without a phone, a mobile number and an internet connection. All of which have to be supported by that brand, not just those physical items.
      - nox101 2y ago
        I noticed this with Nanoleaf Essential Smart LED bulbs, the ones sold by Apple. They come out of the box, requiring to you install the app and register an account before they will start going full brightness. They'll only go like 25% bright until you've installed the app. These are the bulbs Apple sells. So much for caring about privacy. If Apple cared, they wouldn't be carrying a brand that requires you to give up your privacy.
ZoomerCretin 2y ago
> You need to get the support of at least 1 million EU citizens, with thresholds (minimum numbers) in at least 7 EU countries. Well, good luck, but this is a pretty high bar.
- beretguy 2y ago
  Got to spread the news anywhere by any means possible.
hartator 2y ago
> This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames Does that mean it can apply to open source license as well?
- Lucasoato 2y ago
  This problem doesn’t apply to open source videogames (granted that open means truly open).
brigadier132 2y ago
My problem with things like this is that they mandate labor from others without compensating them.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  > 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 without the involvement from the side of the publisher. > The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state. Perhaps there is a disconnect between the policy intent and the understanding?
  - brigadier132 2y ago
    > Perhaps there is a disconnect between the policy intent and the understanding? Yes, I don't think they understand that running these games isn't free, modifying the games to be self hostable is not free, and giving away the code for other people to run it is ip suicide.
    - babypuncher 2y ago
      It's not free if you weren't considering this when designing your game. It's 100% free if you keep this requirement in mind when making your game in the first place. Some publishers having to spend money today because they played with fire by eroding consumer rights seems like a worthwhile price to pay.
      - brigadier132 2y ago
        Is everything a right now?
user_7832 2y ago
I believe this is related to the movement that started/was spurred after the shutdown of The Crew. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ appears to be the same initiative/organization.
- beretguy 2y ago
  It is. It’s the same picture.
nerdjon 2y ago
We had a similar discussion about this before and I feel like this is an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. How many games actually only phone home and have been rendered unplayable for that reason? I am struggling to find any examples of this happening, but I am sure there are a few. Unless I am missing it, I don't even see an example listed here. If the game relies on servers for data, online play, or other things that is a completely different beast. That isn't just, "oh it was rendered unplayable". No it was an online game and the servers were shut down. It sucks but thats the nature of moving away from p2p online games. To be very clear here, I agree with this when it comes to single player games. But as its written, it has the potential to conflate 2 massively different issues (as the Crew discussion did last time) that it should be very clear on those distinctions and I would love examples.
- er4hn 2y ago
  Middle Earth: Shadow of War is a good example. It is a single player game with some minor and optional online elements, and used to have a pay to win store that needed internet access. It requires an online connection the first time you start it. If that server goes away - we're hoping the devs will patch it before that happens.
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    I was asking for examples of where a game is unplayable. I know that there are games that only phone home or require an online connection to play online like Kingdom Hearts (which is particularly frustrating on my steam deck). That part of this I am not disputing. From the way this is written it sounds like this is a big problem that keeps happening for single player games, but I am struggling to find a ton of examples.
    - rybosome 2y ago
      The poster answered your question. The game is unplayable without an internet connection - it refuses to start. In spite of the fact that the internet connection is only used to provide optional content, without an authenticating server this game which is otherwise fundamentally a single player, offline game will not let you play it.
johnklos 2y ago
Common sense makes sense! I'd love to see something like this codified in to law. We need a complete rethinking of the actual terms, "buy", "own", "sell", and so on, so people can't use those terms incorrectly when they're technically just "renting". Case in point is "Redbox Revokes Access to All Previously Purchased Content After Bankruptcy": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41076807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41076807 How many times has Microsoft done it with music? How many times have companies that are still in business disabled older devices that are still perfectly functional in hopes to sell newer devices and/or get people to sign up for subscriptions, while not allowing end user access to their own devices? California and Massachusetts have made some steps to correct this. I'd love to see more.
- georgeecollins 2y ago
  I think the real problem is platform holders like Microsoft, Apple and Google, that create a lot of rules (or APIs) it hard for software to continue working without constant updates. They will say it is to support new features or security, which is occasionally true. But mostly I believe it is because they like to have a lot of telemetry on users, want to keep apps sticky in their eco system and they like you go back to the store. The worst thing for them is an open source game with no online component that you download once and play forever. The rest of it could be taken care of with consumer choice, but effectively you don't have a choice with the big platforms.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    In that case it is easy: don't sell ownership, allow people to rent
    - beAbU 2y ago
      This is what Gamepass does.
- spacemadness 2y ago
  I wonder if companies like Valve would have been as successful if they were forced to use “subscribe” instead of “buy”, “purchase”, etc.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mikemitchelldev 2y ago
What's the difference between a successful and unsuccessful campaign? How hard the organizers work at collecting signatures? Or does mainstream media get involved and publicize it?
anon_cow1111 2y ago
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.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  See this is why I made the comment I did, nothing that you just said is at all clear from the petition and as it is written it doesn't conform to what you are saying here. > For single player focused games, this means removing the phone-home verification or drm so it can function offline. I really doubt that anyone would dispute that. If we are only talking about that, its just fine. > For multiplayer focused games, this means allowing users to run their own server. It DOES NOT mean keeping official servers running forever. This is where it gets confusing, since then you say: > 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. That should be clear from the petition but why are those 2 a distinction? You have to buy WoW, its expansions, and pay a subscription fee. Why is that inherently different from buying an online only game, that you just don't have to pay a subscription for? For example, Guild Wars 2. For any reason that mattered it is identical to WoW when it comes to the server side of things. Except it doesn't have a subscription. If we really are going to make that distinction, it should have been in the petition. I had the same problem with the website that was discussing the Crew, critical information about what exactly we were talking about was missing and actually what we were talking about only came up after discussing it here. > Because this is a bad practice that only recently started, and it needs to be stopped before it gets worse. This petition also really needs examples of this, because I struggled to find an example so so far the only ones presented as games that are unplayable because of phoning home is NFS Underground and The Crew. When the petition is making it out to be a much larger and wide spread problem than it currently is.
miki123211 2y ago
This should be more aptly named the "make some videogames unavailable in the EU" initiative.
- Retr0id 2y ago
  I'd be on board with that, too.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  People on this site repeat this meme every time there's an EU initiative to protect personal freedoms or consumer rights. It hasn't happened so far, but I'm sure you'll be right one day and we'll all be collectively begging for mega-corporations' forgiveness. Any entity that doesn't want to abide by these rules would be a good riddance anyway and it would give room for customer-respecting alternatives to flourish. That's a win-win.
  - miki123211 2y ago
    > It hasn't happened so far It has happened, many, many times. Apple's newest features (both iPhone mirroring and AI) are a great example, so are Meta's. A lot of accessibility tech (like Meta's new glasses or their feature allowing the blind to identify people in photos) is also impacted. There are many more examples, most local American newspapers just straight out can't be accessed from the EU for example. The more laws like these we have, the less attractive the EU is going to be for foreign companies to enter. We're on the way to turn into another South Korea, with their shitty local apps for everything and banks that still required Active X controls and Internet Explorer in the early 2020s.
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      When companies like Apple put blame on EU regulations, it's worth keeping in mind that they're usually lying. See Microsoft's response to the Crowdstrike incident, and Apple's petulant behavior in regards to the DMA over the past year or so. It's safe to assume that this is just their way of pushing their anti-DMA agenda until proven otherwise. > We're on the way to turn into another South Korea, with their shitty local apps for everything and banks that still required Active X controls and Internet Explorer in the early 2020s. It's funny that you bring up banking. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the day when SEPA became available in all EU countries. We figured out a universal low/no fee payment system far earlier and better than the US did - I'm not up to date - is it actually figured out yet? Additionally, the EU is home to numerous fintech startups like N26, Revolut, Monzo, TransferWise, etc. that brought innovative features like even quicker person to person payments (just send money to their phone number in the app), disposable cards for online shopping, and cheap transfers across continents (especially TransferWise). Many of these features are now being implemented by established banks and this is frankly a poor example of EU regulations that supposedly block innovation. I've read the GDPR, DMA, and the EU AI act and I'm familiar with them at a high level. My position is that any product or service that doesn't comply with the these regulations shouldn't be available in the EU, the spirit of these regulations is sound and ensures that we have keep some semblance of freedom and sovereignty in the future. I think you're being alarmist and conflating predatory business practices with "innovation". They're orthogonal, and we don't have to accept invasion of privacy, exploitative business models, and unaccountable AI black boxes that decide our fate, in exchange for temporary shiny new toys.
binary132 2y ago
The whole concept of putting software on someone’s computer, but you actually own and operate it, is kinda crazy to start with. Stallman isn’t wrong about the abuse potential of proprietary software.

146 points by purkka 2y ago

mey 2y ago

It is worth reading up on this at https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ and Ross Scott has a recent video about this Initiative going up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI He needs to get more credit in the media as the central lightning rod, organizer and driver of this work.

grogenaut 2y ago

I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this as people seem to be very much of an opposite opinion, but my $0.02 based on having launched a server backed game. It was a AAA game by a major publisher and a well known studio. I was the only one at the studio working on the game with some help (~10 heads) from the publisher. First people are not taking into account proprietary software licenses. We used software to build the servers we didn't have a distribution license for, only a server license. Ripping that out was non-trivial work if even possible. That doesn't include the proprietary internal platform stuff like crypto validation, telemetry, harm reporting, etc. I was the only one from the studio working on the server feature directly, client and server. At the time I was the only one with that skillset. It would have taken me around 3 months to change the client to work with non-auth'd servers. This may sound long but we didn't have standard apis; it took me 2 weeks to get TLS working. Beyond that it would have been another 3-5 months to do legal and security review to make sure we hadn't introduced a platform vulnerability through a malicious server, work we skipped originally because we were able to lock everything down internally. The servers would have taken another 2 months or so to setup. However they were built to some very specific software and specific to AWS, if I were to change it to not be cluster based, run in a single app, I'd call it 6 total. None of this includes documentation or making it nice. So we're talking a year with marketing, documentation, testing, etc. Which is a large percentage of what it took me to build the server features in the first place. This was also a little big planet / mario maker type feature, not full on multiplayer / match making. I would greatly increase my estimate for those. Instead, with that same time I: 1) helped greatly improved the internal engine tools, speeding up all of the developers and artists enabling them to do more on the next game, 2) Built internal and external player telemetry getting us a lot better QA coverage and great details on what players were doing which helped our DLC, 3) altered the server feature for internal use as well, letting us publish several extra free missions for the main game and DLC to fill in parts that were missing, 4) build a render farm which improved the artists cycle time from weeks to hours. 5) taught several of the more technical artists C++ to bind UI to shader features saving developer and artist time. Not doing each of these would materially have diminished the game or subsequent titles. And finally, before you downvote, I did in fact work to make the system work after we shut it down, just not the same way people want to mandate. I ensured that it would work locally and all of your downloaded content was saved. I also make it trivially easy for us to dump the database to s3 json for the top 10,000 missions, well into the long tail. And finally and most importantly, I spent time making the system as cheap as possible to run, which turns out to be THE key feature for businesses. It's been 13 years and I'm not at the studio anymore and and the servers are still running, mainly because they cost almost nothing to run. Maybe big studios could amortize this over time. It'd make smaller studios much less likely to build the server features in the first place. Many might chose to close to not deal with it and re-form. It would have made us think twice, so really I think it'd have a chilling effect, not the effect you want.

SleepyMyroslav 2y ago
(meta comment) I dont think downvotes will come. Only search can find this comment. As someone working in gamedev on live service game I think you are right about chilling effects. EU is a large market but if they will regulate themselves out of online gaming its their loss. It will not going to be completely empty - many projects will adapt to comply. I think chilling effect will be minor tbh.

amai 2y ago

Maybe museums and/or libraries could operate servers for old games?

thmsths 2y ago

Video games is a good starting point, but this should basically apply to all software.

nox101 2y ago
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 working if no internet, can't stop working if it can't contact servers, ...)
- georgeecollins 2y ago
  I have gotten to the point where I assume everything with a CPU and a wireless connection is going to self-destruct at some point soon. When we were getting a new oven we paid extra for the lowest tech one we could find! Please no touch screens! Example: My wife gave me a google mini that I use as a talking alarm clock. That's all: what time is it, please set an alarm. Period. Recently it told me it no longer works because I didn't install "Google Home" on my phone. Nothing changed on the device or its circumstances. Someone at Google decided to make a change that broke it.
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    You're lucky that you got it working from the store. You can't actually activate most IoT devices without a phone, a mobile number and an internet connection. All of which have to be supported by that brand, not just those physical items.
    - nox101 2y ago
      I noticed this with Nanoleaf Essential Smart LED bulbs, the ones sold by Apple. They come out of the box, requiring to you install the app and register an account before they will start going full brightness. They'll only go like 25% bright until you've installed the app. These are the bulbs Apple sells. So much for caring about privacy. If Apple cared, they wouldn't be carrying a brand that requires you to give up your privacy.

ZoomerCretin 2y ago

> You need to get the support of at least 1 million EU citizens, with thresholds (minimum numbers) in at least 7 EU countries. Well, good luck, but this is a pretty high bar.

beretguy 2y ago
Got to spread the news anywhere by any means possible.

hartator 2y ago

> This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames Does that mean it can apply to open source license as well?

Lucasoato 2y ago
This problem doesn’t apply to open source videogames (granted that open means truly open).

brigadier132 2y ago

My problem with things like this is that they mandate labor from others without compensating them.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
> 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 without the involvement from the side of the publisher. > The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state. Perhaps there is a disconnect between the policy intent and the understanding?
- brigadier132 2y ago
  > Perhaps there is a disconnect between the policy intent and the understanding? Yes, I don't think they understand that running these games isn't free, modifying the games to be self hostable is not free, and giving away the code for other people to run it is ip suicide.
  - babypuncher 2y ago
    It's not free if you weren't considering this when designing your game. It's 100% free if you keep this requirement in mind when making your game in the first place. Some publishers having to spend money today because they played with fire by eroding consumer rights seems like a worthwhile price to pay.
    - brigadier132 2y ago
      Is everything a right now?

user_7832 2y ago

I believe this is related to the movement that started/was spurred after the shutdown of The Crew. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ appears to be the same initiative/organization.

beretguy 2y ago
It is. It’s the same picture.

nerdjon 2y ago

We had a similar discussion about this before and I feel like this is an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. How many games actually only phone home and have been rendered unplayable for that reason? I am struggling to find any examples of this happening, but I am sure there are a few. Unless I am missing it, I don't even see an example listed here. If the game relies on servers for data, online play, or other things that is a completely different beast. That isn't just, "oh it was rendered unplayable". No it was an online game and the servers were shut down. It sucks but thats the nature of moving away from p2p online games. To be very clear here, I agree with this when it comes to single player games. But as its written, it has the potential to conflate 2 massively different issues (as the Crew discussion did last time) that it should be very clear on those distinctions and I would love examples.

er4hn 2y ago
Middle Earth: Shadow of War is a good example. It is a single player game with some minor and optional online elements, and used to have a pay to win store that needed internet access. It requires an online connection the first time you start it. If that server goes away - we're hoping the devs will patch it before that happens.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  I was asking for examples of where a game is unplayable. I know that there are games that only phone home or require an online connection to play online like Kingdom Hearts (which is particularly frustrating on my steam deck). That part of this I am not disputing. From the way this is written it sounds like this is a big problem that keeps happening for single player games, but I am struggling to find a ton of examples.
  - rybosome 2y ago
    The poster answered your question. The game is unplayable without an internet connection - it refuses to start. In spite of the fact that the internet connection is only used to provide optional content, without an authenticating server this game which is otherwise fundamentally a single player, offline game will not let you play it.

johnklos 2y ago

Common sense makes sense! I'd love to see something like this codified in to law. We need a complete rethinking of the actual terms, "buy", "own", "sell", and so on, so people can't use those terms incorrectly when they're technically just "renting". Case in point is "Redbox Revokes Access to All Previously Purchased Content After Bankruptcy": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41076807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41076807 How many times has Microsoft done it with music? How many times have companies that are still in business disabled older devices that are still perfectly functional in hopes to sell newer devices and/or get people to sign up for subscriptions, while not allowing end user access to their own devices? California and Massachusetts have made some steps to correct this. I'd love to see more.

georgeecollins 2y ago
I think the real problem is platform holders like Microsoft, Apple and Google, that create a lot of rules (or APIs) it hard for software to continue working without constant updates. They will say it is to support new features or security, which is occasionally true. But mostly I believe it is because they like to have a lot of telemetry on users, want to keep apps sticky in their eco system and they like you go back to the store. The worst thing for them is an open source game with no online component that you download once and play forever. The rest of it could be taken care of with consumer choice, but effectively you don't have a choice with the big platforms.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  In that case it is easy: don't sell ownership, allow people to rent
  - beAbU 2y ago
    This is what Gamepass does.
spacemadness 2y ago
I wonder if companies like Valve would have been as successful if they were forced to use “subscribe” instead of “buy”, “purchase”, etc.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mikemitchelldev 2y ago

What's the difference between a successful and unsuccessful campaign? How hard the organizers work at collecting signatures? Or does mainstream media get involved and publicize it?

anon_cow1111 2y ago

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.

nerdjon 2y ago
See this is why I made the comment I did, nothing that you just said is at all clear from the petition and as it is written it doesn't conform to what you are saying here. > For single player focused games, this means removing the phone-home verification or drm so it can function offline. I really doubt that anyone would dispute that. If we are only talking about that, its just fine. > For multiplayer focused games, this means allowing users to run their own server. It DOES NOT mean keeping official servers running forever. This is where it gets confusing, since then you say: > 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. That should be clear from the petition but why are those 2 a distinction? You have to buy WoW, its expansions, and pay a subscription fee. Why is that inherently different from buying an online only game, that you just don't have to pay a subscription for? For example, Guild Wars 2. For any reason that mattered it is identical to WoW when it comes to the server side of things. Except it doesn't have a subscription. If we really are going to make that distinction, it should have been in the petition. I had the same problem with the website that was discussing the Crew, critical information about what exactly we were talking about was missing and actually what we were talking about only came up after discussing it here. > Because this is a bad practice that only recently started, and it needs to be stopped before it gets worse. This petition also really needs examples of this, because I struggled to find an example so so far the only ones presented as games that are unplayable because of phoning home is NFS Underground and The Crew. When the petition is making it out to be a much larger and wide spread problem than it currently is.

miki123211 2y ago

This should be more aptly named the "make some videogames unavailable in the EU" initiative.

Retr0id 2y ago
I'd be on board with that, too.
dns_snek 2y ago
People on this site repeat this meme every time there's an EU initiative to protect personal freedoms or consumer rights. It hasn't happened so far, but I'm sure you'll be right one day and we'll all be collectively begging for mega-corporations' forgiveness. Any entity that doesn't want to abide by these rules would be a good riddance anyway and it would give room for customer-respecting alternatives to flourish. That's a win-win.
- miki123211 2y ago
  > It hasn't happened so far It has happened, many, many times. Apple's newest features (both iPhone mirroring and AI) are a great example, so are Meta's. A lot of accessibility tech (like Meta's new glasses or their feature allowing the blind to identify people in photos) is also impacted. There are many more examples, most local American newspapers just straight out can't be accessed from the EU for example. The more laws like these we have, the less attractive the EU is going to be for foreign companies to enter. We're on the way to turn into another South Korea, with their shitty local apps for everything and banks that still required Active X controls and Internet Explorer in the early 2020s.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    When companies like Apple put blame on EU regulations, it's worth keeping in mind that they're usually lying. See Microsoft's response to the Crowdstrike incident, and Apple's petulant behavior in regards to the DMA over the past year or so. It's safe to assume that this is just their way of pushing their anti-DMA agenda until proven otherwise. > We're on the way to turn into another South Korea, with their shitty local apps for everything and banks that still required Active X controls and Internet Explorer in the early 2020s. It's funny that you bring up banking. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the day when SEPA became available in all EU countries. We figured out a universal low/no fee payment system far earlier and better than the US did - I'm not up to date - is it actually figured out yet? Additionally, the EU is home to numerous fintech startups like N26, Revolut, Monzo, TransferWise, etc. that brought innovative features like even quicker person to person payments (just send money to their phone number in the app), disposable cards for online shopping, and cheap transfers across continents (especially TransferWise). Many of these features are now being implemented by established banks and this is frankly a poor example of EU regulations that supposedly block innovation. I've read the GDPR, DMA, and the EU AI act and I'm familiar with them at a high level. My position is that any product or service that doesn't comply with the these regulations shouldn't be available in the EU, the spirit of these regulations is sound and ensures that we have keep some semblance of freedom and sovereignty in the future. I think you're being alarmist and conflating predatory business practices with "innovation". They're orthogonal, and we don't have to accept invasion of privacy, exploitative business models, and unaccountable AI black boxes that decide our fate, in exchange for temporary shiny new toys.

binary132 2y ago

The whole concept of putting software on someone’s computer, but you actually own and operate it, is kinda crazy to start with. Stallman isn’t wrong about the abuse potential of proprietary software.