5 ms·

Lots of bad takes in this thread. The whole idea behind this is just to stop defrauding customers that buy your software and then are left holding the bag. Nobo

Lots of bad takes in this thread. The whole idea behind this is just to stop defrauding customers that buy your software and then are left holding the bag. Nobody is asking for developers to keep running server infra for eternity. Any of the following options are enough to satisfy this proposal: - Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X. - Have your server source code (stripped down of proprietary stuff) ready for public release at EoL. - Allow customers to reverse engineer the binaries and communication protocol after EoL. - Package dedicated server binaries with the game and allow customers to connect to it via a LAN or direct IP option.

nirava 1y ago
Thank you for this very good summary. I'm frustrated at the really really bad takes on this by people I thought were very smart.
nirava 1y ago
I'm more and more baffled the more I go through this thread. It is as easy as saying, "this game you're buying won't run after 2030" Or publishing the bare minimum APIs you'd need to simulate to get the game to function. We have great people in the community that will make stuff work on their own, no instructions required. Just don't go out of your way to destroy your game.
- rasz 1y ago
  But why would anyone buy battlefield of war 2028 if I dont destroy previous version?
Ekaros 1y ago
Or if I understand right if you have some online component make final version of the game to operate without it. So you might lose multiplayer, but single player components of game should still continue to function. Which to me doesn't sound huge ask. Unless you have overly strictly coupled the game with online. Which for single player games is likely bad design anyway.
tiledjinn 1y ago
> - Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X. This software is not guaranteed beyond 0 Unix time. > - Have your server source code (stripped down of proprietary stuff) ready for public release at EoL. This isn't viable, and i would expect anyone on this site to understand that. it's roughly equivalent to saying "just make facebook stripped of proprietary code and ready for the public to run" > - Allow customers to reverse engineer the binaries and communication protocol after EoL. This is a reasonable path forward, but likely a non-starter in the US for political reasons. I understand that "stop killing games" is an EU thing. > - Package dedicated server binaries with the game and allow customers to connect to it via a LAN or direct IP option. See point 2. This is nonsensical.
- nirava 1y ago
  > This is nonsensical. Nope. This has been done for many "dead" games. Servers have been reverse engineered from nothing. Private servers are a common thing. > This software is not guaranteed beyond 0 Unix time. Imagine Apple says that about iOS. Wouldn't you want consumer protection so Apple doesn't do that? Why should anything else be any different?
- andrecarini 1y ago
  Well, this is about software you bought in advance. The Facebook comparison doesn't really work because you're not paying in advance to use it. > This software is not guaranteed beyond 0 Unix time. Grandma goes to the store to buy a game for their grandkid. She sees two game boxes. One says in the front "This game will stop working tomorrow and you will not get a refund" and the other says "This game will stop working in 2030". Which one does she pick?
  - tiledjinn 1y ago
    Either the one little Timmy wanted, or the one the clerk tells her is selling fast (whether or not it's selling fast).
- freeone3000 1y ago
Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
> Lots of bad takes in this thread. Seriously. It's like people forgot what multiplayer gaming was like pre-2005. Everyone ran their own servers. You could run your own Half-Life game server and other users merely pointed their game client to your IP address. The only exceptions back then were the MMORPGs. There's no reason we can't go back to the way it used to be. I used to run multiplayer Starcraft on a LAN without an Internet connection. Why can't I do that with Starcraft II? We used to play Quake on custom servers. Some servers had fun communities. All that is gone in favor of live services that can be shut down on a whim. I don't even think requiring server source code to be disclosed should be necessary. Merely the binaries with some basic instructions on setting it up (which could easily be based on internal documents for setting up test servers) would be sufficient.
- msgodel 1y ago
  StarCraft was amazing, you could have a link local network, just launch the game, hit multiplayer and the instances would find eachother.
- Spartan-S63 1y ago
  Yeah, pre-console-ization of PC releases, devs would produce server binaries that would allow you to host your own servers. You could tweak rules, give preferential slots, etc. It allowed you to create a real community around your self-hosted server. It's really difficult to create a cohesive gaming organization without controlling your own multiplayer servers. It's a sad state of gaming that every game has centralized servers. If anything, I'd love to see requirements that decentralize multiplayer hosting. The devs can release their own servers, but they'd be alongside the community ones, as well.
- Hamuko 1y ago
  World of Warcraft actually made it very easy to use a custom server, since you'd just need to change a hostname in a single text file and the client would connect to it instead. Not that it was allowed but from a technical perspective it was quite supportive. I think it's no longer as simple but there's still private server projects around.
fvdessen 1y ago
I developed a few commercial games on unity a while ago, here's why some of what's proposed is harder than you think, - The original developper is not working on the game anymore, another company is maintaining it and has no capacity for making significant changes to it. - You can't release your server source code because you will be using a lot of proprietary add ons that can't be released, and those are usually absolutely essential. - Your server is going to be built against a now unsupported version of the engine, that you probably can't even install on current year operating systems - stripping the source code of 'proprietary stuff' is significant work, there's no package management, code is copy pasted. - Your protocol is based on third party commercial code and that other company doesn't like reverse engineering - Changing the way the networking works to remove the lobby is significant development work, the networking framework is out of date, not maintained, and the devs are most likely not available anymore.
- throwuxiytayq 1y ago
  The rule won't apply retroactively to all games ever released, you know. All of these requirements can - and should - be met when new games are designed and architectured to satisfy the law.
  - fvdessen 1y ago
    That would require a complete re-architecture of game engines and complete rework of how the games are developed and published. If I had to satisfy those requirements next year, I just wouldn't release in Europe, and I say that as an European.
    - TheBozzCL 1y ago
      Then just keep doing things the same way, but add a disclaimer that says you are only selling a license to play the game, and it's not guaranteed to work after a certain date.
      - fvdessen 1y ago
Ferret7446 1y ago
Will that really solve anything then? Everyone will just put an expiration date of ~1 year and consumers will go with it, like they do every time.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  In the steam summer sale the overwhelming majority of games sold were released over 1 year ago.
thesnide 1y ago
this is very close to what i'm advocating for EOL phones. give proper documentations on how to write/adapt firmware. no need to opensource everything, but at least document it fully. and of course, allow rooting
66fm472tjy7 1y ago
Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X False, it says[0] providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher It MUST be possible to continue playing the game using reasonable means. It is not sufficient to declare an EOL date. Have your server source code (stripped down of proprietary stuff) ready for public release at EoL This would only be sufficient if the proprietary dependencies are reasonable easy to acquire. Allow customers to reverse engineer the binaries and communication protocol after EoL I don't think this reverse engineering could currently be disallowed in the EU, so it would not be affected by the initiative. Package dedicated server binaries with the game True, it would meet the requirements of the initiative, but it would be sufficient to provide the server after EOL. ---- [0] https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en# https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/20...
jllyhill 1y ago
I guess the bad takes are unavoidable. I couldn't find a clear and succinct explanation of the mission anywhere on that site and had to read your post to have any idea what are they even arguing for and against.
- trinsic2 1y ago
  > "Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers. An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends. This practice is a form of planned obsolescence and is not only detrimental to customers, but makes preservation effectively impossible. Furthermore, the legality of this practice is largely untested in many countries. There you go, right on the front page, in case you missed it.
wilg 1y ago
> Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X. Why wouldn't everyone just say "its not guaranteed to continue working after 0 seconds from release", which is basically the current situation, and be done with it?
throw10920 1y ago
> Lots of bad takes in this thread That's sneering. Don't do this. If you have a specific argument that you respond to, then do it. Generically sneering at other comments is profoundly anti-intellectual, extremely boring, and directly against the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) - it actively degrades the quality of HN.

nirava 1y ago

Thank you for this very good summary. I'm frustrated at the really really bad takes on this by people I thought were very smart.

nirava 1y ago

I'm more and more baffled the more I go through this thread. It is as easy as saying, "this game you're buying won't run after 2030" Or publishing the bare minimum APIs you'd need to simulate to get the game to function. We have great people in the community that will make stuff work on their own, no instructions required. Just don't go out of your way to destroy your game.

rasz 1y ago
But why would anyone buy battlefield of war 2028 if I dont destroy previous version?

Ekaros 1y ago

Or if I understand right if you have some online component make final version of the game to operate without it. So you might lose multiplayer, but single player components of game should still continue to function. Which to me doesn't sound huge ask. Unless you have overly strictly coupled the game with online. Which for single player games is likely bad design anyway.

tiledjinn 1y ago

> - Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X. This software is not guaranteed beyond 0 Unix time. > - Have your server source code (stripped down of proprietary stuff) ready for public release at EoL. This isn't viable, and i would expect anyone on this site to understand that. it's roughly equivalent to saying "just make facebook stripped of proprietary code and ready for the public to run" > - Allow customers to reverse engineer the binaries and communication protocol after EoL. This is a reasonable path forward, but likely a non-starter in the US for political reasons. I understand that "stop killing games" is an EU thing. > - Package dedicated server binaries with the game and allow customers to connect to it via a LAN or direct IP option. See point 2. This is nonsensical.

nirava 1y ago
> This is nonsensical. Nope. This has been done for many "dead" games. Servers have been reverse engineered from nothing. Private servers are a common thing. > This software is not guaranteed beyond 0 Unix time. Imagine Apple says that about iOS. Wouldn't you want consumer protection so Apple doesn't do that? Why should anything else be any different?
andrecarini 1y ago
Well, this is about software you bought in advance. The Facebook comparison doesn't really work because you're not paying in advance to use it. > This software is not guaranteed beyond 0 Unix time. Grandma goes to the store to buy a game for their grandkid. She sees two game boxes. One says in the front "This game will stop working tomorrow and you will not get a refund" and the other says "This game will stop working in 2030". Which one does she pick?
- tiledjinn 1y ago
  Either the one little Timmy wanted, or the one the clerk tells her is selling fast (whether or not it's selling fast).
freeone3000 1y ago

Sohcahtoa82 1y ago

> Lots of bad takes in this thread. Seriously. It's like people forgot what multiplayer gaming was like pre-2005. Everyone ran their own servers. You could run your own Half-Life game server and other users merely pointed their game client to your IP address. The only exceptions back then were the MMORPGs. There's no reason we can't go back to the way it used to be. I used to run multiplayer Starcraft on a LAN without an Internet connection. Why can't I do that with Starcraft II? We used to play Quake on custom servers. Some servers had fun communities. All that is gone in favor of live services that can be shut down on a whim. I don't even think requiring server source code to be disclosed should be necessary. Merely the binaries with some basic instructions on setting it up (which could easily be based on internal documents for setting up test servers) would be sufficient.

msgodel 1y ago
StarCraft was amazing, you could have a link local network, just launch the game, hit multiplayer and the instances would find eachother.
Spartan-S63 1y ago
Yeah, pre-console-ization of PC releases, devs would produce server binaries that would allow you to host your own servers. You could tweak rules, give preferential slots, etc. It allowed you to create a real community around your self-hosted server. It's really difficult to create a cohesive gaming organization without controlling your own multiplayer servers. It's a sad state of gaming that every game has centralized servers. If anything, I'd love to see requirements that decentralize multiplayer hosting. The devs can release their own servers, but they'd be alongside the community ones, as well.
Hamuko 1y ago
World of Warcraft actually made it very easy to use a custom server, since you'd just need to change a hostname in a single text file and the client would connect to it instead. Not that it was allowed but from a technical perspective it was quite supportive. I think it's no longer as simple but there's still private server projects around.

fvdessen 1y ago

I developed a few commercial games on unity a while ago, here's why some of what's proposed is harder than you think, - The original developper is not working on the game anymore, another company is maintaining it and has no capacity for making significant changes to it. - You can't release your server source code because you will be using a lot of proprietary add ons that can't be released, and those are usually absolutely essential. - Your server is going to be built against a now unsupported version of the engine, that you probably can't even install on current year operating systems - stripping the source code of 'proprietary stuff' is significant work, there's no package management, code is copy pasted. - Your protocol is based on third party commercial code and that other company doesn't like reverse engineering - Changing the way the networking works to remove the lobby is significant development work, the networking framework is out of date, not maintained, and the devs are most likely not available anymore.

throwuxiytayq 1y ago
The rule won't apply retroactively to all games ever released, you know. All of these requirements can - and should - be met when new games are designed and architectured to satisfy the law.
- fvdessen 1y ago
  That would require a complete re-architecture of game engines and complete rework of how the games are developed and published. If I had to satisfy those requirements next year, I just wouldn't release in Europe, and I say that as an European.
  - TheBozzCL 1y ago
    Then just keep doing things the same way, but add a disclaimer that says you are only selling a license to play the game, and it's not guaranteed to work after a certain date.
    - fvdessen 1y ago

Ferret7446 1y ago

Will that really solve anything then? Everyone will just put an expiration date of ~1 year and consumers will go with it, like they do every time.

throwaway48476 1y ago
In the steam summer sale the overwhelming majority of games sold were released over 1 year ago.

thesnide 1y ago

this is very close to what i'm advocating for EOL phones. give proper documentations on how to write/adapt firmware. no need to opensource everything, but at least document it fully. and of course, allow rooting

66fm472tjy7 1y ago

Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X False, it says[0] providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher It MUST be possible to continue playing the game using reasonable means. It is not sufficient to declare an EOL date. Have your server source code (stripped down of proprietary stuff) ready for public release at EoL This would only be sufficient if the proprietary dependencies are reasonable easy to acquire. Allow customers to reverse engineer the binaries and communication protocol after EoL I don't think this reverse engineering could currently be disallowed in the EU, so it would not be affected by the initiative. Package dedicated server binaries with the game True, it would meet the requirements of the initiative, but it would be sufficient to provide the server after EOL. ---- [0] https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en# https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/20...

jllyhill 1y ago

I guess the bad takes are unavoidable. I couldn't find a clear and succinct explanation of the mission anywhere on that site and had to read your post to have any idea what are they even arguing for and against.

trinsic2 1y ago
> "Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers. An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends. This practice is a form of planned obsolescence and is not only detrimental to customers, but makes preservation effectively impossible. Furthermore, the legality of this practice is largely untested in many countries. There you go, right on the front page, in case you missed it.

wilg 1y ago

> Put an expiration date on the storefront and make it clear that your software is not guaranteed to continue working after date X. Why wouldn't everyone just say "its not guaranteed to continue working after 0 seconds from release", which is basically the current situation, and be done with it?

throw10920 1y ago

> Lots of bad takes in this thread That's sneering. Don't do this. If you have a specific argument that you respond to, then do it. Generically sneering at other comments is profoundly anti-intellectual, extremely boring, and directly against the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) - it actively degrades the quality of HN.