4 ms·

It should not be allowed for a developer or device manufacturer to kill or nerf any product remotely, once it was bought and paid for. This is silly. No develo

It should not be allowed for a developer or device manufacturer to kill or nerf any product remotely, once it was bought and paid for. This is silly. No developer should be obligated to support an online game forever. Imagine a highly complex online game that requires a few people and tens of thousands a month in cloud costs to keep it running. Now imagine that this game is 25 years old and only has 100 players total left. Are you saying that this developer must maintain the exact same quality of online play for 100 people?

zahlman 5mo ago
The comment you are replying to doesn't argue any such thing, and is pretty clear in its explanation of how your position is perfectly compatible with what is requested.
- aurareturn 5mo ago
  The author is arguing for it. This is what the post was saying: 1. No nerfing to the game/service whatsoever. This means you can't just kill online play. Ever. 2. Charge a monthly price or significantly increase the purchasing price. Clearly neither of these are viable for most games and the game industry.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
mrob 5mo ago
Nobody has a problem with rentals. Just be up front with the terms and don't try to pretend it's a sale.
rolph 5mo ago
what is truly silly, is the practice of online requirements, to operate software.
- 0x59 5mo ago
  its silly to me that soo many people buy into such schemes
  - ryandrake 5mo ago
    The principle of “Buyer Beware” should not be the foundational legal basis for conducting commerce in a civilized society.
    - 0x59 5mo ago
      I believe were all largely responsible for our own agency. different strokes for different folks I guess
junaru 5mo ago
That game is called World Of Warcraft. It had its server reimplemented by enthusiasts [1] with no access to this "one of a kind cloud" for decades now. Heck it even supposedly had game client ported to new engine [2]. > B-but we can't release the binaries due to licensing... Release the source. As a developer you should be able to write code that allows to stub out all the propriety parts. The community will replace your speedtrees, matchmaking, netcode, anticheats and so on. Change is hard we get it, but the excuses are on par with any other industry.. [1] https://www.getmangos.eu/ https://www.getmangos.eu/ [2] https://turtlecraft.gg/remastered https://turtlecraft.gg/remastered
- ryandrake 5mo ago
  > excuses Exactly! If you ever want a clear demonstration of the phrase "litany of excuses", all you have to do is post online calling for a game company to provide any kind of post-sale support or user-friendly EOL plan for their game. 1. "Game companies don't make any money, so they can't provide any development support after the sale, which barely pays for initial development!" 2. "Game companies are under immense time pressure so they can't waste time on EOL plans or developing the server to be eventually severable and releasable!" 3. "Game companies cannot release the server binaries because of vague licensing reasons!" 4. "Game companies cannot release the server source code because of other vague licensing reasons and secret sauce IP!" 5. "Game companies cannot release the server source code because of cheating!" 6. "Game companies might not even have the server source code when it's time to EOL the online service! You can't expect them to save a backup!" 7. "The game company might shut down and that means they have to just suddenly pull the plug!" 8. "Servers are expensive and complicated to run, and surely the community wouldn't be able to do it!" 9. "The server source might not compile anymore, and surely the community wouldn't be able to fix it!" You'll hear variations of these excuses and others whenever you suggest these guys lift even a finger to non-disruptively turn down their game.
tetha 5mo ago
So release the server code as OSS, data necessary to function & support community servers. Even in a crappy hard-to-support way, the community will usually figure out a way. IMO, the move from community servers over to matchmaking & vendor only servers being the only viable option was a huge disservice to the long-levity of games. If I find the code around here, I could still get a Tremulous server running today for a few bucks, even if I haven't played that game for 20+ years.
- aurareturn 5mo ago
  Releasing the server code isn't always ideal. There's likely a ton of secrets, hardcoding, and exploits.
  - tetha 5mo ago
    Regarding 1 and 2, my pity is mild if this requirement forced companies to follow principles of secure software development, configuration and deployment. Injecting stuff from deployment config is not hard. 3 is valid and can be tricky, as it would depend on when in the software lifecycle the release would be mandatory. If it's in a wind-down or bankruptcy situation, it would be tricky. Though that discussion is similar to the responsible disclosure discussion, isn't it? Exploiters usually already know them.
    - aurareturn 5mo ago
      Try open sourcing a code base that is built up over the last 15 years and most of the devs no longer work there. Thats what you’re asking for many online games. Not to mention open sourcing the code will subject the company to legal liability if there’s something weird in there like discrimination of some form.
      - stale2002 5mo ago
        > Try open sourcing a code base that is built up over the last 15 years and most of the devs no longer work there. Thats what you’re asking for many online games. Thats pretty easy actually. All you have to do is go into the setting page on the git repo and change the settings from private to public. I'm sure most game devs are able to figure that one out. Everything else that resolves was that is merely consequences for which I have little pitty for.
watwut 5mo ago
I find this made up scenario entirely silly. What happena in reality is that games with unnecessary server components get shut down and games with small server component get shutdown. Players are not allowed to run own servers.
Accacin 5mo ago
No, what's silly is that you haven't even taken the time to read the initiative. You're coming out with the same incorrect arguments as PirateSoftware did. What they're saying is (for games that would come out in the future only), is that they need to have an EoL plan for the game. Let people host their own servers. That used to be a standard feature of multiplayer games.
- mcmoor 5mo ago
  Well there's kind of motte-bailey going around where the law effort is of course focusing on the thing they might win, while common commenters demand vastly more unrealistic things.
- dudinax 5mo ago
  Why do gamers need protection? Games aren't essential resources. There's zero reason you have to buy a game that doesn't allow users to run servers. Why would you prevent gamers who don't care from buying these games?
  - skotobaza 5mo ago
    Nobody asks to "protect gamers"...
matheusmoreira 5mo ago
There is no need for the developer to do anything. We'll do it ourselves. Just release the source code. Or actually don't, we'll reimplement the entire game if we care enough. Just don't get in our way.
RugnirViking 5mo ago
yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. for existing services built in stupid ways, this may be impractical. After such a law is passed, services won't be built in stupid ways in the first place.
- aurareturn 5mo ago
  > yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. Only works for games where you don't have saved states in the game. For example, counter strike. For a game like World of Warcraft, how do you suppose to make this work?
  - RugnirViking 5mo ago
    are you aware that people do regularly run private servers of world of warcraft? It might pose problems for their monetisation model, but nobody says they have to release the server code on launch day, just that it should be released eventually, before they shut everything down. Though note that games like TF2 are famous for pioneering loot boxes etc yet have large cultures of private server hosts. Similarly, counter strike was famous for having a thriving community of private servers before they released cs:go
    - aurareturn 5mo ago
      I'm aware. So you're proposing that Blizzard should legally allow alternative servers to their own? That doesn't seem like a good idea. I get what problem you're trying to solve. But it's honestly a much more difficult problem than you think it is. It's not as simple as just allow others to run servers.
      - skotobaza 5mo ago
        > you're proposing that Blizzard should legally allow alternative servers to their own? Nobody is proposing that. Subscription based games are not the covered by SKG and never were. Even if WoW was not subscription based, it would still be required to do something only when Blizzard decides that they don't want to keep WoW online anymore. Not before that. Nobody asks to voluntarily allow competing servers.
skotobaza 5mo ago
First of all, as other already pointed, no, nobody expects a publisher to support their game forever. Just give us the tools to do so ourselves. Second of all, it's not just multiplayer games that do that. Single-player games and modes can also be designed this way, so when the servers get shut down, you can't play the game at all. Not ever the single-player. There is no reason for this scheme to exist, plain and simple.

zahlman 5mo ago

The comment you are replying to doesn't argue any such thing, and is pretty clear in its explanation of how your position is perfectly compatible with what is requested.

aurareturn 5mo ago
The author is arguing for it. This is what the post was saying: 1. No nerfing to the game/service whatsoever. This means you can't just kill online play. Ever. 2. Charge a monthly price or significantly increase the purchasing price. Clearly neither of these are viable for most games and the game industry.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

mrob 5mo ago

Nobody has a problem with rentals. Just be up front with the terms and don't try to pretend it's a sale.

rolph 5mo ago

what is truly silly, is the practice of online requirements, to operate software.

0x59 5mo ago
its silly to me that soo many people buy into such schemes
- ryandrake 5mo ago
  The principle of “Buyer Beware” should not be the foundational legal basis for conducting commerce in a civilized society.
  - 0x59 5mo ago
    I believe were all largely responsible for our own agency. different strokes for different folks I guess

junaru 5mo ago

That game is called World Of Warcraft. It had its server reimplemented by enthusiasts [1] with no access to this "one of a kind cloud" for decades now. Heck it even supposedly had game client ported to new engine [2]. > B-but we can't release the binaries due to licensing... Release the source. As a developer you should be able to write code that allows to stub out all the propriety parts. The community will replace your speedtrees, matchmaking, netcode, anticheats and so on. Change is hard we get it, but the excuses are on par with any other industry.. [1] https://www.getmangos.eu/ https://www.getmangos.eu/ [2] https://turtlecraft.gg/remastered https://turtlecraft.gg/remastered

ryandrake 5mo ago
> excuses Exactly! If you ever want a clear demonstration of the phrase "litany of excuses", all you have to do is post online calling for a game company to provide any kind of post-sale support or user-friendly EOL plan for their game. 1. "Game companies don't make any money, so they can't provide any development support after the sale, which barely pays for initial development!" 2. "Game companies are under immense time pressure so they can't waste time on EOL plans or developing the server to be eventually severable and releasable!" 3. "Game companies cannot release the server binaries because of vague licensing reasons!" 4. "Game companies cannot release the server source code because of other vague licensing reasons and secret sauce IP!" 5. "Game companies cannot release the server source code because of cheating!" 6. "Game companies might not even have the server source code when it's time to EOL the online service! You can't expect them to save a backup!" 7. "The game company might shut down and that means they have to just suddenly pull the plug!" 8. "Servers are expensive and complicated to run, and surely the community wouldn't be able to do it!" 9. "The server source might not compile anymore, and surely the community wouldn't be able to fix it!" You'll hear variations of these excuses and others whenever you suggest these guys lift even a finger to non-disruptively turn down their game.

tetha 5mo ago

So release the server code as OSS, data necessary to function & support community servers. Even in a crappy hard-to-support way, the community will usually figure out a way. IMO, the move from community servers over to matchmaking & vendor only servers being the only viable option was a huge disservice to the long-levity of games. If I find the code around here, I could still get a Tremulous server running today for a few bucks, even if I haven't played that game for 20+ years.

aurareturn 5mo ago
Releasing the server code isn't always ideal. There's likely a ton of secrets, hardcoding, and exploits.
- tetha 5mo ago
  Regarding 1 and 2, my pity is mild if this requirement forced companies to follow principles of secure software development, configuration and deployment. Injecting stuff from deployment config is not hard. 3 is valid and can be tricky, as it would depend on when in the software lifecycle the release would be mandatory. If it's in a wind-down or bankruptcy situation, it would be tricky. Though that discussion is similar to the responsible disclosure discussion, isn't it? Exploiters usually already know them.
  - aurareturn 5mo ago
    Try open sourcing a code base that is built up over the last 15 years and most of the devs no longer work there. Thats what you’re asking for many online games. Not to mention open sourcing the code will subject the company to legal liability if there’s something weird in there like discrimination of some form.
    - stale2002 5mo ago
      > Try open sourcing a code base that is built up over the last 15 years and most of the devs no longer work there. Thats what you’re asking for many online games. Thats pretty easy actually. All you have to do is go into the setting page on the git repo and change the settings from private to public. I'm sure most game devs are able to figure that one out. Everything else that resolves was that is merely consequences for which I have little pitty for.

watwut 5mo ago

I find this made up scenario entirely silly. What happena in reality is that games with unnecessary server components get shut down and games with small server component get shutdown. Players are not allowed to run own servers.

Accacin 5mo ago

No, what's silly is that you haven't even taken the time to read the initiative. You're coming out with the same incorrect arguments as PirateSoftware did. What they're saying is (for games that would come out in the future only), is that they need to have an EoL plan for the game. Let people host their own servers. That used to be a standard feature of multiplayer games.

mcmoor 5mo ago
Well there's kind of motte-bailey going around where the law effort is of course focusing on the thing they might win, while common commenters demand vastly more unrealistic things.
dudinax 5mo ago
Why do gamers need protection? Games aren't essential resources. There's zero reason you have to buy a game that doesn't allow users to run servers. Why would you prevent gamers who don't care from buying these games?
- skotobaza 5mo ago
  Nobody asks to "protect gamers"...

matheusmoreira 5mo ago

There is no need for the developer to do anything. We'll do it ourselves. Just release the source code. Or actually don't, we'll reimplement the entire game if we care enough. Just don't get in our way.

RugnirViking 5mo ago

yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. for existing services built in stupid ways, this may be impractical. After such a law is passed, services won't be built in stupid ways in the first place.

aurareturn 5mo ago
> yes. It's very easy, and free. Don't make servers that only you can run. That's how it used to work, and theres no structural barrier to it beyond greed. Only works for games where you don't have saved states in the game. For example, counter strike. For a game like World of Warcraft, how do you suppose to make this work?
- RugnirViking 5mo ago
  are you aware that people do regularly run private servers of world of warcraft? It might pose problems for their monetisation model, but nobody says they have to release the server code on launch day, just that it should be released eventually, before they shut everything down. Though note that games like TF2 are famous for pioneering loot boxes etc yet have large cultures of private server hosts. Similarly, counter strike was famous for having a thriving community of private servers before they released cs:go
  - aurareturn 5mo ago
    I'm aware. So you're proposing that Blizzard should legally allow alternative servers to their own? That doesn't seem like a good idea. I get what problem you're trying to solve. But it's honestly a much more difficult problem than you think it is. It's not as simple as just allow others to run servers.
    - skotobaza 5mo ago
      > you're proposing that Blizzard should legally allow alternative servers to their own? Nobody is proposing that. Subscription based games are not the covered by SKG and never were. Even if WoW was not subscription based, it would still be required to do something only when Blizzard decides that they don't want to keep WoW online anymore. Not before that. Nobody asks to voluntarily allow competing servers.

skotobaza 5mo ago

First of all, as other already pointed, no, nobody expects a publisher to support their game forever. Just give us the tools to do so ourselves. Second of all, it's not just multiplayer games that do that. Single-player games and modes can also be designed this way, so when the servers get shut down, you can't play the game at all. Not ever the single-player. There is no reason for this scheme to exist, plain and simple.