8 ms·

> a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LA

by hobofan 4mo ago

> a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. > Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). > Now, please give me an example of a game that doesn't fit within that framework if you want to continue this argument. Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". [0]: https://www.photonengine.com https://www.photonengine.com

throw1093874 4mo ago
> There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.
- hobofan 4mo ago
  > > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment > > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but often barely viable.
  - roblabla 4mo ago
    WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape. That's a lot of outlier I can cite off the top of my head.
    - hobofan 4mo ago
      > WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape There are in total ~15-30mil paying subscriber that pay subscription fees to a single game. That's 1% of all gamers globally. But sure, let's slap a $5/month subscription fee on all upcoming games that would have the chance to be the next Among Us / PEAK, and let's see how well that works out for indie developers.
      - sensanaty 4mo ago
        Or, as SKG has been saying, make games like Among Us or PEAK have some way for players to self-host the games. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if the devs behind PEAK decided to one day say "Y'know what, we're shutting down PEAK and you can no longer play it" when nothing about the game needs to be tied to a persistent internet connection at all. Besides, PEAK has offline mode already built in, so no subscriptions needed.
        hobofan 4mo ago
        > Besides, PEAK has offline mode already built in, so no subscriptions needed. Yes, single player offline. SKG is specifically about deactivating the online/multiplayer component in games, so if PEAK were to deactivate their online coop mode, they would definitely fall under it (ignoring grandfathering).
        skotobaza 4mo ago
        > SKG is specifically about deactivating the online/multiplayer component in games No, this is false. SKG also includes singleplayer games which require constant online connection.
roblabla 4mo ago
> Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. We're talking about EOL plans here. You don't have to care about DDOS. > This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). I have multiple issues with this framing: 1. We're talking about regulation about _future games_ that haven't been made yet. SKG doesn't want to regulate existing games. So we're not talking about retrofitting an EOL plan on games that already rely on complex backend. If you're planning for it from the get-go, getting an architecture that isn't so cloud-reliant isn't that complicated. 2. Even if we accept the premise that a game _absolutely needed_ a cloud only architecture to function for one reason or another, that doesn't prevent releasing the architecture binaries. 3. Licensed libraries may have redistribution prohibitions _today_, but should EOL regulations come in place, you'd find that those libraries would quickly move to allow redistribution for EOL purposes, as otherwise studios would just _not use them_. > Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. AFAICT, Photon Fusion is fully compliant with SKG already - it supports games where one player is the "host" and all comms are P2P. Players can direct connect to one another. While it does work better with a STUN server or with Photon's cloud, they are not *necessary* for the game to function. Photon's Voice offering might be different, but turning that off for an EOL plan is totally acceptable according to the SKG's wanted regulation - they would fall within the same category of "extra services" that aren't part of the core game. And _furthermore_, of the three games you cited, I know for sure that PEAK and CW are playable fully offline. They're already SKG-compliant even if photon fusion was somehow not. I haven't played Gorilla Tag or looked into it, but I think I've already made my point clear. > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". WoW still has active players in the millions. FF14 has a 25k peak concurrent players in the past 24h. There are other success stories. But sure, it "tanks your playerbase".
- jcranmer 4mo ago
  > We're talking about regulation about _future games_ that haven't been made yet. So we're not talking about retrofitting an EOL plan on games that already rely on complex backend. If you're planning for it from the get-go, getting an architecture that isn't so cloud-reliant isn't that complicated. I don't know about the EU effort, but the California bill would apply to any game that is released on or after January 1, 2027. That's not enough time to plan for the "changes from the get-go."
sensanaty 4mo ago
> Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. How is LAN susceptible to DDoS? I think you're thinking of P2P, unless you're worried about your LAN buddies trolling you I guess. Regardless, whether the quality of LAN games is good or not is wholly irrelevant to the SKG initiative. If players want to play an apparently inferior version of the game, they should be allowed to, and LAN is hardly going to be an inferior version of the game anyways. > This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). Comparing your game to a SaaS app is an interesting approach, because SaaS apps are generally sold as subscriptions, not one-time purchases that would otherwise immply ownership. If the game is genuinely SaaS-like, maybe price it like one and stop selling it like a regular product. Also this would only really be the case for AAA games, and they have more than enough cash to figure out a proper sunsetting strategy. Again, it doesn't have to be a perfect experience or anything near it, as long as people can somehow keep playing the games they paid for, even if they're the ones to bear the costs of hosting (which isn't even a rare thing in gaming, there's many old games with community servers out there that to this day have healthy playerbases). In my experience the community servers usually beat the experience on dedicated servers anyways though, modders are usually more passionate and have more freedom to make things work well than the devs do. See the shenanigans with Titanfall 2's servers as an example. > Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. The games being cited to defeat this legislation are indie titles with small userbases and tight margins. The legislation is being discussed largely because of what EA, Activision, and Ubisoft do to games with millions of paying customers. Letting the hardest edge case set the ceiling for consumer protection is a convenient outcome for the people least affected by it. And regardless, games like Minecraft and Terraria started off as small-studio indie games that built their own networking without Photon or anything like it. The self-hosted server support is a huge part of why those communities are still thriving today, many years later. The "it's too complex without third-party services" argument is newer than the practice of indie devs doing it themselves. > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". The implication that informed consumers are a problem for the industry is a pretty damning admission about how the industry currently operates.

by hobofan 4mo ago

throw1093874 4mo ago

> There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.

hobofan 4mo ago
> > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment > > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but often barely viable.
- roblabla 4mo ago
  WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape. That's a lot of outlier I can cite off the top of my head.
  - hobofan 4mo ago
    > WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape There are in total ~15-30mil paying subscriber that pay subscription fees to a single game. That's 1% of all gamers globally. But sure, let's slap a $5/month subscription fee on all upcoming games that would have the chance to be the next Among Us / PEAK, and let's see how well that works out for indie developers.
    - sensanaty 4mo ago
      Or, as SKG has been saying, make games like Among Us or PEAK have some way for players to self-host the games. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if the devs behind PEAK decided to one day say "Y'know what, we're shutting down PEAK and you can no longer play it" when nothing about the game needs to be tied to a persistent internet connection at all. Besides, PEAK has offline mode already built in, so no subscriptions needed.
      - hobofan 4mo ago
        > Besides, PEAK has offline mode already built in, so no subscriptions needed. Yes, single player offline. SKG is specifically about deactivating the online/multiplayer component in games, so if PEAK were to deactivate their online coop mode, they would definitely fall under it (ignoring grandfathering).
        skotobaza 4mo ago
        > SKG is specifically about deactivating the online/multiplayer component in games No, this is false. SKG also includes singleplayer games which require constant online connection.

roblabla 4mo ago

> Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. We're talking about EOL plans here. You don't have to care about DDOS. > This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). I have multiple issues with this framing: 1. We're talking about regulation about _future games_ that haven't been made yet. SKG doesn't want to regulate existing games. So we're not talking about retrofitting an EOL plan on games that already rely on complex backend. If you're planning for it from the get-go, getting an architecture that isn't so cloud-reliant isn't that complicated. 2. Even if we accept the premise that a game _absolutely needed_ a cloud only architecture to function for one reason or another, that doesn't prevent releasing the architecture binaries. 3. Licensed libraries may have redistribution prohibitions _today_, but should EOL regulations come in place, you'd find that those libraries would quickly move to allow redistribution for EOL purposes, as otherwise studios would just _not use them_. > Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. AFAICT, Photon Fusion is fully compliant with SKG already - it supports games where one player is the "host" and all comms are P2P. Players can direct connect to one another. While it does work better with a STUN server or with Photon's cloud, they are not *necessary* for the game to function. Photon's Voice offering might be different, but turning that off for an EOL plan is totally acceptable according to the SKG's wanted regulation - they would fall within the same category of "extra services" that aren't part of the core game. And _furthermore_, of the three games you cited, I know for sure that PEAK and CW are playable fully offline. They're already SKG-compliant even if photon fusion was somehow not. I haven't played Gorilla Tag or looked into it, but I think I've already made my point clear. > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". WoW still has active players in the millions. FF14 has a 25k peak concurrent players in the past 24h. There are other success stories. But sure, it "tanks your playerbase".

jcranmer 4mo ago
> We're talking about regulation about _future games_ that haven't been made yet. So we're not talking about retrofitting an EOL plan on games that already rely on complex backend. If you're planning for it from the get-go, getting an architecture that isn't so cloud-reliant isn't that complicated. I don't know about the EU effort, but the California bill would apply to any game that is released on or after January 1, 2027. That's not enough time to plan for the "changes from the get-go."

sensanaty 4mo ago

> Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. How is LAN susceptible to DDoS? I think you're thinking of P2P, unless you're worried about your LAN buddies trolling you I guess. Regardless, whether the quality of LAN games is good or not is wholly irrelevant to the SKG initiative. If players want to play an apparently inferior version of the game, they should be allowed to, and LAN is hardly going to be an inferior version of the game anyways. > This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). Comparing your game to a SaaS app is an interesting approach, because SaaS apps are generally sold as subscriptions, not one-time purchases that would otherwise immply ownership. If the game is genuinely SaaS-like, maybe price it like one and stop selling it like a regular product. Also this would only really be the case for AAA games, and they have more than enough cash to figure out a proper sunsetting strategy. Again, it doesn't have to be a perfect experience or anything near it, as long as people can somehow keep playing the games they paid for, even if they're the ones to bear the costs of hosting (which isn't even a rare thing in gaming, there's many old games with community servers out there that to this day have healthy playerbases). In my experience the community servers usually beat the experience on dedicated servers anyways though, modders are usually more passionate and have more freedom to make things work well than the devs do. See the shenanigans with Titanfall 2's servers as an example. > Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. The games being cited to defeat this legislation are indie titles with small userbases and tight margins. The legislation is being discussed largely because of what EA, Activision, and Ubisoft do to games with millions of paying customers. Letting the hardest edge case set the ceiling for consumer protection is a convenient outcome for the people least affected by it. And regardless, games like Minecraft and Terraria started off as small-studio indie games that built their own networking without Photon or anything like it. The self-hosted server support is a huge part of why those communities are still thriving today, many years later. The "it's too complex without third-party services" argument is newer than the practice of indie devs doing it themselves. > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". The implication that informed consumers are a problem for the industry is a pretty damning admission about how the industry currently operates.