4 ms·

90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase. The multiplayer games usually ship with a server binary you can place on any machin

by sph 4mo ago

90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase. The multiplayer games usually ship with a server binary you can place on any machine you control. This only affects AAA game studios that produce micro transaction slop and live services. The exact same that are lobbying against any sort of regulation. The gaming industry will be fine.

maccard 4mo ago
> 90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase So those games are unaffected regardless of this law. > This only affects AAA game studios that produce micro transaction slop and live services. The exact same that are lobbying against any sort of regulation. F2P live service games are specifically excluded from this though, which presumably is what you mean by micro transaction slop. This affects every game, from a 1 man developer who uses steam for p2p all the way up to activision and call of duty. The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game, not Ubisoft (who are the reason for instigating this whole thing).
- skotobaza 4mo ago
  > The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game How so? Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. That's mostly AAA publishers that do so (at least I can't remember the opposite from the top of my head).
  - hobofan 4mo ago
    > Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. Yes, they do. Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services to make their multiplayer games work to a playable standard acceptable to the users, as they can't afford to write them from scratch (and couldn't even afford to do the devops work that comes with a self-hosted alternative). Example: PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer. If you were to remove that component you might as well completely rewrite the game. [0]: https://www.photonengine.com https://www.photonengine.com
    - skotobaza 4mo ago
      > Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services I'm not convinced that that's the case. If you're talking about cloud providers then the cost can become very high very quickly, so smaller developers have to carefully manage the budget. To my knowledge, cloud services are usually used for simple stuff like logs and analytics, and games don't really need that to play the game. Also, don't forget that it's not just multiplayer games. Singleplayer games suffer from this as well.
      - maccard 4mo ago
        Most of the cloud providers have generous enough free tiers that small developers fit into them. Look at EOS, Playfab, Steam. You can run a backend for free for < 5k players with lambda and dynamodb. edit: > To my knowledge, cloud services are usually used for simple stuff like logs and analytics Respectfully, you’re wrong here and this is the problem that me and many others have with this line of defense for SKG. No small developers who are managing their budget tightly are storing logs on AWS for analysis after the fact and paying for it. They’re using services like Sentry that do it for free or for $19/months. They’re using services like playfab for parties, vivox for voice chat, flex match for Matchmaking. Those services are free for small amounts of use that 90% of games would fit under.
        skotobaza 4mo ago
        The question remains - how does any of this prevent small developers from releasing either the binary or the code in the modified form? Again, that has already been done with variety of games (not just popular ones as you assume), so it's not something extraordinary. The developers definitely have the resources to do so since they were getting money for the game, and the least they can do for their game and its community is to give it to them after they stop supporting it themselves.
        hobofan 4mo ago
        > The developers definitely have the resources to do so since they were getting money for the game There is no guarantee that they did!!! Yes, the examples we are pointing out (typical "friendslop" games from the last years) made bank, and should be able to afford to afford and EOL path. However for every successful game that uses those technologies there are ~100 that "didn't make it", or barely broke even that are now also forced to do additional work on something they either post-hoc now was financially unfeasible, or have to do up-front work on something where it's a gamble whether it will be financially feasible. In my personal opinion, completely downplaying the effort and financial reality that comes with making games compliant, and based on that creating carveouts for e.g. sub-$100k-revenue games was the downfall of SKG. If they would have made an effort to recognize that, they would be able to mobilize a large base of the indie developer community as well.
  - maccard 4mo ago
    Those games are unaffected whether or not SKG is written into law. If ojr of those games has an optional multiplayer component all of a sudden it can come under the purview. One of the things SKG has pushed down the line is what is “playable”. There is a very small but very active online community for a bunch of games that would call the online part of their game a requirement. The last of us and uncharted had very unpopular multiplayer modes off the top of my head. Small multiplayer “friendslop” games - things like Lethal Fompany, Peak, Totally Reliable Delivery service. They’ve been smash hits, wildly popular but I can definitely see a world where those games just don’t get made when you add a new layer of liability, potentially in perpetuity.
    - skotobaza 4mo ago
      Regarding the "friendslop" games - I don't see an issue, the companies that provide those game with online services will adapt to the new requirements to keep getting money from those game developers. Regarding the optional multiplayer modes - the developers will probably not use some complex architecture for this, so giving it to the community will not be that hard. Also there are multiplayer games that do support community servers out of the box, so it's not an issue to make a game like this.
    - sph 4mo ago
      Are you aware that you don't need turnkey cloud services for indie multiplayer right? Even Godot lets you ship a server binary that allows people to host their own games. Many other indie multiplayer games do, we've been doing this since Doom. We're not talking about MMOs here. There is literally zero reason that Lethal Company needs cloud services for their servers, or for it not to allow players to host their games. EOS & co. are golden handcuffs, and designing the multiplayer system from day 1 with preservation in mind is not that much more work. Of course Epic wants you to use their easy solution, it's called vendor lock in.

by sph 4mo ago

maccard 4mo ago

> 90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase So those games are unaffected regardless of this law. > This only affects AAA game studios that produce micro transaction slop and live services. The exact same that are lobbying against any sort of regulation. F2P live service games are specifically excluded from this though, which presumably is what you mean by micro transaction slop. This affects every game, from a 1 man developer who uses steam for p2p all the way up to activision and call of duty. The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game, not Ubisoft (who are the reason for instigating this whole thing).

skotobaza 4mo ago
> The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game How so? Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. That's mostly AAA publishers that do so (at least I can't remember the opposite from the top of my head).
- hobofan 4mo ago
  > Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. Yes, they do. Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services to make their multiplayer games work to a playable standard acceptable to the users, as they can't afford to write them from scratch (and couldn't even afford to do the devops work that comes with a self-hosted alternative). Example: PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer. If you were to remove that component you might as well completely rewrite the game. [0]: https://www.photonengine.com https://www.photonengine.com
  - skotobaza 4mo ago
    > Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services I'm not convinced that that's the case. If you're talking about cloud providers then the cost can become very high very quickly, so smaller developers have to carefully manage the budget. To my knowledge, cloud services are usually used for simple stuff like logs and analytics, and games don't really need that to play the game. Also, don't forget that it's not just multiplayer games. Singleplayer games suffer from this as well.
    - maccard 4mo ago
      Most of the cloud providers have generous enough free tiers that small developers fit into them. Look at EOS, Playfab, Steam. You can run a backend for free for < 5k players with lambda and dynamodb. edit: > To my knowledge, cloud services are usually used for simple stuff like logs and analytics Respectfully, you’re wrong here and this is the problem that me and many others have with this line of defense for SKG. No small developers who are managing their budget tightly are storing logs on AWS for analysis after the fact and paying for it. They’re using services like Sentry that do it for free or for $19/months. They’re using services like playfab for parties, vivox for voice chat, flex match for Matchmaking. Those services are free for small amounts of use that 90% of games would fit under.
      - skotobaza 4mo ago
        The question remains - how does any of this prevent small developers from releasing either the binary or the code in the modified form? Again, that has already been done with variety of games (not just popular ones as you assume), so it's not something extraordinary. The developers definitely have the resources to do so since they were getting money for the game, and the least they can do for their game and its community is to give it to them after they stop supporting it themselves.
        hobofan 4mo ago
        > The developers definitely have the resources to do so since they were getting money for the game There is no guarantee that they did!!! Yes, the examples we are pointing out (typical "friendslop" games from the last years) made bank, and should be able to afford to afford and EOL path. However for every successful game that uses those technologies there are ~100 that "didn't make it", or barely broke even that are now also forced to do additional work on something they either post-hoc now was financially unfeasible, or have to do up-front work on something where it's a gamble whether it will be financially feasible. In my personal opinion, completely downplaying the effort and financial reality that comes with making games compliant, and based on that creating carveouts for e.g. sub-$100k-revenue games was the downfall of SKG. If they would have made an effort to recognize that, they would be able to mobilize a large base of the indie developer community as well.
- maccard 4mo ago
  Those games are unaffected whether or not SKG is written into law. If ojr of those games has an optional multiplayer component all of a sudden it can come under the purview. One of the things SKG has pushed down the line is what is “playable”. There is a very small but very active online community for a bunch of games that would call the online part of their game a requirement. The last of us and uncharted had very unpopular multiplayer modes off the top of my head. Small multiplayer “friendslop” games - things like Lethal Fompany, Peak, Totally Reliable Delivery service. They’ve been smash hits, wildly popular but I can definitely see a world where those games just don’t get made when you add a new layer of liability, potentially in perpetuity.
  - skotobaza 4mo ago
    Regarding the "friendslop" games - I don't see an issue, the companies that provide those game with online services will adapt to the new requirements to keep getting money from those game developers. Regarding the optional multiplayer modes - the developers will probably not use some complex architecture for this, so giving it to the community will not be that hard. Also there are multiplayer games that do support community servers out of the box, so it's not an issue to make a game like this.
  - sph 4mo ago
    Are you aware that you don't need turnkey cloud services for indie multiplayer right? Even Godot lets you ship a server binary that allows people to host their own games. Many other indie multiplayer games do, we've been doing this since Doom. We're not talking about MMOs here. There is literally zero reason that Lethal Company needs cloud services for their servers, or for it not to allow players to host their games. EOS & co. are golden handcuffs, and designing the multiplayer system from day 1 with preservation in mind is not that much more work. Of course Epic wants you to use their easy solution, it's called vendor lock in.