6 ms·

It’ll make licensing more expensive because the net result is more permissive. Or in the hypothetical the content could be removed and replaced with something b

It’ll make licensing more expensive because the net result is more permissive. Or in the hypothetical the content could be removed and replaced with something bespoke or cheaper to licence. But both of these options will make the game more expensive to build overall across its surface area.

charcircuit 1y ago
How is it more permissive? The product is the same as it was before the official servers went down. Forcing games to be moddable is unrelated to stop killing games.
- meheleventyone 1y ago
  When you’re licensing content from third parties the more permissive rights you need the more expensive it is. Music is a very good example where it might not even be possible to get a perpetual license. A bunch of games have removed music as their license to it has expired for example. In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content, code and so on needs to have been licensed for that use. That is typically more permissive than licenses as mentioned up thread and so more expensive.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Stop killing games is not about forcing developers to perpetually sell games. They can still stop selling games. They just can't leave it in an unplayable state. If developers want to get the rights to distribute a song for 5 years with their game, they can still do that.
    - meheleventyone 1y ago
      No I’m talking about the distribution of games. With physical media that’s all fine because once the license expires they stop making new copies. People that own a copy are fine. With digital distribution once you’ve EOL’d a product you still need to make it available right? Otherwise how do people that have paid for it get it? But that means you can’t distribute elements you no longer have the license to.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        With online distribution games can be made unavailable for purchase. You are not distributing it anymore. Only people that previously purchased can still download the game. There are multiple such cases in stores such as Steam or GoG. I own games that are not available for purchase anymore. Those games were not killed. I can still download and play them.
        meheleventyone 1y ago
        Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        You've signed a pretty shoddy license agreement if it requires you to refund all your customers, in full, after a few years. That's just bad business.
        meheleventyone 1y ago
        If you’re saying that a change like SKG would lead to developers needing to take a perpetual license then you should say that rather than alluding to it with a non-sequitur like this. If that’s what you mean then I’d say maybe but doing so would definitely increase the cost and complexity in using licensed content. Which is likely to be passed on. Interestingly though reading the EU petition and the petition authors views it would be fine to remove the content once the licence expired.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Developers already need to license whatever they're licensing in perpetuity, since they need to sublicense to the people who buy their games (regardless of format). Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell you the physical media. Licenses aren't yes/no affairs. Stop Killing Games doesn't change this in any way.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content You start your argument from a presumption that releasing an offline game is almost an impossibility. Are you trying yo argue that offline games have zero things licensed? This sounds like a major argument in favor of offline games. Sounds to me that the simple solution is just stop licensing things with such draconian requirements. If I play a racing game I care about it being fun. If the car I am using in-game is a BMW or a made up brand for the game is immaterial.
    - meheleventyone 1y ago
      It’s about the distribution of games, doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline you need a license to distribute IP that you don’t own. Never making a licensed product or using third-party IP is definitely one solution but I don’t think is the intent nor without adverse effects.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        > doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline Then the solution seems simple. Making the game available offline does not seem to have any impact in terms of licensing.
        meheleventyone 1y ago
        I don’t think you’ve followed the discussion then.
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Only in the sense that you are arguing against strawman versions of the idea in favor of the status quo.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        If you’re saying that because they said the solution is simple, then it would seem you have not followed the discussion. To them, it is as “simple” as not using the things that require onerous licensing. Whether the game is offline or online only matters as much as the licensor might prefer one or the other; obviating the onerous licensor (making your own assets and/or doing business with more agreeable people) is a simple solution. Simple meaning the complexity to understand it, not to implement it.
  - foobarchu 1y ago
    This seems pretty easy. If the license to the music goes for X years, then build that expiration into the game. After X years, licensed music goes away, and the game is still playable. This is completely in scope of SKG. Everyone understands that not every feature has to be retained to stay the playable game. That expiration date should, of course, be on the box. The consumer deserves to know.
    - archagon 1y ago
      That’s absurd. I can still pop in my Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater CD from decades ago and listen to the original soundtrack. TTL licensing should be illegal.
      - ryandrake 1y ago
        Yea, nobody seems to be addressing this: Content never expiring was the default for many years, when games shipped on physical media. Industry defenders are acting like this is impossible, where it routinely happened for a long time.
        thunderfork 1y ago
        [dead]
    - dijit 1y ago
      That would be frustrating to code for. Before anyone says that its as simple as a switch statement, it’s not, its date enumeration and a switch statement, and an alternative codepath for testing and more assets: on every hot path, when you already only get 8ms for your frame is an annoying cost. The expiration date properly visible is not a terrible idea though; or at least a “this edition is valid for x years” after which, updates that fix issues may remove content. Hrm.
      - db48x 1y ago
        I guess that only leaves the third option: don’t license music or other assets that way. It’s really not that hard. Instead of writing a contract that promises that you won't distribute the music with your game for more than X years, write one that promises you’ll only sell the music with your game for X years, but that you might still distribute it to anyone who made their purchase before the cutoff. You see? It’s not that hard. You can license music and still make a game that doesn’t die after a few years. If EU law changes to make that a _requirement_, then you simply stop signing any licensing deal that would break the requirement.
surgical_fire 1y ago
> It’ll make licensing more expensive because the net result is more permissive The current state of affairs is that the net result is such that consumers are stripped of their rights. I find it more unacceptable. If the licensing costs without fucking over consumers is prohibitive, then maybe those games should not exist. If no one is licensing the brands/assets/music/whatever because the licensing costs are too high, it's likely that in time the costs will come down.
- meheleventyone 1y ago
  > If the licensing costs without fucking over consumers is prohibitive, then maybe those games should not exist. Wow, who is killing games now?
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    Absolutely, games that strip consumers of their rights should not exist. I am not going to defend predatory practices. You think you threw me a gotcha, but you are actually only exposing yourself.
    - meheleventyone 1y ago
      The framing was your own so it’s not the gotcha you feel it is. I also don’t know what you think I’m exposing because I’m broadly in agreement that games at their EOL, particularly single player should continue to work. I am interested in discussing where that breaks down but I think that’s probably where we differ. You seem more interested in being combative and making up gotchas.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        > You seem more interested in being combative and making up gotchas. Only because you are being purposely obtuse, gesturing at licensing as something that makes game development impossible without making games previously purchased by consumers unavailable. If you make cakes that are poisoned with lead, and regulations say that you cannot sell lead-poisoned food, you cannot say "but all egg suppliers only sell lead-poisoned eggs, this will kill the cake industry". If regulations say that games should be made accessible for people that purchased them past EOL, licensing agreements will have to adapt for it. Differentiating distribution as in "new copy being sold" and "previously sold copy being available for download".
cwillu 1y ago
If the law is that you can't do this, then those terms will just disappear from licencing agreements. It's not like there's a shortage of textures and sounds in the marketplace.
- meheleventyone 1y ago
  That entirely depends on the content, some is fungible and some isn’t. For the majority of general content developers are already getting a perpetual license so it’s really these special cases that will remain an issue and are unlikely to be resolved in the manner you suggest.
- dijit 1y ago
  For some things. For others you may not be able to license it. Example: have you seen a street racing game with Toyota’s in it? There’s a reason that Need For Speed games fell off after Most Wanted (original) and it’s because they themselves don’t get total artistic license on their works. And part of the agreements is a reasonable expectation that you will not assist anyone else to violate the agreement - and, the agreements are not perpetual either. So, depends on context. There are examples where licensing opportunities dry up.
  - archagon 1y ago
    Somehow game companies managed to deal with this when games were sold on CDs. They’ll figure it out again.
    - dijit 1y ago
      Yeah, it was easier then. The presumption was that sales were not perpetual- and reselling isn’t leasing a license in the same way. Maybe there’s a way though
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      Yes - they started including DRM software on the CDs. They'll figure that out again.

charcircuit 1y ago

How is it more permissive? The product is the same as it was before the official servers went down. Forcing games to be moddable is unrelated to stop killing games.

meheleventyone 1y ago
When you’re licensing content from third parties the more permissive rights you need the more expensive it is. Music is a very good example where it might not even be possible to get a perpetual license. A bunch of games have removed music as their license to it has expired for example. In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content, code and so on needs to have been licensed for that use. That is typically more permissive than licenses as mentioned up thread and so more expensive.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Stop killing games is not about forcing developers to perpetually sell games. They can still stop selling games. They just can't leave it in an unplayable state. If developers want to get the rights to distribute a song for 5 years with their game, they can still do that.
  - meheleventyone 1y ago
    No I’m talking about the distribution of games. With physical media that’s all fine because once the license expires they stop making new copies. People that own a copy are fine. With digital distribution once you’ve EOL’d a product you still need to make it available right? Otherwise how do people that have paid for it get it? But that means you can’t distribute elements you no longer have the license to.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      With online distribution games can be made unavailable for purchase. You are not distributing it anymore. Only people that previously purchased can still download the game. There are multiple such cases in stores such as Steam or GoG. I own games that are not available for purchase anymore. Those games were not killed. I can still download and play them.
      - meheleventyone 1y ago
        Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        You've signed a pretty shoddy license agreement if it requires you to refund all your customers, in full, after a few years. That's just bad business.
        meheleventyone 1y ago
        If you’re saying that a change like SKG would lead to developers needing to take a perpetual license then you should say that rather than alluding to it with a non-sequitur like this. If that’s what you mean then I’d say maybe but doing so would definitely increase the cost and complexity in using licensed content. Which is likely to be passed on. Interestingly though reading the EU petition and the petition authors views it would be fine to remove the content once the licence expired.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Developers already need to license whatever they're licensing in perpetuity, since they need to sublicense to the people who buy their games (regardless of format). Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell you the physical media. Licenses aren't yes/no affairs. Stop Killing Games doesn't change this in any way.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content You start your argument from a presumption that releasing an offline game is almost an impossibility. Are you trying yo argue that offline games have zero things licensed? This sounds like a major argument in favor of offline games. Sounds to me that the simple solution is just stop licensing things with such draconian requirements. If I play a racing game I care about it being fun. If the car I am using in-game is a BMW or a made up brand for the game is immaterial.
  - meheleventyone 1y ago
    It’s about the distribution of games, doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline you need a license to distribute IP that you don’t own. Never making a licensed product or using third-party IP is definitely one solution but I don’t think is the intent nor without adverse effects.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline Then the solution seems simple. Making the game available offline does not seem to have any impact in terms of licensing.
      - meheleventyone 1y ago
        I don’t think you’ve followed the discussion then.
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Only in the sense that you are arguing against strawman versions of the idea in favor of the status quo.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        If you’re saying that because they said the solution is simple, then it would seem you have not followed the discussion. To them, it is as “simple” as not using the things that require onerous licensing. Whether the game is offline or online only matters as much as the licensor might prefer one or the other; obviating the onerous licensor (making your own assets and/or doing business with more agreeable people) is a simple solution. Simple meaning the complexity to understand it, not to implement it.
- foobarchu 1y ago
  This seems pretty easy. If the license to the music goes for X years, then build that expiration into the game. After X years, licensed music goes away, and the game is still playable. This is completely in scope of SKG. Everyone understands that not every feature has to be retained to stay the playable game. That expiration date should, of course, be on the box. The consumer deserves to know.
  - archagon 1y ago
    That’s absurd. I can still pop in my Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater CD from decades ago and listen to the original soundtrack. TTL licensing should be illegal.
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      Yea, nobody seems to be addressing this: Content never expiring was the default for many years, when games shipped on physical media. Industry defenders are acting like this is impossible, where it routinely happened for a long time.
      - thunderfork 1y ago
        [dead]
  - dijit 1y ago
    That would be frustrating to code for. Before anyone says that its as simple as a switch statement, it’s not, its date enumeration and a switch statement, and an alternative codepath for testing and more assets: on every hot path, when you already only get 8ms for your frame is an annoying cost. The expiration date properly visible is not a terrible idea though; or at least a “this edition is valid for x years” after which, updates that fix issues may remove content. Hrm.
    - db48x 1y ago
      I guess that only leaves the third option: don’t license music or other assets that way. It’s really not that hard. Instead of writing a contract that promises that you won't distribute the music with your game for more than X years, write one that promises you’ll only sell the music with your game for X years, but that you might still distribute it to anyone who made their purchase before the cutoff. You see? It’s not that hard. You can license music and still make a game that doesn’t die after a few years. If EU law changes to make that a _requirement_, then you simply stop signing any licensing deal that would break the requirement.

surgical_fire 1y ago

> It’ll make licensing more expensive because the net result is more permissive The current state of affairs is that the net result is such that consumers are stripped of their rights. I find it more unacceptable. If the licensing costs without fucking over consumers is prohibitive, then maybe those games should not exist. If no one is licensing the brands/assets/music/whatever because the licensing costs are too high, it's likely that in time the costs will come down.

meheleventyone 1y ago
> If the licensing costs without fucking over consumers is prohibitive, then maybe those games should not exist. Wow, who is killing games now?
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  Absolutely, games that strip consumers of their rights should not exist. I am not going to defend predatory practices. You think you threw me a gotcha, but you are actually only exposing yourself.
  - meheleventyone 1y ago
    The framing was your own so it’s not the gotcha you feel it is. I also don’t know what you think I’m exposing because I’m broadly in agreement that games at their EOL, particularly single player should continue to work. I am interested in discussing where that breaks down but I think that’s probably where we differ. You seem more interested in being combative and making up gotchas.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > You seem more interested in being combative and making up gotchas. Only because you are being purposely obtuse, gesturing at licensing as something that makes game development impossible without making games previously purchased by consumers unavailable. If you make cakes that are poisoned with lead, and regulations say that you cannot sell lead-poisoned food, you cannot say "but all egg suppliers only sell lead-poisoned eggs, this will kill the cake industry". If regulations say that games should be made accessible for people that purchased them past EOL, licensing agreements will have to adapt for it. Differentiating distribution as in "new copy being sold" and "previously sold copy being available for download".

cwillu 1y ago

If the law is that you can't do this, then those terms will just disappear from licencing agreements. It's not like there's a shortage of textures and sounds in the marketplace.

meheleventyone 1y ago
That entirely depends on the content, some is fungible and some isn’t. For the majority of general content developers are already getting a perpetual license so it’s really these special cases that will remain an issue and are unlikely to be resolved in the manner you suggest.
dijit 1y ago
For some things. For others you may not be able to license it. Example: have you seen a street racing game with Toyota’s in it? There’s a reason that Need For Speed games fell off after Most Wanted (original) and it’s because they themselves don’t get total artistic license on their works. And part of the agreements is a reasonable expectation that you will not assist anyone else to violate the agreement - and, the agreements are not perpetual either. So, depends on context. There are examples where licensing opportunities dry up.
- archagon 1y ago
  Somehow game companies managed to deal with this when games were sold on CDs. They’ll figure it out again.
  - dijit 1y ago
    Yeah, it was easier then. The presumption was that sales were not perpetual- and reselling isn’t leasing a license in the same way. Maybe there’s a way though
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    Yes - they started including DRM software on the CDs. They'll figure that out again.