4 ms·

The obvious case where this makes sense are single-player games that require internet access before they even launch, like when you need to link a Microsoft acc

The obvious case where this makes sense are single-player games that require internet access before they even launch, like when you need to link a Microsoft account to play Forza. But it's less obvious to me how the legislation should work for a multiplayer-only game that goes out of business. I suppose it should require a refund at some point. But at what point? Steam only lets you refund a game that you played for less than two hours. And if you think that's not long enough, there's surely some time period where you can agree that you've got your money's worth. Kind of like how you lose the ability to say "I didn't like it" after you ate your whole dinner at a restaurant. Yet in the comments here someone gives an example of three years of online support which is insane. Why is multiplayer special? Should Steam also let you refund any game until three years elapse?

Volundr 1y ago
Why does it have to be a refund? Private servers have been a thing for a long time, with people even running them for MMOs like World of Warcraft or City of Heroes.
- hombre_fatal 1y ago
  Do you just mean it should be legal to reverse engineer and cleanroom impl your own server if the developer's official servers are closed? I can agree with that. But anything more than that I probably don't agree with.
  - Volundr 1y ago
    Nah, if I pay for the game, I should get to keep it. If it's a monthly subscription only (not sure the current state, but WoW didn't us to be) then there's an argument to be made here that I was just buying access to those servers. But if I've plopped down 70 bucks and you don't feel like running your backend anymore, then the least you can do is provide the tools for others to do so.
    - HideousKojima 1y ago
      >not sure the current state, but WoW didn't us to be WoW has always required a monthly subscription since release
      - Volundr 1y ago
        Correct. It also used to require an upfront purchase of the game and every expansion. I'm not sure if it still does. Those who paid bought the game and should be able to continue playing it, even if Blizzard wants to shut down the servers.
        Discordian93 1y ago
        It still does require a purchase, though now all expansions except the latest one are included in the base game and you can purchase the expansion with the base game at little markup over the expansion itself so the base game might as well be free.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    They should be required to publish either the full spec that is sufficient for such a server to be written, or barring that, the complete source code for the server (and all resource files necessary to run it, if any of them don't come with the base game).
graynk 1y ago
> But it's less obvious to me how the legislation should work for a multiplayer-only game that goes out of business The idea is to force the companies to provide an end-of-life plan that leaves the game in a "reasonably playable state". Depending on the game the approach can differ. Releasing the binaries along with instructions for hosting dedicated servers is one approach (that some games already take). I was playing on a (pirated, but it was a long way ago and I was a child) Lineage 2 server way back in 2007 on my local ISP network, so even something like MMORPGs can be covered if it's included in the discussion at the design stage of the game. But even if the backend is very complex and vendor-locked, releasing something like a set of Cloudformation templates and saying "you can only host this on AWS and it's going to be restrictively expensive but there you go" is also an option that would satisfy the requirements. It's still better then having nothing at all to dig at (although some fans still do reverse-engineer and spin up community servers even without having access to any of this).
- wilg 1y ago
  It seems like it should be legal for your end of life plan for the game to be “it is over and no one gets to play it anymore”.
  - geerlingguy 1y ago
    Only if they change the wording of the game purchasing experience to be along the lines of 'Rent' or 'Subscribe' instead of 'Buy'.
    - wilg 1y ago
      But you’re not renting or subscribing to it so that is inaccurate and confusing for a one time upfront payment business model.
      - HideousKojima 1y ago
        >But you’re not renting or subscribing to it so that is inaccurate If the game can be taken away from you st any time then "buying" is definitely inaccurate too then. "Licensing for a limited time" might be the most accurate, but something like "Lease for X years" might be more concise and accurate enough.
tracker1 1y ago
I would say requiring an online game be required to either support their players from 3 years after public release, and/or release the server code would be a reasonable expectation. It may not always be possible, especially if you aren't actually charging in some way... but the money soak that some games are is ridiculous and the massive corporate decision making interfering with the game design in that direction deserve to have to fulfill that requirement. I'm honestly mixed in a lot of ways as I do see and understand the need/desire for some decisions without malice or greed behind them. But in the end, it's a balancing act. Actual online driven games should probably have a monthly fee, if they don't they're bound to get taken offline sooner than later. It doesn't need to be a huge fee even $20/year to keep the lights on. For offline games, maintaining a license api server shouldn't be an undue burden, and there's almost no reason to ever turn such a thing off... If the game isn't that widely used a $5/mo VPS can probably handle it. Aside: I really miss gamespy and the like for self-hosting the server side for interactive games, lan party play, etc. Wish more games would go back to that.
ffsm8 1y ago
The points you're raising would be valid if they weren't complete straw men. Publishers aren't required to keep servers up, nor do they need to release the server binaries/code. It just demands that the publisher thinks about the end of life for their game. A great way to do that for online games would be to publish the server, definitely... But it's not required. These kinds of gotchas and knowitall armchair analysis is way too premature. This isn't an actual legal document, it's a draft that would then become a legal document.
djhworld 1y ago
I've been reading the FAQ on the stop killing games website - they are not arguing for refunds, they're arguing for a EOL plan to be put in place for games > No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree that it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way.
- fvdessen 1y ago
  Modifying the game so that it runs offline is supporting the game. Three years after releasing a game, the devs who made it are usually long gone, busy on other projects, the libraries and framework used are out of date, out of support, etc. at that point making any change (or even building the project!) is a significant effort.
  - skotobaza 1y ago
    It's a "significant effort" only because it was made this way. You can design it to be easy hostable. It's just that there is no reason to do so currently. Stop killing games tries to give some legal reason.
  - xboxnolifes 1y ago
    It's asking for server file access. And its asking for it to be planned out from day 1, so the "devs no longer here issue" isn't an issue.
giancarlostoro 1y ago
3 years of online support for what? a brand new game? I'm okay with this, otherwise fully refund it. If its a game that's been on for 15+ years, then whatever, not many are buying new copies presumably. I would love for companies to allow people to host private servers when they abandon MMOs.
Ygg2 1y ago
Is that you Pirate software? Your takes are as equally misinformed. > But it's less obvious to me how the legislation should work for a multiplayer-only game It should. If the game is made after the Stop Killing Games law is passed, you have to have A Plan. Open source engine? Not prosecute private servers? Pick your poison. > Why is multiplayer special? It's not. Multiplayer wasn't special ten years ago. Only insistence on always online DRM and micro transactions changed this.

Volundr 1y ago

Why does it have to be a refund? Private servers have been a thing for a long time, with people even running them for MMOs like World of Warcraft or City of Heroes.

hombre_fatal 1y ago
Do you just mean it should be legal to reverse engineer and cleanroom impl your own server if the developer's official servers are closed? I can agree with that. But anything more than that I probably don't agree with.
- Volundr 1y ago
  Nah, if I pay for the game, I should get to keep it. If it's a monthly subscription only (not sure the current state, but WoW didn't us to be) then there's an argument to be made here that I was just buying access to those servers. But if I've plopped down 70 bucks and you don't feel like running your backend anymore, then the least you can do is provide the tools for others to do so.
  - HideousKojima 1y ago
    >not sure the current state, but WoW didn't us to be WoW has always required a monthly subscription since release
    - Volundr 1y ago
      Correct. It also used to require an upfront purchase of the game and every expansion. I'm not sure if it still does. Those who paid bought the game and should be able to continue playing it, even if Blizzard wants to shut down the servers.
      - Discordian93 1y ago
        It still does require a purchase, though now all expansions except the latest one are included in the base game and you can purchase the expansion with the base game at little markup over the expansion itself so the base game might as well be free.
- int_19h 1y ago
  They should be required to publish either the full spec that is sufficient for such a server to be written, or barring that, the complete source code for the server (and all resource files necessary to run it, if any of them don't come with the base game).

graynk 1y ago

> But it's less obvious to me how the legislation should work for a multiplayer-only game that goes out of business The idea is to force the companies to provide an end-of-life plan that leaves the game in a "reasonably playable state". Depending on the game the approach can differ. Releasing the binaries along with instructions for hosting dedicated servers is one approach (that some games already take). I was playing on a (pirated, but it was a long way ago and I was a child) Lineage 2 server way back in 2007 on my local ISP network, so even something like MMORPGs can be covered if it's included in the discussion at the design stage of the game. But even if the backend is very complex and vendor-locked, releasing something like a set of Cloudformation templates and saying "you can only host this on AWS and it's going to be restrictively expensive but there you go" is also an option that would satisfy the requirements. It's still better then having nothing at all to dig at (although some fans still do reverse-engineer and spin up community servers even without having access to any of this).

wilg 1y ago
It seems like it should be legal for your end of life plan for the game to be “it is over and no one gets to play it anymore”.
- geerlingguy 1y ago
  Only if they change the wording of the game purchasing experience to be along the lines of 'Rent' or 'Subscribe' instead of 'Buy'.
  - wilg 1y ago
    But you’re not renting or subscribing to it so that is inaccurate and confusing for a one time upfront payment business model.
    - HideousKojima 1y ago
      >But you’re not renting or subscribing to it so that is inaccurate If the game can be taken away from you st any time then "buying" is definitely inaccurate too then. "Licensing for a limited time" might be the most accurate, but something like "Lease for X years" might be more concise and accurate enough.

tracker1 1y ago

I would say requiring an online game be required to either support their players from 3 years after public release, and/or release the server code would be a reasonable expectation. It may not always be possible, especially if you aren't actually charging in some way... but the money soak that some games are is ridiculous and the massive corporate decision making interfering with the game design in that direction deserve to have to fulfill that requirement. I'm honestly mixed in a lot of ways as I do see and understand the need/desire for some decisions without malice or greed behind them. But in the end, it's a balancing act. Actual online driven games should probably have a monthly fee, if they don't they're bound to get taken offline sooner than later. It doesn't need to be a huge fee even $20/year to keep the lights on. For offline games, maintaining a license api server shouldn't be an undue burden, and there's almost no reason to ever turn such a thing off... If the game isn't that widely used a $5/mo VPS can probably handle it. Aside: I really miss gamespy and the like for self-hosting the server side for interactive games, lan party play, etc. Wish more games would go back to that.

ffsm8 1y ago

The points you're raising would be valid if they weren't complete straw men. Publishers aren't required to keep servers up, nor do they need to release the server binaries/code. It just demands that the publisher thinks about the end of life for their game. A great way to do that for online games would be to publish the server, definitely... But it's not required. These kinds of gotchas and knowitall armchair analysis is way too premature. This isn't an actual legal document, it's a draft that would then become a legal document.

djhworld 1y ago

I've been reading the FAQ on the stop killing games website - they are not arguing for refunds, they're arguing for a EOL plan to be put in place for games > No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree that it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way.

fvdessen 1y ago
Modifying the game so that it runs offline is supporting the game. Three years after releasing a game, the devs who made it are usually long gone, busy on other projects, the libraries and framework used are out of date, out of support, etc. at that point making any change (or even building the project!) is a significant effort.
- skotobaza 1y ago
  It's a "significant effort" only because it was made this way. You can design it to be easy hostable. It's just that there is no reason to do so currently. Stop killing games tries to give some legal reason.
- xboxnolifes 1y ago
  It's asking for server file access. And its asking for it to be planned out from day 1, so the "devs no longer here issue" isn't an issue.

giancarlostoro 1y ago

3 years of online support for what? a brand new game? I'm okay with this, otherwise fully refund it. If its a game that's been on for 15+ years, then whatever, not many are buying new copies presumably. I would love for companies to allow people to host private servers when they abandon MMOs.

Ygg2 1y ago

Is that you Pirate software? Your takes are as equally misinformed. > But it's less obvious to me how the legislation should work for a multiplayer-only game It should. If the game is made after the Stop Killing Games law is passed, you have to have A Plan. Open source engine? Not prosecute private servers? Pick your poison. > Why is multiplayer special? It's not. Multiplayer wasn't special ten years ago. Only insistence on always online DRM and micro transactions changed this.