5 ms·

> 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 provi

by 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.
    - sirwhinesalot 1y ago
      If you're buying a time limited license then the guaranteed time should be part of the license and considered part of the budget. You are buying a license for 2 weeks sounds a lot less appealing than just "buying", but that would have been the reality for Concord had they not issued refunds. Is a year that much better? Maybe, but have it in writing. These "we sell you a license we may terminate at any point for any reason" terms are absolute bullshit.
    - DrillShopper 1y ago
      Then companies should town down the "buy" language. If not, then buying is not owning and piracy is not stealing.
    - raron 1y ago
      That's exactly the goal of this. If you buy something, that will be yours, you can use it as long as you want, you can sold it or it can be inherited from you. (In copyright terms that's a perpetual, irrevocable license.) If there is only a limited duration you can use something, that's called renting and the duration must be known before you enter into a contract.
      - wilg 1y ago
        No it isn't. People buy movie tickets, annual passes, and other things all the time that are not "rented". These are things you buy, and you may lose access to them if something happens to the business. The terms of the purchase of an online game that might shut down are quite clear and known ahead of time. It's just not a fixed amount of time.
        raron 1y ago
        In that case you buy a ticket and not a movie / game. People buy movies on DVD / BR and they will be able to play them forever. This should be the same if you buy the same movie (with a one time payment) on a website, too. There is a different valid business model, where you subscribe for eg. a monthly / yearly fee and can watch movies form a catalog or play games from a catalog as long as you keep paying and the service is working. > The terms of the purchase of an online game that might shut down are quite clear and known ahead of time. On a ticket or a pass there is a clear date or deadline printed on them. Do the same for games (buy thins game 10 EUR for 1 year) and that would be fine, too, (it is the same subscription model just with yearly duration).
- graynk 1y ago
  If it's rented and not sold - sure.
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  And the people who bought something are just...shit outta luck?
- kedean 1y ago
  If that's the plan, then you should attach an expiration date to it. Tell the consumers how long you plan to keep things running, and commit to it. Don't just shrug and go "I dunno". I think bankruptcy is clearly its own category here. This is targeted at companies who release something then shutter it because they didn't sell enough copies.
hombre_fatal 1y ago
The problem is that you can easily create negative effects that hurt all developers while only imagining the impact on profitable AAA games which seems to be how most of these discussions go since people always bring up blockbuster games like Lineage 2 and World of Warcraft. Ensuring that the multiplayer server component of your game is a standalone end-user distributable is a huge task to impose on every game that wants to have a multiplayer component. Especially once you consider the vast majority of games that never even get traction much less turn a profit. So, the second someone buys your prerelease indie slither.io game, what exactly does this checklist look like? It needs to also day 1 launch with a self-hostable standalone server distro instead of the crappy spaghetti mess you live coded on an EC2 machine?
- graynk 1y ago
  I fail to see the impact it would cause on a smaller studio - a lot of the times the games from those are usually are already pretty simple to self-host, as they don't want to bear the load of maintaining servers besides maybe a master-server (e.g. Valheim and the like). > Especially once you consider the vast majority of games that never even get traction much less turn a profit. Which is the whole point. Believe it or not - people who slave away on the game for years want people to maybe get to play it and enjoy it? Cause it's also art and not just business and there's a preservation angle to all of it? > It needs to also day 1 launch with a self-hostable standalone server distro instead of the crappy spaghetti mess you live coded on an EC2 machine? Not by day 1 launch, by day "we shut everything down". Not on an EC2 machine - as I mentioned in the thread above, even dumping your cloudformation templates and saying "enjoy all these queues" will satisfy the requirements.
  - hombre_fatal 1y ago
    I think the fact that you used the word "studio" kinda betrays a disconnect here. What about all the games that aren't built by "studios" and don't have "cloudformation templates" and have barely any sales? They also need to have had invested in the extra work so that hypothetical players can have the opportunity to self-host the server on day 1 for a game that never caught on in the first place?

by graynk 1y ago

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.
  - sirwhinesalot 1y ago
    If you're buying a time limited license then the guaranteed time should be part of the license and considered part of the budget. You are buying a license for 2 weeks sounds a lot less appealing than just "buying", but that would have been the reality for Concord had they not issued refunds. Is a year that much better? Maybe, but have it in writing. These "we sell you a license we may terminate at any point for any reason" terms are absolute bullshit.
  - DrillShopper 1y ago
    Then companies should town down the "buy" language. If not, then buying is not owning and piracy is not stealing.
  - raron 1y ago
    That's exactly the goal of this. If you buy something, that will be yours, you can use it as long as you want, you can sold it or it can be inherited from you. (In copyright terms that's a perpetual, irrevocable license.) If there is only a limited duration you can use something, that's called renting and the duration must be known before you enter into a contract.
    - wilg 1y ago
      No it isn't. People buy movie tickets, annual passes, and other things all the time that are not "rented". These are things you buy, and you may lose access to them if something happens to the business. The terms of the purchase of an online game that might shut down are quite clear and known ahead of time. It's just not a fixed amount of time.
      - raron 1y ago
        In that case you buy a ticket and not a movie / game. People buy movies on DVD / BR and they will be able to play them forever. This should be the same if you buy the same movie (with a one time payment) on a website, too. There is a different valid business model, where you subscribe for eg. a monthly / yearly fee and can watch movies form a catalog or play games from a catalog as long as you keep paying and the service is working. > The terms of the purchase of an online game that might shut down are quite clear and known ahead of time. On a ticket or a pass there is a clear date or deadline printed on them. Do the same for games (buy thins game 10 EUR for 1 year) and that would be fine, too, (it is the same subscription model just with yearly duration).
graynk 1y ago
If it's rented and not sold - sure.
TulliusCicero 1y ago
And the people who bought something are just...shit outta luck?
kedean 1y ago
If that's the plan, then you should attach an expiration date to it. Tell the consumers how long you plan to keep things running, and commit to it. Don't just shrug and go "I dunno". I think bankruptcy is clearly its own category here. This is targeted at companies who release something then shutter it because they didn't sell enough copies.

hombre_fatal 1y ago

The problem is that you can easily create negative effects that hurt all developers while only imagining the impact on profitable AAA games which seems to be how most of these discussions go since people always bring up blockbuster games like Lineage 2 and World of Warcraft. Ensuring that the multiplayer server component of your game is a standalone end-user distributable is a huge task to impose on every game that wants to have a multiplayer component. Especially once you consider the vast majority of games that never even get traction much less turn a profit. So, the second someone buys your prerelease indie slither.io game, what exactly does this checklist look like? It needs to also day 1 launch with a self-hostable standalone server distro instead of the crappy spaghetti mess you live coded on an EC2 machine?

graynk 1y ago
I fail to see the impact it would cause on a smaller studio - a lot of the times the games from those are usually are already pretty simple to self-host, as they don't want to bear the load of maintaining servers besides maybe a master-server (e.g. Valheim and the like). > Especially once you consider the vast majority of games that never even get traction much less turn a profit. Which is the whole point. Believe it or not - people who slave away on the game for years want people to maybe get to play it and enjoy it? Cause it's also art and not just business and there's a preservation angle to all of it? > It needs to also day 1 launch with a self-hostable standalone server distro instead of the crappy spaghetti mess you live coded on an EC2 machine? Not by day 1 launch, by day "we shut everything down". Not on an EC2 machine - as I mentioned in the thread above, even dumping your cloudformation templates and saying "enjoy all these queues" will satisfy the requirements.
- hombre_fatal 1y ago
  I think the fact that you used the word "studio" kinda betrays a disconnect here. What about all the games that aren't built by "studios" and don't have "cloudformation templates" and have barely any sales? They also need to have had invested in the extra work so that hypothetical players can have the opportunity to self-host the server on day 1 for a game that never caught on in the first place?