skotobaza

6 ms·

31.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> I genuinely, genuinely do not care if the game stops working in 12 years time That's very grim... I'm on the completely different side, majority of games I've been playing recently are fairly old.
32.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> Is that good public policy? Yes, because you will not be limited in time to enjoy a single title. Like it's the case with other media - books, music, movies, etc. This is good because future people (who haven't even been born
33.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
But nobody is trying to block "certain kinds of agreements". You can still make whatever games you could make before. Nothing changes in that regard.
34.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> I personally think this regulation does more harm then good for small businesses and players alike Are we supposed to just accept that games will die because of the profits of some game dev studios? > I saw how intentions were good,
35.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> the cost of retrofitting games for all developers of games with any online component As it has been said many times already, the initiative does not propose any "retrofitting" for existing games. > the incredible entitleme
36.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
The initiative is not about telling which games customers can and cannot buy, it's about customers getting to play a game they paid for without the fear of it becoming bricked after the publisher stops supporting it.
37.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> SKG people are mostly immature and tend to overreact How so? What's immature about the desire to keep games functional?
38.
by 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.
39.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
I personally think this is not a desirable solution for gamers. Some, if not most, publishers will put a label about "renting" (like they already do in the EULA) and won't change a thing.
40.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
Of course not. I'd rather the commission talked equally to both parties involved instead of preferring the one with the stronger lobbying.
41.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
He also attacked Ross and insulted him multiple times. He wasn't nice about it, in fact he was very aggressive. He also pretended to be someone who he wasn't. He also tried using his influence to stop the movement, which backfired
42.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> Did I keep my machines from back then? The SNES, the i486 etc? What if the hardware has an defect 30 years after? For this you have options: emulators, FPGAs, fixing the original hardware. So as long as you have your copy of the game,
43.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
But the commission did consult with the industry much more than with the initiative, they misrepresented the initiative and no balance was achieved...
44.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> to grant government power it shouldn't be granted What power? Power to save games from becoming unplayable on the whim?
45.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> if it happens to be the only way to achieve what I want Again, I'm not advocating for some specific architecture. There is more than one way to make a game hostable by players. > But for many games, the logic _is_ in the remote
46.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> they ran out of money during the development phase of the game because they were trying to comply with the regulation I don't believe it. This is not the biggest spending point when making a videogame. If a developer uses this as
47.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> Every single suggestion you are making ignores the associated cost to the developers/publishers of the game The developer is the one who should think about costs. You shouldn't force it on consumers. > If you are fine with
48.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> You've not just edit'ed and added to your comment, you removed a point about supporting open sourcing the games as a solution. I did not remove anything from my comment. Just added a statement since the alleged "goalpost
49.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
I get what you mean - if the developer stops supporting the game then they might run out of money to make the changes. This can even happen spontaneously in some cases. But I'm still expecting at least some effort in preserving their p
50.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
The commission was talking with the game industry much more than with the initiative, which opened a clear way for the industry to misrepresent the initiative with phrases like "endless support" which nobody demands.
51.
by 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&#x2
52.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> You’re calling for legislating software architecture Not really, it will be the consequence of requiring the game to be given to the community after the EOL. > the community are free to reverse engineer the service it relies on Whil
53.
by 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 m
54.
by 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 ha
55.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
That's just one of the options, albeit the most beneficial for gamers. > "open source released with stubs" are also usually games that are decades old and cultural landmarks Not necessarily. Edit: the goalpost is "the
56.
by 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 th
57.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> games that have required a bunch of different standalone services just for core logic But you don't have to design the backend this way. Especially if you know that you will have to share the binaries when the support for the game
58.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
Yes, absolutely! I personally want to be able to play games many years after they are released and after they have stopped receiving any support. Yet we see growing number of examples where this is not the case and you get locked out of a g
59.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
> This sounds like cope You can listen to Ross' explanation in his recent video [1], it starts at 12:12 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgoODQFrPgw
60.
by skotobaza 4mo ago
Exactly! And most people who comment on this topic seem genuinely oblivious to it. Which tells me they don't play videogames and don't know the current state of the industry.

More ›