15 ms·

Stop Killing Games

483 points by r1chardnl 2y ago

xbmcuser 2y ago
This is just a proposal not the law once it is up for debate then every european and game developers etc will get to have a say and a real framework hammered out.
daveoc64 2y ago
Recently discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41126782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41126782
steinuil 2y ago
To all the comments who expressed doubts on how this would work in practice: please read the FAQ, it answers a lot of questions and gives concrete examples. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
- acdha 2y ago
  Looking at the most relevant questions of online games, I notice few answers and no concrete examples - it’s just “not at all” followed by what sounds like a teenager student trying to bluff their way through an assignment they didn’t read. The online gaming and licensing “answers” conspicuously read like they did not involve anyone with experience actually building or operating software applications. The critical flaw in this proposal is the attempt not to “interfere with any business practices while a game is still being supported”. I have some professional involvement in software preservation and would love to see more things preserved, but that’s going to require changes to how games are developed and sunsetted. As a simple example, the incorrect “not at all” assertion at the beginning of the multiplayer answer is directly contradicted by the acknowledgement buried in the middle admitting that this would require the game to be designed for preservation from the beginning. That’s actually correct because it’s rare for someone to develop a game from scratch, which involves reusing tools and content which are not licensed under the same terms as the original game. You could, and arguably should, require games to be developed in a more sustainable manner avoiding dependencies which can’t be easily removed or replaced at end of life but that absolutely is a change in business practice. Similarly, game developers license engines, content, etc. under terms which have limits or activation fees and that would need some sort of interference in existing business practice to change – again, arguably a good thing to do but it needs to be upfront about it similar to how we can’t just say people should stop using single-use plastic packaging without doing something about the economic factors which make it widespread. This is especially important when you remember that preservation is most useful when it’s easily accessible: if your game is preserved but that requires running a couple of nested emulators and some patches downloaded from one dude in Moldova, very few people are actually going to do so. What you really want is to keep the game buildable so it can run on normal operating systems and bugs & quality of life improvements can be made. For example, many multiplayer games in the past only supported IPv4 but there are a growing number of people in the world who only have IPv6 so it’d be good for long-term preservation to be able to add support but maintaining a build tool chain would really hammer the licensing issues.
  - chias 2y ago
    Not to mention: 1. World of Warcraft in 2004 is very different from World of Warcraft in 2024. Do future versions "destroy" previous ones? How do you deal with this? 2. What even is the definition of a "video game"? Is Neopets a video game? Is Twitter?
    - acdha 2y ago
      I’d like a proposal which simply starts by saying that they have to use terms like “rent” or “subscribe” for anything which uses DRM or company servers, and expand from there since it definitely gets thorny fast on both fronts. (What do you do with a Facebook game when they break an API a decade later?) For things like Warcraft, I think that absolutely should be preserved for historians and other researchers if nothing else but it’s hard to imagine that being possible without some kind of active cooperation. I wonder whether there’d be an angle where you could get some kind of tax credit by depositing playable offline copies with a national library but simply the storage costs would be a burden there.
      - account42 2y ago
        > I wonder whether there’d be an angle where you could get some kind of tax credit by depositing playable offline copies with a national library but simply the storage costs would be a burden there. It should simply be a requirement for copyright protection in the first place - if it doesn't actually end up in the commons after the copyright term the deal makes no sense for society overall.
    - henriquecm8 2y ago
      > 1. World of Warcraft in 2004 is very different from World of Warcraft in 2024. Do future versions "destroy" previous ones? How do you deal with this? I think it's more about the right of the consumer to be able to play what they paid for than keep the original version intact.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
- beltsazar 2y ago
  > The costs associated with implementing this requirement can be very small, if not trivial. This is too naive. While it may be the case for single player games that use online connection only as a DRM mechanism (Hitman 3, Gran Turismo 7), for some games it's not trivial at all. For example, The Division 2 servers do not only act as a "coordinator" between players like CS:GO servers, but also run logics for NPCs and environments. The server and the client are too tightly coupled.
  - safety1st 2y ago
    I'd rather see some sort of provision where if the company disables the product they sold us, they're required to subsequently license the source code to us for personal use. First off, hobbyists have an amazing track record reverse engineering many online games and creating third party servers and mods for them, so not only does this solve the problem but the amount of creativity that would be unlocked would be incredible. Second, you better believe many many publishers will flip the fuck out if they're staring this possibility in the face, and as a result they will work way harder to support their games in the future.
  - rbits 2y ago
    Right, but how hard would it be to make the server self-hostable? I feel like as long as the server address wasn't hardcoded into the game, it wouldn't be too hard
    - Chilinot 2y ago
      That depends entirely on the infrastructure necessary for hosting the multiplayer servers. Such as, does it require a database server for persistent storage of player information? It might be built for a k8s based environment. Split into many smaller services that all interact using a service mesh or message queue. You cant just take these things, press a button, and voila, a small bundled server platform anyone can run at home. The modern day software development experience is a massive and complex beast.
      - Wool2662 2y ago
- xorcist 2y ago
  That page is hard to understand. It is presented in my own language, but gives the impression of being translated by a drunk person with a dictionary, with plenty pages torn out. While I can get a general understanding of the points being raised by translating key words back to English and think about the context it is being used in, I'm not sure it's worth the bother. Here's another petition: If you want to be taken seriously, do not use translation tools. edit: Found the language dropdown in the top right corner. It was obscured by my web browser. If you have trouble understanding the text, select English there. It is a coherent text and therefore likely the intended language. ("Take action", I could never have guessed that one, no one was supposed to steal anything.)
  - Flozzin 2y ago
    It's very wordy. I get the feeling ChatGPT wrote it. AI has the tendency to maximize word usage, like it's a highschooler trying to hit the 'word count minimum' in their paper.
  - tannhaeuser 2y ago
    Agreed. Moreover, this appears to focus entirely on a consumerist perspective ie. the problem of online-activated games that get switched off after a couple years of sales which seems relevant to single-player games that don't need servers, but not MMORPGs/MMOx I guess, but the papmphlet wouldn't say. What's with web games? What about the inherent conflict of interest of selling vs preservation/piracy? What about the monopolistic tendencies of platforms such as Steam/consoles and their influence on game sujets (prude no-gore PC all-ages HD remakes) and that of payment providers?
  - _chris_g 2y ago
    Hey, could you tell me which language do you mean in particular?
    - xorcist 2y ago
      Does it matter? It's the same with every language, expect for the three or four major languages it handles best. Automated translation is derogatory to the audience. It's an anti-feature. Just remove it. The target users will read the web page just like they read any other web page, in the language it is written. Should they find their own language skills lacking, they will click the translate button in their web browser. Just like they do on any other web page.
- maccard 2y ago
  Echoing what the others said, these arguments don't hold water. It ignores all of the practicalities of what would actually be involved in doing this, the impacts on licensing, business models, security (and saying "there's no security risk" doesn't mean there's no security risk - there's a reason we don't distribute game server binaries for many games), and lastly the sheer development effort involved.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
reddalo 2y ago
All fellow European users should sign the petition! By the way, this is an official European Union initiative, it's safe and useful to add your vote (unlike those useless petitions on websites such as Change.org).
- encom 2y ago
  Official or not, I've never seen the government care even a little bit about a petition, beyond paying it lip service until the news cycle moves on to the next current thing.
  - jowea 2y ago
    I don't know, I think the EU has already proven itself willing to regulate the tech industry. And I'm not sure if this proposal is something that the game industry would die on a hill to stop. So getting some relatively easy brownie points from a citizen initiative seems plausible. At a minimum it has the safe effect as any other hopeless change.org petition, media attention.
  - zachrip 2y ago
    I'm sure folks here could list dozens of times they have helped, but also defeatism in general isn't a useful tool for solving problems.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      if your best rebuttal is "well just stay positive" in a year of negatives, I'm not going to be very optimistic in the end. It just feels like people denying the reality around them.
      - account42 2y ago
        It's more of a you are guaranteed to miss all the shots you don't take situation. Signing a petition isn't exactly a high cost so even if the chance to succeed is lot you might as well.
ricardobayes 2y ago
A good way to justify games costing 100 USD/EUR or more, due to longer support period. Personally, I don't support this, just because there were a few cases where studios closed support to an online game, doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be a rule. It is self-regulating pretty well. Games that are good, are going to be popular and don't need their servers closed. I personally don't expect mediocre games to have online support forever.
- Hamuko 2y ago
  >A good way to justify games costing 100 USD/EUR or more, due to longer support period. You're not required to support it longer, you just need to ensure the game is still playable after the support period for the people whose money you received. Ubisoft killed The Crew servers and then actually revoked the game license from people who've bought it, so even if you bought and "owned" the game, it would no longer actually be in your library. https://www.eurogamer.net/ubisoft-reportedly-revoking-the-crew-from-owners-libraries-following-server-shutdown https://www.eurogamer.net/ubisoft-reportedly-revoking-the-cr...
  - ricardobayes 2y ago
    Sure. But I wonder, why this, and why now. Where were these people when car makers started to have proprietary everything, from chargers to service points, to the point where you can't even service a punctured tyre on certain makes. Or certain operating systems having a complete "walled garden". Call me a cynic but at this point, after normalizing DRM and phone-home, online DRM, it's too late. For this initiative to stick, it would have been at least 5 years ago.
- tempfile 2y ago
  From the link: > 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 This could not possibly mean forcing e.g. WoW to keep their servers running forever. It just means that if your game could be written without a phone home "feature", then it must be. In other words, it would not justify an increased price. Publishers may choose to increase the price, because they don't actually need a justification in order to do that. But this legal change would not be a good reason.
cpojer 2y ago
This is great! As an indie game developer I care a great deal about game preservation. The game I'm working on requires Internet upon the first start and seamlessly syncs game state across your devices, but I pushed for open sourcing as much code as possible. We released 75% of the game's code under the MIT License[1], even before the game's full release. With the infra we built, we can publish the entire source within minutes once the game is no longer commercially viable. [1] https://cpojer.net/posts/athena-crisis-open-source https://cpojer.net/posts/athena-crisis-open-source
- InvOfSmallC 2y ago
  FYI if I click play nothing happens. Also not clear how to get the game on iOS (I love a good advance wars-like game)
  - cpojer 2y ago
    The play button should just scroll you down to the demo embedded on the website ( https://athenacrisis.com https://athenacrisis.com ) To play on iOS, you can install it from here: https://app.athenacrisis.com/download https://app.athenacrisis.com/download You get an account either by buying it directly on athenacrisis.com or via Steam.
saaslave 2y ago
Replace "games" with "software" and we will get the freedom but probably a 2008 style crash.
- jowea 2y ago
  I think this is slightly less common for general software. But I remember some cases of old software failing to install because the online DRM servers were taken offline.
usrbinbash 2y ago
Someone please define "reasonable playable state". Because, for something like an MMORPG, "playable" means being able to run a server. So, what does "playable" entail? Source and internal sysops documentation? That isn't "playable" for the vast majority of people. Working binary? Now you may be required to develop these specifically for consumer hardware, and/or in different versions. Example: MOBAs with ladders and matchmaking algorithms. You will likely need a separate server architecture that works independently of the userlist and matchmaking system. Bear in mind these systems are usually not made to be modular, they are custom-built to work in a given environment. Not saying that it cannot be done, I am also supporting the idea, but there should be a VERY CLEAR definition of what counts as "reasonable playable state".
- beltsazar 2y ago
  I think it aims mainly at games that use an online connection as a DRM mechanism, such as Hitman 3 and Gran Turismo 7. Both games are single player games that shouldn't necessitate online connection in the first place.
- armarr 2y ago
  Legislation is always intentionally vague so that edge cases can prove themselves in court. I think they made the right choice by adapting the demands and wording to something that appeals to legislators.
- whstl 2y ago
  The FAQ mentions does "server emulators" made by fans, so "reasonably playable" could possibly mean just removing restrictions to using those. Basically removing the phone-home restrictions. Keeping the game working but offline-only also seems to be a suggestion, the list of "real-world examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way" include some games that are playable offline-only. But your point stands, this should be discussed with more clarity before turning into law. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
  - ffsm8 2y ago
tmtvl 2y ago
2 days ago (2 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41144108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41144108 3 days ago (2 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41129339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41129339 4 days ago (131 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570
- CamelCaseName 2y ago
  "Stop Destroying Games" is a much better title. (Third link) I thought this was about violence in video games the first time I clicked.
sanitycheck 2y ago
I'm not sure if this approach can really work. What I definitely would like to see is a requirement to preserve a working VM containing source code, assets and build tools, set up to compile everything without an internet connection. It'd be much more useful to have than old binaries when all this stuff eventually becomes public domain.
jowea 2y ago
I watched a video on this proposal, and one interesting argument is that this isn't even supposed to be necessary, since leaving a game broken that you paid for is a violation of your property rights. Any (armchair) lawyer wants to opine what the courts would think of this?
- worble 2y ago
  The initial direction of the campaign was to investigate whether or not this was legal at all. The short version is - they refuse to answer and sidestep the question. Here's a video where Ross got a chance to directly ask the EU about the legality of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-g1_nZKC-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-g1_nZKC-k
  - BlackFly 2y ago
    They answer the questions to their ability and their purpose. They are not courts and are thus not finders of fact. If you phrase a question that would get them to act as one then their correct course of action is to simply state which relevant law governs that. One problem I have with Ross and his lawyers is his lack of reaction to the initial answers form the comission. The digital content and services law talk about objective and subjective conformity and the commission emphasized this: why didn't they use that terminology? The purchase of a game itself is a purchase of digital content (you purchase access to data in digital form) while running the servers is undeniably a digital service. So the game is in essence a bit of both. That is fine and desirable. It is obvious that eliminating the service makes the game unplayable and being able to play the game without reverse engineering is undeniably the most basic objective criteria a game has: that you can play it. The primary remedy is to make it conformant. The minimal action that would objectively make it playable would be the ability to point the game at a different server. The fact that no service currently exists is a semi-related criteria. Subjectively, they probably also need to provide some way for people to sensibly build servers, although maybe this is an objective requirement: the requirement that a game requiring servers has a way for users to ensure that a server is running. Otherwise, vaporware companies could build "games" that require connection to a server that they never build and if you have the misfortune of buying one you somehow got what you expected--an unplayable game? Publishing the server with the game (like many games do) is the easiest way to do this, although perhaps publishing an API is enough if they are extremely upfront about that? The secondary remedy is refund and the requirement is that they refund the difference in value between the current value of the non-conformant digital goods and the value if it was conformant. This one is obvious, since in its nonconformant state the game has no value. So the refund should be full. This is the remedy that may make free-to-play games more attractive to certain predatory businesses that want to terminate games despite the investment of time and money by players like Ubisoft here. This is the legal theory that you need to present but this theory is clear from the law so I don't know exactly what more you would need from the commission. In principle, anyone could reach out to Ubisoft (or Steam if you purchased it there) and present this theory stating that you purchased digital content which is no longer objectively conformant due to their changes. From there they need to tell you if they will create a remedy so that the goods function again, failing that they can refund you. If you get no response (possibly they attempt to dodge the law by stating you purchased a license, but the EU clarified that isn't relevant since it was a license to digital content and thus this law comes into play) or they clearly are giving you a run-around you can demand a refund and they have 2 weeks to comply. The law also empowers you to seek remedies outside of the courts so chargebacks are conformant to the intentions of the law at that point in time. Moreover, the law prevents the company from retaliating against you for asserting your rights. Getting your money back is the consolation prize, since I imagine you just want to continue playing the game that you love. I have multiple times sought remedies under this act so I have read quite a bit about it. I have read quite a bit about it and have been lucky enough to receive remedies without needing to go to court so far. I am not a lawyer, just an autodidactic citizen. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0770 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
lokimedes 2y ago
I’m highly ambivalent about this. On one side, I agree it is a problem, on the other, is regulation really the answer? I don’t want my taxes poured all over this, but perhaps more information about the longevity risks of the game at purchase? The market incentives are not there, why not try finding those first?
- rawbot 2y ago
  > I don’t want my taxes poured all over this Your taxes are already poured all over things you don't care about, and things that are ridiculous expenses. There's no incentive to keep a game alive after the server costs outlive the monthly income generated. Only a handful of games have been kept alive out of pure preservation or low cost (or in some cases, because the publishers just forgot about it). Regulation might be necessary since in the last 8 years of gaming, less and less games have been able to be preserved. And we had had outrageous examples like, The Crew, where fans have been able to reverse engineer an analogue to Ubisoft's servers in less than a year. Ubisoft have no incentive, so maybe it is time they are forced to.
  - lokimedes 2y ago
    I'm obviously not a lawyer, but it just seems so arbitrary a problem. Doesn't the same problem happen with all other software these days? Perhaps something more radical should come into play. In the defense industry we had this thing, that the source code was held in escrow, in the case that the company went bankrupt, or a national emergency required access. What if software of a certain nature, was required to have such a thing as a continuity plan? What I'm getting at, is if all creative souls are required to front a guarantee of eternal commitment to their creations, we will see a good deal less novelty.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    Playing an old video game is among the least necessary things I can think of.
- ManlyBread 2y ago
  >is regulation really the answer? What other alternatives are there when the market has clearly demonstrated that it's not going to regulate itself in favor of the customers?
JTBooth 2y ago
What if, in stead of a requirement, we created an opt-in obligation for companies? If you promise "EOL support guaranteed" you register a plan with whatever agency and pay some fee and they check in every couple years and make sure you remember. And if you don't, then you don't get the badge, and we find out if consumers actually care.
- josalhor 2y ago
  I have thought about this for a while. I think that a lot of labeling could be done with regards to promises of consumer products. Publishers (of any kind of digital product) cannot expect to transition to a model where we don't own anything and they make no assurances on the product they serve. It would be great to have a badge of the sort "this product will not have ads, will not have microtransactions, will be able at least until 2030, etc.".
- beeboobaa3 2y ago
  The non-indie market isn't saturated enough for that, and publishers will collude to never allow any of their games to promise this so gamers won't get the chance to get used to it.
- rawbot 2y ago
  Because most users of games don't really care for this. They are either too young, or to busy with other facets of life that they just want to play the game. It is only a small percentage that are dedicated enough to care, either because they really enjoy the game or because they want to support game preservation. If you make it opt-in, companies won't care to add it and they will only lose a few percentage points (I would be surprised for anything higher than 1%) of people that will be put off by the lack of "EOL support" guarantee.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << Because most users of games don't really care for this. Agreed, but surely there is money to be made on people like me, who clearly have money to drop on games without blinking too much if I am having fun without having to jump through hoops ( fwiw, DRM is a hoop for me ). As in, I was a kid once. My generation is all grown up, but we actually have money to spend on games. Is it just easier to sell to kids who don't know any better?
nwoli 2y ago
The path to too much friction to make new things is paved with regulation with good intentions
davidwhitney 2y ago
The intent "don't turn off my games!" is generally good, but in practice the most likely thing that'll come from this is one of: 1. It passes, and subsequently a large amount of games just don't launch in the EU. GG. 2. Nobody can write enough caveats to make it workable, and it's abandoned. 3. People don't care because it's just videogames. I'm broadly supportive of "can we make offline modes standard where the game in it's current design reasonably could be played offline", but that kind of language is too loose for legislation, and too prescriptive for technical innovation.
- beeboobaa3 2y ago
  > 1. It passes, and subsequently a large amount of games just don't launch in the EU Unlikely, it's a huge and valuable market. > 2. Nobody can write enough caveats to make it workable, and it's abandoned. The EU has demonstrated they care about companies following the spirit of the law, not the letter. It'll be fine. > 3. People don't care because it's just videogames. Clearly they do. It's been making the rounds online for the past few days and now even made it to the top of HN.
  - criley2 2y ago
    >Unlikely, it's a huge and valuable market They said the same thing about Facebook News and Canada. Many tech companies already refuse to launch in overly-regulated markets, or launch years late with "government special" versions of the software that meet the extreme demands of the EU or China or whoever.
    - consp 2y ago
      > Many tech companies already refuse to launch in overly-regulated markets You say overly-regulated, I say sufficiently regulated. Maybe, just maybe, those companies should not launch here.
      - criley2 2y ago
        >You say overly-regulated, I say sufficiently regulated. Maybe, just maybe, those companies should not launch here Sure! Sounds like we're in total agreement that the comment I replied to suggesting that the EU was "too big to ignore" is false, and that their regulations do in fact make it so that some products stay out.
hermannj314 2y ago
When you are on Prime and you click buy instead of rent for a movie, what does the EU do to protect you? Is there a reason this digital protection is narrowly limiting itself to video games and not all digital goods or all implied warranties for any good sold? I also think workers should be paid fair wages, and also that we should protect artists from the threats of AI, but only if they work in the video game industry, not anywhere else. Did I do it right? Is that how we do this now?
- rawbot 2y ago
  Because it comes from gamers and people concerned about preservation of games. Why broaden it if the people who are pushing for the initiative don't care about other stuff?
  - hermannj314 2y ago
    We all have finite time to repsond to lobbying efforts of groups, by seeking to intervene narrowly with regulatory intervention we increase the burden on the public to stay vigilant across a wider range of issues. Narrowly-crafted regulatory interventions are tools of the elite class to weaken the resolve and solidarity of the working class. That's my general reasoning.
    - rawbot 2y ago
      > We all have finite time to repsond to lobbying efforts of groups, I understand. If you don't care about this petition, you don't need to sign it. If you care, the amount of time and effort it takes to sign it is very small.
HunOL 2y ago
No, thank you, I am tired of EU regulations. Vote with your money. Buy games that you could download (GOG) , avoid external launchers and make sure that it's possible to play a game without additional account.
- BlackFly 2y ago
  Vote with your money is by definition an approval of oligarchy, not democracy. It is appalling it is so common a refrain nowadays. People with more money shouldn't necessarily get more say in our society's norms. You are free to your opinion but when you say that people should vote with their money one whale is going to come along and swamp your "vote" 100x. Your opinion should be just as valid as theirs not less because they spend more. If I got it wrong and you're the whale then I just hope you can have some empathy. Launchers aren't necessarily a problem when they are held to reasonable standards on data privacy, refunds, and durability among others. There is unique value that they can offer which is typically lessened by not being interoperable with one another. Many of the norms were hard won via EU and other national regulations. On the other hand, far too many companies want a piece of the data pie without even attempting at interoperability and egress. The Helldivers 2 debacle is an indication that clearly something is wrong. The markets are still highly polluted with things that should be a violation of our norms even though things are getting better.
- flessner 2y ago
  I absolutely support that, but you need to differentiate a bit. If a game has a functioning single player and a company chooses to shutdown multiplayer/matchmaking after some time I think that's fair. Sure, it would be nicer if the servers were open sourced or an alternative was provided, but at least there is some way to still play. However, there are also games that only have multiplayer - here a company can just take away your ability to play the game completely. A prominent recent example is "The Crew". It's also not 100% clear when buying, "The Crew" certainly had a large story aspect to it and it wasn't common in 2014 for such games to be "always online". It's quite a difficult path to find a solution to all of this as we can't force companies to operate servers indefinitely; on the other side we are loosing consumer rights and history.
- 2y ago
neontomo 2y ago
still sour about ubisoft killing co-op for splinter cell games. it's only been 11 years! ;)
miohtama 2y ago
It’s not possible to expect software to be runnable forever. We do not expect this for the desktop software (Microsoft Windows), so we cannot expect this from games. Hardware changes, Internet changes, integrations change (Steam may die on one day). Just have “a minimum of X years” is simple and sufficient.
- helloiamsomeone 2y ago
  Software is in fact eternal. Maxwell’s Equations of Software (Lisp) is still a thing to this day [1]. Even for software designed for arcane architectures. You can simulate the Apollo Guidance Computer and its software today [2], which got people on the Moon. Technological progress must never come at the expense of people's rights. [1]: https://github.com/jart/sectorlisp https://github.com/jart/sectorlisp [2]: https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/
- galdosdi 2y ago
  WTF are you talking about? I played SimCity for DOS just the other day through an emulator. Easy as pie. It's only be going out of your way to make it hard to emulate by unnecessarily depending on an online infrastructure that you kill archivability. This isn't aimed at MMOs. It's aimed at games like Super Mario Run on my phone, which is totally single player and refuses to start up half the time until it spends 10 minutes downloading hundreds more megabytes of "updates" that don't seem to change the game at all. I am certain I won't be able to play Super Mario Run 20 years from now, despite having paid good money for it, unless Nintendo happens to in their benevolence allow me to re-buy a reissue of it again. Super Mario World from 1993 on the other hand, plays perfectly, and there is a cottage industry of nostalgic streamers competing for better and better times speedrunning it. That's what this is about. Being able to play a classic game from 30 years ago with your grandkids, just as you can watch a classic movie.
dguest 2y ago
Best similar case I can think of is the EU regulating charging cables (and mandating USB-C for a lot of devices). It was a common consumer good with a problem that really annoyed some people so much that they made a law to "fix" it. Others said it would stifle innovation. To me how people feel about that probably says something about what chances this proposal has. How do people feel about the USB-C mandate? Are there other similar recent examples?
- sssilver 2y ago
  I do not like the mandate because I prefer the lightning connector as the objectively better connector. I’m always amused when people say they don’t see a difference. The difference to me is significant.
  - Tade0 2y ago
    How is it better?
    - ForOldHack 2y ago
      1. It's proprietary. · 2. It's more expensive. · 3. It's slower. · 4. It doesn't support fast-charging. ·
      - ThatPlayer 2y ago
        My favorite is that it doesn't have enough pins for native HDMI. Those Lightning to HDMI adapters have a proper controller chip that takes compressed video and decodes it to output HDMI.
    - arrakeen 2y ago
      the flimsy, breakable part is on the cable rather than the expensive device
    - sssilver 2y ago
      Most importantly, I find it easier to plug into the device without looking.
GardenLetter27 2y ago
I doubt it'll change much, but I do agree with it. If you buy something, it shouldn't be pulled out from under you.
arizen 2y ago
The discussion around the EU's "Stop Killing Games" proposal is quite interesting and touches on broader issues of consumer "The 'Stop Killing Games' initiative highlights a fundamental tension between consumer rights and the current business models in the gaming industry. On one hand, the idea of preserving games for future access aligns with broader movements toward digital preservation, similar to efforts in other digital media industries like film and music. However, as some users have pointed out, implementing these requirements could significantly disrupt how games are developed, particularly when games rely on proprietary servers or content licensed under restrictive terms. A middle-ground approach might be to incentivize companies to create 'preservable' versions of their games, possibly through tax credits or other benefits for depositing source code or playable copies with national archives. This could foster a culture of preservation without forcing drastic changes to current business models. It's also worth considering how this policy could set a precedent for other digital services—shouldn't we be having similar conversations about software, apps, and even streaming content?
- riskable 2y ago
  > However, as some users have pointed out, implementing these requirements could significantly disrupt how games are developed, particularly when games rely on proprietary servers or content licensed under restrictive terms. "Yes." I believe is the universal answer here. Fill in your local custom version of, "I'm OK with that", "I'm failing to see the problem", etc.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    "Fully agree" It's as simple as "Ah, you plan to stop your proprietary server end-point? This enforces section #2 of the regulation, requiring you to provide the means for others to operate their own end-point and publish a transition-plan for affected customers" That's equally applicable to Games as well as any form of connected product.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > possibly through tax credits or other benefits for depositing source code or playable copies with national archives. How would that work in practice? You could play your game yesterday, but you can't play it tomorrow because the company shut off the servers. But fear not because your tax dollars paid for the executables to be deposited in an archive Ark of the Covenant style. That might be satisfying with an oil painting. But games are meant to be played with. Can one check it out and run it? Can one modify the game to keep it running on new hardware or operating system? Can one re-distribute those modifications to others? Can one pay for someone else to run the servers for them?
johncoltrane 2y ago
Stop buying games you don't like.
- Avamander 2y ago
  The issue is that I might like them, but someone shuts down a server that does nothing more than check my license and I can't even play it offline.
lynx23 2y ago
I think we have a much more pressing problem in the apps industry. I, as a consumer, don't want my UX to change with every software update. I want an ption to lock the features down, and only receive security updates. Why? Because I might use the app on a daily basis, and grow used to how it behaves. I dont want it to change without my consent. I think this would be a much more pressing problem then conserving games.
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  I had wanted something similar; which is a "configuration safe upgrade"; this can be combined with the other things that you mention. But, note that even security features can cause problems if they are not what the user wanted. It is appropriate to get rid of buffer overflows and other stuff like that, but to disable some feature because it is sometimes considered as "insecure" can be bad if the user cannot configure this.
- account42 2y ago
  That is also a worthy cause and I will support that petition as well as soon as you get around to making it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gg2222 2y ago
If games are a kind of software, why must games face this kind of regulation when other kinds of (actually more important) software doesn't / won't? In saying this, I'm not in favor of this regulation, actually the opposite - because imagine if this regulation passed for games and then passed for software in general next. MMORPGs are software provided as a service, but this proposed regulation wants to make them playable even after the service provider discontinues service. If applied to software in general then that means all SaaS once it has any customers, then it has the obligation to make (and keep?) that software usable indefinitely. And what if the reason you had to discontinue was out of your control? Eg. one of your critical service providers went out of business? Guess you'll have to recreate that service provider's whole service so your now open source software can still work on top of it before you can actually go out of business yourself. It is just an absurd expectation for game companies to have to consider this. And in the end it just makes it harder for the smaller not-established game companies while giving the bigger companies another boost, concentrating their advantage.
- snowpid 2y ago
  " If games are a kind of software, why must games face this kind of regulation when other kinds of (actually more important) software doesn't / won't? " I am neutral to the iniative but I can answer this question very clearly: Games are cultural products and you want to get the exact same experience (as you want to see the same film and not something else) Using GIMP or Photoshop is a very different experience: Does it matter? Not so much. You can use an alternative and in case user will change. The Crew or Gran Turismo? You don't want to change so much.
  - gg2222 2y ago
    Their FAQ talks about using games as the first step in fighting companies discontinuing services of various kinds (not only cultural products). It is true there is a cultural aspect for games and they mention it, but if a regulation like this passes, then it is easy to imagine what other regulations would be pushed next. Yes it could be great for consumers, but too many regulations means it becomes harder to start and do businesses and the advantages fall to the established players and in the end there are less options in the market(s) due to monopolies so the consumer is actually worse off.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570
kaycey2022 2y ago
I think people are just beating around the bush and not saying what they really mean here. On one side are consumers (these petitioners) who just want the companies to give them everything so they can continue using these products without any consideration for the other side's point of view that software is the creator's property unless specified otherwise. On the other side are the producers, who just don't want any legislative burden to be placed on them and want to create and distribute software exactly how they want to. In a serious negotiation both positions would be untenable and a compromise has to be reached.
- jwueller 2y ago
  It stops being their property when they sell it. They keep owning the IP, but not the individual copy. Anything else is just someone coming to your house and stealing something you bought back. Basic property rights are not up for negotiation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
  You're making grandiose claims that are obviously uninformed. "This petitioner" Ross Scott is fighting remote kill-switches in games. Here's a recent video, but listening in should be enough https://www.accursedfarms.com/posts/dead-game-news/dead-game-news-response-from-the-european-commission-r871/ https://www.accursedfarms.com/posts/dead-game-news/dead-game... Even if the outcome of all of this is merely correct labeling, it will be a win in his view. What's important is setting a precedent that no, it's not fine to take money for something that will only work until a box somewhere in the world is turned on if you won't say how long you will keep that box on.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    What singleplayer game has exercised a remote kill switch?
thepra 2y ago
Signed, from Italy ;D

483 points by r1chardnl 2y ago

This is just a proposal not the law once it is up for debate then every european and game developers etc will get to have a say and a real framework hammered out.

daveoc64 2y ago

Recently discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41126782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41126782

steinuil 2y ago

To all the comments who expressed doubts on how this would work in practice: please read the FAQ, it answers a lot of questions and gives concrete examples. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

acdha 2y ago
Looking at the most relevant questions of online games, I notice few answers and no concrete examples - it’s just “not at all” followed by what sounds like a teenager student trying to bluff their way through an assignment they didn’t read. The online gaming and licensing “answers” conspicuously read like they did not involve anyone with experience actually building or operating software applications. The critical flaw in this proposal is the attempt not to “interfere with any business practices while a game is still being supported”. I have some professional involvement in software preservation and would love to see more things preserved, but that’s going to require changes to how games are developed and sunsetted. As a simple example, the incorrect “not at all” assertion at the beginning of the multiplayer answer is directly contradicted by the acknowledgement buried in the middle admitting that this would require the game to be designed for preservation from the beginning. That’s actually correct because it’s rare for someone to develop a game from scratch, which involves reusing tools and content which are not licensed under the same terms as the original game. You could, and arguably should, require games to be developed in a more sustainable manner avoiding dependencies which can’t be easily removed or replaced at end of life but that absolutely is a change in business practice. Similarly, game developers license engines, content, etc. under terms which have limits or activation fees and that would need some sort of interference in existing business practice to change – again, arguably a good thing to do but it needs to be upfront about it similar to how we can’t just say people should stop using single-use plastic packaging without doing something about the economic factors which make it widespread. This is especially important when you remember that preservation is most useful when it’s easily accessible: if your game is preserved but that requires running a couple of nested emulators and some patches downloaded from one dude in Moldova, very few people are actually going to do so. What you really want is to keep the game buildable so it can run on normal operating systems and bugs & quality of life improvements can be made. For example, many multiplayer games in the past only supported IPv4 but there are a growing number of people in the world who only have IPv6 so it’d be good for long-term preservation to be able to add support but maintaining a build tool chain would really hammer the licensing issues.
- chias 2y ago
  Not to mention: 1. World of Warcraft in 2004 is very different from World of Warcraft in 2024. Do future versions "destroy" previous ones? How do you deal with this? 2. What even is the definition of a "video game"? Is Neopets a video game? Is Twitter?
  - acdha 2y ago
    I’d like a proposal which simply starts by saying that they have to use terms like “rent” or “subscribe” for anything which uses DRM or company servers, and expand from there since it definitely gets thorny fast on both fronts. (What do you do with a Facebook game when they break an API a decade later?) For things like Warcraft, I think that absolutely should be preserved for historians and other researchers if nothing else but it’s hard to imagine that being possible without some kind of active cooperation. I wonder whether there’d be an angle where you could get some kind of tax credit by depositing playable offline copies with a national library but simply the storage costs would be a burden there.
    - account42 2y ago
      > I wonder whether there’d be an angle where you could get some kind of tax credit by depositing playable offline copies with a national library but simply the storage costs would be a burden there. It should simply be a requirement for copyright protection in the first place - if it doesn't actually end up in the commons after the copyright term the deal makes no sense for society overall.
  - henriquecm8 2y ago
    > 1. World of Warcraft in 2004 is very different from World of Warcraft in 2024. Do future versions "destroy" previous ones? How do you deal with this? I think it's more about the right of the consumer to be able to play what they paid for than keep the original version intact.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
beltsazar 2y ago
> The costs associated with implementing this requirement can be very small, if not trivial. This is too naive. While it may be the case for single player games that use online connection only as a DRM mechanism (Hitman 3, Gran Turismo 7), for some games it's not trivial at all. For example, The Division 2 servers do not only act as a "coordinator" between players like CS:GO servers, but also run logics for NPCs and environments. The server and the client are too tightly coupled.
- safety1st 2y ago
  I'd rather see some sort of provision where if the company disables the product they sold us, they're required to subsequently license the source code to us for personal use. First off, hobbyists have an amazing track record reverse engineering many online games and creating third party servers and mods for them, so not only does this solve the problem but the amount of creativity that would be unlocked would be incredible. Second, you better believe many many publishers will flip the fuck out if they're staring this possibility in the face, and as a result they will work way harder to support their games in the future.
- rbits 2y ago
  Right, but how hard would it be to make the server self-hostable? I feel like as long as the server address wasn't hardcoded into the game, it wouldn't be too hard
  - Chilinot 2y ago
    That depends entirely on the infrastructure necessary for hosting the multiplayer servers. Such as, does it require a database server for persistent storage of player information? It might be built for a k8s based environment. Split into many smaller services that all interact using a service mesh or message queue. You cant just take these things, press a button, and voila, a small bundled server platform anyone can run at home. The modern day software development experience is a massive and complex beast.
    - Wool2662 2y ago
xorcist 2y ago
That page is hard to understand. It is presented in my own language, but gives the impression of being translated by a drunk person with a dictionary, with plenty pages torn out. While I can get a general understanding of the points being raised by translating key words back to English and think about the context it is being used in, I'm not sure it's worth the bother. Here's another petition: If you want to be taken seriously, do not use translation tools. edit: Found the language dropdown in the top right corner. It was obscured by my web browser. If you have trouble understanding the text, select English there. It is a coherent text and therefore likely the intended language. ("Take action", I could never have guessed that one, no one was supposed to steal anything.)
- Flozzin 2y ago
  It's very wordy. I get the feeling ChatGPT wrote it. AI has the tendency to maximize word usage, like it's a highschooler trying to hit the 'word count minimum' in their paper.
- tannhaeuser 2y ago
  Agreed. Moreover, this appears to focus entirely on a consumerist perspective ie. the problem of online-activated games that get switched off after a couple years of sales which seems relevant to single-player games that don't need servers, but not MMORPGs/MMOx I guess, but the papmphlet wouldn't say. What's with web games? What about the inherent conflict of interest of selling vs preservation/piracy? What about the monopolistic tendencies of platforms such as Steam/consoles and their influence on game sujets (prude no-gore PC all-ages HD remakes) and that of payment providers?
- _chris_g 2y ago
  Hey, could you tell me which language do you mean in particular?
  - xorcist 2y ago
    Does it matter? It's the same with every language, expect for the three or four major languages it handles best. Automated translation is derogatory to the audience. It's an anti-feature. Just remove it. The target users will read the web page just like they read any other web page, in the language it is written. Should they find their own language skills lacking, they will click the translate button in their web browser. Just like they do on any other web page.
maccard 2y ago
Echoing what the others said, these arguments don't hold water. It ignores all of the practicalities of what would actually be involved in doing this, the impacts on licensing, business models, security (and saying "there's no security risk" doesn't mean there's no security risk - there's a reason we don't distribute game server binaries for many games), and lastly the sheer development effort involved.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

reddalo 2y ago

All fellow European users should sign the petition! By the way, this is an official European Union initiative, it's safe and useful to add your vote (unlike those useless petitions on websites such as Change.org).

encom 2y ago
Official or not, I've never seen the government care even a little bit about a petition, beyond paying it lip service until the news cycle moves on to the next current thing.
- jowea 2y ago
  I don't know, I think the EU has already proven itself willing to regulate the tech industry. And I'm not sure if this proposal is something that the game industry would die on a hill to stop. So getting some relatively easy brownie points from a citizen initiative seems plausible. At a minimum it has the safe effect as any other hopeless change.org petition, media attention.
- zachrip 2y ago
  I'm sure folks here could list dozens of times they have helped, but also defeatism in general isn't a useful tool for solving problems.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    if your best rebuttal is "well just stay positive" in a year of negatives, I'm not going to be very optimistic in the end. It just feels like people denying the reality around them.
    - account42 2y ago
      It's more of a you are guaranteed to miss all the shots you don't take situation. Signing a petition isn't exactly a high cost so even if the chance to succeed is lot you might as well.

ricardobayes 2y ago

A good way to justify games costing 100 USD/EUR or more, due to longer support period. Personally, I don't support this, just because there were a few cases where studios closed support to an online game, doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be a rule. It is self-regulating pretty well. Games that are good, are going to be popular and don't need their servers closed. I personally don't expect mediocre games to have online support forever.

Hamuko 2y ago
>A good way to justify games costing 100 USD/EUR or more, due to longer support period. You're not required to support it longer, you just need to ensure the game is still playable after the support period for the people whose money you received. Ubisoft killed The Crew servers and then actually revoked the game license from people who've bought it, so even if you bought and "owned" the game, it would no longer actually be in your library. https://www.eurogamer.net/ubisoft-reportedly-revoking-the-crew-from-owners-libraries-following-server-shutdown https://www.eurogamer.net/ubisoft-reportedly-revoking-the-cr...
- ricardobayes 2y ago
  Sure. But I wonder, why this, and why now. Where were these people when car makers started to have proprietary everything, from chargers to service points, to the point where you can't even service a punctured tyre on certain makes. Or certain operating systems having a complete "walled garden". Call me a cynic but at this point, after normalizing DRM and phone-home, online DRM, it's too late. For this initiative to stick, it would have been at least 5 years ago.
tempfile 2y ago
From the link: > 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 This could not possibly mean forcing e.g. WoW to keep their servers running forever. It just means that if your game could be written without a phone home "feature", then it must be. In other words, it would not justify an increased price. Publishers may choose to increase the price, because they don't actually need a justification in order to do that. But this legal change would not be a good reason.

cpojer 2y ago

This is great! As an indie game developer I care a great deal about game preservation. The game I'm working on requires Internet upon the first start and seamlessly syncs game state across your devices, but I pushed for open sourcing as much code as possible. We released 75% of the game's code under the MIT License[1], even before the game's full release. With the infra we built, we can publish the entire source within minutes once the game is no longer commercially viable. [1] https://cpojer.net/posts/athena-crisis-open-source https://cpojer.net/posts/athena-crisis-open-source

InvOfSmallC 2y ago
FYI if I click play nothing happens. Also not clear how to get the game on iOS (I love a good advance wars-like game)
- cpojer 2y ago
  The play button should just scroll you down to the demo embedded on the website ( https://athenacrisis.com https://athenacrisis.com ) To play on iOS, you can install it from here: https://app.athenacrisis.com/download https://app.athenacrisis.com/download You get an account either by buying it directly on athenacrisis.com or via Steam.

saaslave 2y ago

Replace "games" with "software" and we will get the freedom but probably a 2008 style crash.

jowea 2y ago
I think this is slightly less common for general software. But I remember some cases of old software failing to install because the online DRM servers were taken offline.

usrbinbash 2y ago

Someone please define "reasonable playable state". Because, for something like an MMORPG, "playable" means being able to run a server. So, what does "playable" entail? Source and internal sysops documentation? That isn't "playable" for the vast majority of people. Working binary? Now you may be required to develop these specifically for consumer hardware, and/or in different versions. Example: MOBAs with ladders and matchmaking algorithms. You will likely need a separate server architecture that works independently of the userlist and matchmaking system. Bear in mind these systems are usually not made to be modular, they are custom-built to work in a given environment. Not saying that it cannot be done, I am also supporting the idea, but there should be a VERY CLEAR definition of what counts as "reasonable playable state".

beltsazar 2y ago
I think it aims mainly at games that use an online connection as a DRM mechanism, such as Hitman 3 and Gran Turismo 7. Both games are single player games that shouldn't necessitate online connection in the first place.
armarr 2y ago
Legislation is always intentionally vague so that edge cases can prove themselves in court. I think they made the right choice by adapting the demands and wording to something that appeals to legislators.
whstl 2y ago
The FAQ mentions does "server emulators" made by fans, so "reasonably playable" could possibly mean just removing restrictions to using those. Basically removing the phone-home restrictions. Keeping the game working but offline-only also seems to be a suggestion, the list of "real-world examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way" include some games that are playable offline-only. But your point stands, this should be discussed with more clarity before turning into law. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
- ffsm8 2y ago

tmtvl 2y ago

2 days ago (2 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41144108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41144108 3 days ago (2 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41129339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41129339 4 days ago (131 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570

CamelCaseName 2y ago
"Stop Destroying Games" is a much better title. (Third link) I thought this was about violence in video games the first time I clicked.

sanitycheck 2y ago

I'm not sure if this approach can really work. What I definitely would like to see is a requirement to preserve a working VM containing source code, assets and build tools, set up to compile everything without an internet connection. It'd be much more useful to have than old binaries when all this stuff eventually becomes public domain.

jowea 2y ago

I watched a video on this proposal, and one interesting argument is that this isn't even supposed to be necessary, since leaving a game broken that you paid for is a violation of your property rights. Any (armchair) lawyer wants to opine what the courts would think of this?

worble 2y ago
The initial direction of the campaign was to investigate whether or not this was legal at all. The short version is - they refuse to answer and sidestep the question. Here's a video where Ross got a chance to directly ask the EU about the legality of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-g1_nZKC-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-g1_nZKC-k
- BlackFly 2y ago
  They answer the questions to their ability and their purpose. They are not courts and are thus not finders of fact. If you phrase a question that would get them to act as one then their correct course of action is to simply state which relevant law governs that. One problem I have with Ross and his lawyers is his lack of reaction to the initial answers form the comission. The digital content and services law talk about objective and subjective conformity and the commission emphasized this: why didn't they use that terminology? The purchase of a game itself is a purchase of digital content (you purchase access to data in digital form) while running the servers is undeniably a digital service. So the game is in essence a bit of both. That is fine and desirable. It is obvious that eliminating the service makes the game unplayable and being able to play the game without reverse engineering is undeniably the most basic objective criteria a game has: that you can play it. The primary remedy is to make it conformant. The minimal action that would objectively make it playable would be the ability to point the game at a different server. The fact that no service currently exists is a semi-related criteria. Subjectively, they probably also need to provide some way for people to sensibly build servers, although maybe this is an objective requirement: the requirement that a game requiring servers has a way for users to ensure that a server is running. Otherwise, vaporware companies could build "games" that require connection to a server that they never build and if you have the misfortune of buying one you somehow got what you expected--an unplayable game? Publishing the server with the game (like many games do) is the easiest way to do this, although perhaps publishing an API is enough if they are extremely upfront about that? The secondary remedy is refund and the requirement is that they refund the difference in value between the current value of the non-conformant digital goods and the value if it was conformant. This one is obvious, since in its nonconformant state the game has no value. So the refund should be full. This is the remedy that may make free-to-play games more attractive to certain predatory businesses that want to terminate games despite the investment of time and money by players like Ubisoft here. This is the legal theory that you need to present but this theory is clear from the law so I don't know exactly what more you would need from the commission. In principle, anyone could reach out to Ubisoft (or Steam if you purchased it there) and present this theory stating that you purchased digital content which is no longer objectively conformant due to their changes. From there they need to tell you if they will create a remedy so that the goods function again, failing that they can refund you. If you get no response (possibly they attempt to dodge the law by stating you purchased a license, but the EU clarified that isn't relevant since it was a license to digital content and thus this law comes into play) or they clearly are giving you a run-around you can demand a refund and they have 2 weeks to comply. The law also empowers you to seek remedies outside of the courts so chargebacks are conformant to the intentions of the law at that point in time. Moreover, the law prevents the company from retaliating against you for asserting your rights. Getting your money back is the consolation prize, since I imagine you just want to continue playing the game that you love. I have multiple times sought remedies under this act so I have read quite a bit about it. I have read quite a bit about it and have been lucky enough to receive remedies without needing to go to court so far. I am not a lawyer, just an autodidactic citizen. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0770 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

lokimedes 2y ago

I’m highly ambivalent about this. On one side, I agree it is a problem, on the other, is regulation really the answer? I don’t want my taxes poured all over this, but perhaps more information about the longevity risks of the game at purchase? The market incentives are not there, why not try finding those first?

rawbot 2y ago
> I don’t want my taxes poured all over this Your taxes are already poured all over things you don't care about, and things that are ridiculous expenses. There's no incentive to keep a game alive after the server costs outlive the monthly income generated. Only a handful of games have been kept alive out of pure preservation or low cost (or in some cases, because the publishers just forgot about it). Regulation might be necessary since in the last 8 years of gaming, less and less games have been able to be preserved. And we had had outrageous examples like, The Crew, where fans have been able to reverse engineer an analogue to Ubisoft's servers in less than a year. Ubisoft have no incentive, so maybe it is time they are forced to.
- lokimedes 2y ago
  I'm obviously not a lawyer, but it just seems so arbitrary a problem. Doesn't the same problem happen with all other software these days? Perhaps something more radical should come into play. In the defense industry we had this thing, that the source code was held in escrow, in the case that the company went bankrupt, or a national emergency required access. What if software of a certain nature, was required to have such a thing as a continuity plan? What I'm getting at, is if all creative souls are required to front a guarantee of eternal commitment to their creations, we will see a good deal less novelty.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  Playing an old video game is among the least necessary things I can think of.
ManlyBread 2y ago
>is regulation really the answer? What other alternatives are there when the market has clearly demonstrated that it's not going to regulate itself in favor of the customers?

JTBooth 2y ago

What if, in stead of a requirement, we created an opt-in obligation for companies? If you promise "EOL support guaranteed" you register a plan with whatever agency and pay some fee and they check in every couple years and make sure you remember. And if you don't, then you don't get the badge, and we find out if consumers actually care.

josalhor 2y ago
I have thought about this for a while. I think that a lot of labeling could be done with regards to promises of consumer products. Publishers (of any kind of digital product) cannot expect to transition to a model where we don't own anything and they make no assurances on the product they serve. It would be great to have a badge of the sort "this product will not have ads, will not have microtransactions, will be able at least until 2030, etc.".
beeboobaa3 2y ago
The non-indie market isn't saturated enough for that, and publishers will collude to never allow any of their games to promise this so gamers won't get the chance to get used to it.
rawbot 2y ago
Because most users of games don't really care for this. They are either too young, or to busy with other facets of life that they just want to play the game. It is only a small percentage that are dedicated enough to care, either because they really enjoy the game or because they want to support game preservation. If you make it opt-in, companies won't care to add it and they will only lose a few percentage points (I would be surprised for anything higher than 1%) of people that will be put off by the lack of "EOL support" guarantee.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << Because most users of games don't really care for this. Agreed, but surely there is money to be made on people like me, who clearly have money to drop on games without blinking too much if I am having fun without having to jump through hoops ( fwiw, DRM is a hoop for me ). As in, I was a kid once. My generation is all grown up, but we actually have money to spend on games. Is it just easier to sell to kids who don't know any better?

nwoli 2y ago

The path to too much friction to make new things is paved with regulation with good intentions

davidwhitney 2y ago

The intent "don't turn off my games!" is generally good, but in practice the most likely thing that'll come from this is one of: 1. It passes, and subsequently a large amount of games just don't launch in the EU. GG. 2. Nobody can write enough caveats to make it workable, and it's abandoned. 3. People don't care because it's just videogames. I'm broadly supportive of "can we make offline modes standard where the game in it's current design reasonably could be played offline", but that kind of language is too loose for legislation, and too prescriptive for technical innovation.

beeboobaa3 2y ago
> 1. It passes, and subsequently a large amount of games just don't launch in the EU Unlikely, it's a huge and valuable market. > 2. Nobody can write enough caveats to make it workable, and it's abandoned. The EU has demonstrated they care about companies following the spirit of the law, not the letter. It'll be fine. > 3. People don't care because it's just videogames. Clearly they do. It's been making the rounds online for the past few days and now even made it to the top of HN.
- criley2 2y ago
  >Unlikely, it's a huge and valuable market They said the same thing about Facebook News and Canada. Many tech companies already refuse to launch in overly-regulated markets, or launch years late with "government special" versions of the software that meet the extreme demands of the EU or China or whoever.
  - consp 2y ago
    > Many tech companies already refuse to launch in overly-regulated markets You say overly-regulated, I say sufficiently regulated. Maybe, just maybe, those companies should not launch here.
    - criley2 2y ago
      >You say overly-regulated, I say sufficiently regulated. Maybe, just maybe, those companies should not launch here Sure! Sounds like we're in total agreement that the comment I replied to suggesting that the EU was "too big to ignore" is false, and that their regulations do in fact make it so that some products stay out.

hermannj314 2y ago

When you are on Prime and you click buy instead of rent for a movie, what does the EU do to protect you? Is there a reason this digital protection is narrowly limiting itself to video games and not all digital goods or all implied warranties for any good sold? I also think workers should be paid fair wages, and also that we should protect artists from the threats of AI, but only if they work in the video game industry, not anywhere else. Did I do it right? Is that how we do this now?

rawbot 2y ago
Because it comes from gamers and people concerned about preservation of games. Why broaden it if the people who are pushing for the initiative don't care about other stuff?
- hermannj314 2y ago
  We all have finite time to repsond to lobbying efforts of groups, by seeking to intervene narrowly with regulatory intervention we increase the burden on the public to stay vigilant across a wider range of issues. Narrowly-crafted regulatory interventions are tools of the elite class to weaken the resolve and solidarity of the working class. That's my general reasoning.
  - rawbot 2y ago
    > We all have finite time to repsond to lobbying efforts of groups, I understand. If you don't care about this petition, you don't need to sign it. If you care, the amount of time and effort it takes to sign it is very small.

HunOL 2y ago

No, thank you, I am tired of EU regulations. Vote with your money. Buy games that you could download (GOG) , avoid external launchers and make sure that it's possible to play a game without additional account.

BlackFly 2y ago
Vote with your money is by definition an approval of oligarchy, not democracy. It is appalling it is so common a refrain nowadays. People with more money shouldn't necessarily get more say in our society's norms. You are free to your opinion but when you say that people should vote with their money one whale is going to come along and swamp your "vote" 100x. Your opinion should be just as valid as theirs not less because they spend more. If I got it wrong and you're the whale then I just hope you can have some empathy. Launchers aren't necessarily a problem when they are held to reasonable standards on data privacy, refunds, and durability among others. There is unique value that they can offer which is typically lessened by not being interoperable with one another. Many of the norms were hard won via EU and other national regulations. On the other hand, far too many companies want a piece of the data pie without even attempting at interoperability and egress. The Helldivers 2 debacle is an indication that clearly something is wrong. The markets are still highly polluted with things that should be a violation of our norms even though things are getting better.
flessner 2y ago
I absolutely support that, but you need to differentiate a bit. If a game has a functioning single player and a company chooses to shutdown multiplayer/matchmaking after some time I think that's fair. Sure, it would be nicer if the servers were open sourced or an alternative was provided, but at least there is some way to still play. However, there are also games that only have multiplayer - here a company can just take away your ability to play the game completely. A prominent recent example is "The Crew". It's also not 100% clear when buying, "The Crew" certainly had a large story aspect to it and it wasn't common in 2014 for such games to be "always online". It's quite a difficult path to find a solution to all of this as we can't force companies to operate servers indefinitely; on the other side we are loosing consumer rights and history.
2y ago

neontomo 2y ago

still sour about ubisoft killing co-op for splinter cell games. it's only been 11 years! ;)

miohtama 2y ago

It’s not possible to expect software to be runnable forever. We do not expect this for the desktop software (Microsoft Windows), so we cannot expect this from games. Hardware changes, Internet changes, integrations change (Steam may die on one day). Just have “a minimum of X years” is simple and sufficient.

helloiamsomeone 2y ago
Software is in fact eternal. Maxwell’s Equations of Software (Lisp) is still a thing to this day [1]. Even for software designed for arcane architectures. You can simulate the Apollo Guidance Computer and its software today [2], which got people on the Moon. Technological progress must never come at the expense of people's rights. [1]: https://github.com/jart/sectorlisp https://github.com/jart/sectorlisp [2]: https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/
galdosdi 2y ago
WTF are you talking about? I played SimCity for DOS just the other day through an emulator. Easy as pie. It's only be going out of your way to make it hard to emulate by unnecessarily depending on an online infrastructure that you kill archivability. This isn't aimed at MMOs. It's aimed at games like Super Mario Run on my phone, which is totally single player and refuses to start up half the time until it spends 10 minutes downloading hundreds more megabytes of "updates" that don't seem to change the game at all. I am certain I won't be able to play Super Mario Run 20 years from now, despite having paid good money for it, unless Nintendo happens to in their benevolence allow me to re-buy a reissue of it again. Super Mario World from 1993 on the other hand, plays perfectly, and there is a cottage industry of nostalgic streamers competing for better and better times speedrunning it. That's what this is about. Being able to play a classic game from 30 years ago with your grandkids, just as you can watch a classic movie.

dguest 2y ago

Best similar case I can think of is the EU regulating charging cables (and mandating USB-C for a lot of devices). It was a common consumer good with a problem that really annoyed some people so much that they made a law to "fix" it. Others said it would stifle innovation. To me how people feel about that probably says something about what chances this proposal has. How do people feel about the USB-C mandate? Are there other similar recent examples?

sssilver 2y ago
I do not like the mandate because I prefer the lightning connector as the objectively better connector. I’m always amused when people say they don’t see a difference. The difference to me is significant.
- Tade0 2y ago
  How is it better?
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    1. It's proprietary. · 2. It's more expensive. · 3. It's slower. · 4. It doesn't support fast-charging. ·
    - ThatPlayer 2y ago
      My favorite is that it doesn't have enough pins for native HDMI. Those Lightning to HDMI adapters have a proper controller chip that takes compressed video and decodes it to output HDMI.
  - arrakeen 2y ago
    the flimsy, breakable part is on the cable rather than the expensive device
  - sssilver 2y ago
    Most importantly, I find it easier to plug into the device without looking.

GardenLetter27 2y ago

I doubt it'll change much, but I do agree with it. If you buy something, it shouldn't be pulled out from under you.

arizen 2y ago

The discussion around the EU's "Stop Killing Games" proposal is quite interesting and touches on broader issues of consumer "The 'Stop Killing Games' initiative highlights a fundamental tension between consumer rights and the current business models in the gaming industry. On one hand, the idea of preserving games for future access aligns with broader movements toward digital preservation, similar to efforts in other digital media industries like film and music. However, as some users have pointed out, implementing these requirements could significantly disrupt how games are developed, particularly when games rely on proprietary servers or content licensed under restrictive terms. A middle-ground approach might be to incentivize companies to create 'preservable' versions of their games, possibly through tax credits or other benefits for depositing source code or playable copies with national archives. This could foster a culture of preservation without forcing drastic changes to current business models. It's also worth considering how this policy could set a precedent for other digital services—shouldn't we be having similar conversations about software, apps, and even streaming content?

riskable 2y ago
> However, as some users have pointed out, implementing these requirements could significantly disrupt how games are developed, particularly when games rely on proprietary servers or content licensed under restrictive terms. "Yes." I believe is the universal answer here. Fill in your local custom version of, "I'm OK with that", "I'm failing to see the problem", etc.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  "Fully agree" It's as simple as "Ah, you plan to stop your proprietary server end-point? This enforces section #2 of the regulation, requiring you to provide the means for others to operate their own end-point and publish a transition-plan for affected customers" That's equally applicable to Games as well as any form of connected product.
krisoft 2y ago
> possibly through tax credits or other benefits for depositing source code or playable copies with national archives. How would that work in practice? You could play your game yesterday, but you can't play it tomorrow because the company shut off the servers. But fear not because your tax dollars paid for the executables to be deposited in an archive Ark of the Covenant style. That might be satisfying with an oil painting. But games are meant to be played with. Can one check it out and run it? Can one modify the game to keep it running on new hardware or operating system? Can one re-distribute those modifications to others? Can one pay for someone else to run the servers for them?

johncoltrane 2y ago

Stop buying games you don't like.

Avamander 2y ago
The issue is that I might like them, but someone shuts down a server that does nothing more than check my license and I can't even play it offline.

lynx23 2y ago

I think we have a much more pressing problem in the apps industry. I, as a consumer, don't want my UX to change with every software update. I want an ption to lock the features down, and only receive security updates. Why? Because I might use the app on a daily basis, and grow used to how it behaves. I dont want it to change without my consent. I think this would be a much more pressing problem then conserving games.

zzo38computer 2y ago
I had wanted something similar; which is a "configuration safe upgrade"; this can be combined with the other things that you mention. But, note that even security features can cause problems if they are not what the user wanted. It is appropriate to get rid of buffer overflows and other stuff like that, but to disable some feature because it is sometimes considered as "insecure" can be bad if the user cannot configure this.
account42 2y ago
That is also a worthy cause and I will support that petition as well as soon as you get around to making it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gg2222 2y ago

If games are a kind of software, why must games face this kind of regulation when other kinds of (actually more important) software doesn't / won't? In saying this, I'm not in favor of this regulation, actually the opposite - because imagine if this regulation passed for games and then passed for software in general next. MMORPGs are software provided as a service, but this proposed regulation wants to make them playable even after the service provider discontinues service. If applied to software in general then that means all SaaS once it has any customers, then it has the obligation to make (and keep?) that software usable indefinitely. And what if the reason you had to discontinue was out of your control? Eg. one of your critical service providers went out of business? Guess you'll have to recreate that service provider's whole service so your now open source software can still work on top of it before you can actually go out of business yourself. It is just an absurd expectation for game companies to have to consider this. And in the end it just makes it harder for the smaller not-established game companies while giving the bigger companies another boost, concentrating their advantage.

snowpid 2y ago
" If games are a kind of software, why must games face this kind of regulation when other kinds of (actually more important) software doesn't / won't? " I am neutral to the iniative but I can answer this question very clearly: Games are cultural products and you want to get the exact same experience (as you want to see the same film and not something else) Using GIMP or Photoshop is a very different experience: Does it matter? Not so much. You can use an alternative and in case user will change. The Crew or Gran Turismo? You don't want to change so much.
- gg2222 2y ago
  Their FAQ talks about using games as the first step in fighting companies discontinuing services of various kinds (not only cultural products). It is true there is a cultural aspect for games and they mention it, but if a regulation like this passes, then it is easy to imagine what other regulations would be pushed next. Yes it could be great for consumers, but too many regulations means it becomes harder to start and do businesses and the advantages fall to the established players and in the end there are less options in the market(s) due to monopolies so the consumer is actually worse off.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570

kaycey2022 2y ago

I think people are just beating around the bush and not saying what they really mean here. On one side are consumers (these petitioners) who just want the companies to give them everything so they can continue using these products without any consideration for the other side's point of view that software is the creator's property unless specified otherwise. On the other side are the producers, who just don't want any legislative burden to be placed on them and want to create and distribute software exactly how they want to. In a serious negotiation both positions would be untenable and a compromise has to be reached.

jwueller 2y ago
It stops being their property when they sell it. They keep owning the IP, but not the individual copy. Anything else is just someone coming to your house and stealing something you bought back. Basic property rights are not up for negotiation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
You're making grandiose claims that are obviously uninformed. "This petitioner" Ross Scott is fighting remote kill-switches in games. Here's a recent video, but listening in should be enough https://www.accursedfarms.com/posts/dead-game-news/dead-game-news-response-from-the-european-commission-r871/ https://www.accursedfarms.com/posts/dead-game-news/dead-game... Even if the outcome of all of this is merely correct labeling, it will be a win in his view. What's important is setting a precedent that no, it's not fine to take money for something that will only work until a box somewhere in the world is turned on if you won't say how long you will keep that box on.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  What singleplayer game has exercised a remote kill switch?

thepra 2y ago

Signed, from Italy ;D