mèx
Member
You are just assuming without a shred of proof.
This initiative is useful because there is no legislation about this stuff. It is literally up to every single company to do whatever they want, like it was before GDPR to use an example that you people like to bring up.
Maybe you are right, even if this initiative goes through (unlikely at this point), this could be very well shut down by the EU commission for whatever reason after the discussion and feasibility assessments. But to be against this a priori without having a proper discussion in the right places... I just don't get it.
Here is the fun thing.
1) many multiplayer games have LAN modes for in person tournaments.
2) Running a game in a sandbox is pretty important for bug fixing and testing new features in isolation. Most online or live service games will already have dev tools to do exactly what the initiative is asking for because it is a requirement for development.
3) in plenty of other cases games include single player modes Vs bots or local multiplayer. Rocket League, Last Epoch, League of legends, Overwatch are some examples. In such a case all that would be required is the game allowing those single player modes to be accessible without calling home to a server. It wouldn't even require giving people access to lan modes or dev tools to comply with the aims of the initiative in those cases because single player Vs bots is leaving the game in a playable state.
4) Games with a subscription model like Wow or FF14 are not part of this discussion because they are not mis selling anything. They state clearly upfront what you are getting for your money. The same cannot be said for plenty of other titles that have viable single player modes that were made inaccessible due to online requirements after a server shut down. Fallout 3 had an issue for a long time because it used games for windows live as DRM and then MS turned off the servers so an entirely SP title was rendered unusable until it was later patched.
As for wow private servers, the issue is more around the fact the game is still active so private servers act as a market replacement for official servers which makes it a copyright issue. The private server itself is reverse engineered so doesn't share any code with the blizzard servers so that is not really an issue.
ToadMan
Member
The OP said "eternally". I'm not interested in this concept enough to go look at it outside Gaf, so my information comes from what is posted right here.
Anyway this is about MP games - the OP didn't make that clear - which effectively ends my interest in the whole thing.
MP games live and die with their community of players - if there's not enough players to make it economically viable, then the company has every right to shut it down or look for other mitigation.
There are easier ways to get the same effect as this anyway. Universal refunding with limits would be easy enough to legislate - but this probably won't be allowed because it will kill sub services like Gamepass.
Anyway, asking for forced release of proprietary data at an undefined future point based on no easily measurable metric, is not a viable strategy.
Felessan
Member
I give you 99.9% chance there will be no such law. Would initiative get enough votes or not. The current state is that it's all some wild fantasies of lunatics.
There is a very long way between some "petition online" and actual legislation. And legislation, unlike some forum fantasies, should take into account interests of all sides, so it will be a hard uphill battle to pass this through.
For data privacy there quite some "greater good" concerns those are reasons why there impediment and restrictions on companies applied.
There are no such things in game preservation. You will not die if you would not be able play a game
No. 69.99 only cover what it's stated to be included. Arbitrary including extras in the package is not what you paid for.
It's really ok, I doesn't really care about job security, I have enough connections for this to be non-issue. And one of my former place did actually went under - if you are a good professional it's not a big deal.
This is double standards here. Why dev should support games indefinitely and OS maker not? It's a huge law loophole.
It is about data privacy, all the rest is implementation of it.
They are the point of discussion, they even included in FAQ for this initiative specifically.
And If subscription MMO can stop support making game dead, F2P MMO can it too. And if F2P MMO can do it, any F2P online game can. And it'll be very hard to force b2p games as only exception.
The FAQ shows it can be done if the desire is there, in several videos he talks about the fact that a big part of the issue is that games that are tied to servers and don't have a clear end date on the box so you don't know how long your purchase will be usable for. Something paid for MMOs actually are very clear about so while it would be nice if something was done there is little legal basis to do so.
MTX complicates this as it depends how it is sold. If it is sold as a skin you can use while you have an active subscription then it may be okay. If it is sold more like a good though with no explicit tie to the subscription then not so much.
Most F2P games use MTX to provide the revenue to expand the game. That MTX does not have an expiry date and in the EU it is not legal to in essence take back something after it is purchased.
Part of the problem is that it does not state that the game can cease to function at some arbitrary point in the future if the publisher decides to take servers down.
Are you incapable of reading? The point is the game dev can wash their hands of it as long as the provide a patch to make the game playable. For a F2P shooter it could easily be an MVP that allows you to access the mode that puts you against bots without connecting to their severs. Something a lot of eSports titles already allow.
Felessan
Member
It does
F2P EULA states that you own nothing, everything that provided to you a license - client, in-game currency/purchases, content etc.The rights for everything remains in company and company has a right to unilaterally revoke your license at any time. They don't even need to shutdown servers for this - if they think that you are cheating, toxic or not played too long - they can ban or delete your account, and legally it's completely their right
In B2P - H2D Eula states "SIE makes no commitment to continue to make those servers available and may terminate online features at any time". And you will have your game with a title screen as everything else are online features.
It's actually another loophole as your "functional game" might be just title screen and everything else is "online features" that are optional to support.
Are YOU incapable of reading?
For many live service games its impossible to patch client as core logic are on the server, a server side should be provided for game to work independently and there are a lot of reasons not to do it
mèx
Member
It is absolutely possible to design a game that works both online and offline, it has been done in the past and it can be done now. What are you on about? This engineering problem is not the equivalent to sending rockets to the ISS like you think, lmao.
Last edited:
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Surprised to see people here siding with the corporations. I think everything as been already said but yeah, if it was done before, it can be done now. Impossible? Well then design the videogame in a way that makes it possible, or at least have an "end of life" plan for when the servers shut down. No need to keep all the gaas shit there imo, just allow people to play the game.
Felessan
Member
It's absolutely possible, but who will pay for branching server side code and keeping it up-to-date? It ain't free.
People out of their ignorance are way to generous in spending others money.
I expect this legislation should be for everyone and not just Mihoyo and Blizzard. And smaller devs with smaller games are not that rich. This legislation will increase number of deaths, already high in indie/A space, some of them will be final regardless of law as you can't ask a defunct company to make dead game work offline.
EULAs do not supercede laws and a lot of EULA terms are simply untested in court. Many of those terms would not fly if someone tested them as you can by steam being forced to offer refunds and other situations where something has been challenged.
All I will say now is comments like yours and in r/gamedev show me exactly why the gaming industry is in a poor place, the talent pool seems rather limited and this is visible in poor design decisions being made that allow publisher's to exploit end users.
Radical_3d
Member
Felessan
Member
Eula not supercede laws but in case when there are no laws it's a binding obligation. And law itself will look back into market practices, Eula included, to balance interests. You hope that legislation will be explicitly pro-gamer and anti-corporate is naive at best.
I am happy that for you it's a poor place
Because our values clearly different and the less you get, the more industry goes my way, providing me with more and better games.
Kadve
Member
Nope. Here in Sweden they are the equivalent of a pinky promise.
Felessan
Member
Good luck in court
Felessan
Member
Searched a bit - there is already a law in place that cover this topic and it's unlikely that stance will be changed
By customer protection law warranty period for software, games included, is 2 years from the date of sale at which period company should ensure that software is working (or provide replacement/refund as with any other warranty).
I seriously doubt that it will be changed for the greater benefit of customers.
By customer protection law warranty period for software, games included, is 2 years from the date of sale at which period company should ensure that software is working (or provide replacement/refund as with any other warranty).
I seriously doubt that it will be changed for the greater benefit of customers.
ToadMan
Member
There's a simple reason. The publisher doesn't want to sell it.
There will never be a law to force them to sell it.
If you get it by piracy, you are committing a crime. But of course committing a crime and being successfully prosecuted for that, are different issues.
And still, this is not games taken away from people who already purchased - or the unilateral revocation of a license to be more specific. That would be an entirely different argument.
Last edited:
mèx
Member
A couple of weeks ago it was at 500-600k. This is insane.
Content creators clowning on the idiot PirateSoftware really worked.
Peroroncino
Member
Looks like EU is also gonna be a pass, fantastic. It's at 966k!
It's still baffling to me that so many people will bitch on the internet for years about how we don't own our games etc. but then when an avenue to do something about it shows up, they're too fucking lazy to fill out a form that takes roughly 30 seconds (that's how long it took me to do it).
Pirateshite may be a clown, but he's been a very useful one.
It's still baffling to me that so many people will bitch on the internet for years about how we don't own our games etc. but then when an avenue to do something about it shows up, they're too fucking lazy to fill out a form that takes roughly 30 seconds (that's how long it took me to do it).
Pirateshite may be a clown, but he's been a very useful one.
Shockwave_Fox
Member
TheSHEEEP
Gold Member
Finland leading with 430% signatures. Hell, yeah.
Just to put that into perspective, it means almost 1% of the entire population signed this in Finland - might sound low to some, but that is wild for what most would consider a niche issue.
I even saw it on the news here - as in, normal ass non-gaming news.
But honestly, whatever happened the last two weeks clearly worked - I guess somehow the information finally reached enough people, including non-English speakers.
Great stuff.
Just to put that into perspective, it means almost 1% of the entire population signed this in Finland - might sound low to some, but that is wild for what most would consider a niche issue.
I even saw it on the news here - as in, normal ass non-gaming news.
But honestly, whatever happened the last two weeks clearly worked - I guess somehow the information finally reached enough people, including non-English speakers.
Great stuff.
Last edited:
GudOlRub
Member
It needs to go way over 1 million to actually pass.
You can count on a couple hundred thousand of those signatures being invalid.
There's even talk of people on Pirate's discord organizing to bot the initiative in order to inflate the numbers with invalid signatures.
I honestly don't understand why anyone who's not a big game publisher would complain about this. All it does is initiate the talks about the problem, the EU could end up even siding with the big corpos for all we know, all it does is tell them to "look into it pretty please".
Remember how the GDPR was going to kill the internet in europe and most sites would simply shutdown in the EU because they wouldn't have the resources to make such drastic changes? How did that turn out?
I understand some of the fears regarding indie development but I go back to the old saying "necessity is the mother of invention". Good alternatives will be created.
And regarding big publishers I literally couldn't care less, other than their bottom lines no one will be hurt, devs will even benefit from it since it'll be more work for them and probably also lead to more hirings. I doubt they'll be able to use AI as the main work horse in such an undertaking.
You can count on a couple hundred thousand of those signatures being invalid.
There's even talk of people on Pirate's discord organizing to bot the initiative in order to inflate the numbers with invalid signatures.
I honestly don't understand why anyone who's not a big game publisher would complain about this. All it does is initiate the talks about the problem, the EU could end up even siding with the big corpos for all we know, all it does is tell them to "look into it pretty please".
Remember how the GDPR was going to kill the internet in europe and most sites would simply shutdown in the EU because they wouldn't have the resources to make such drastic changes? How did that turn out?
I understand some of the fears regarding indie development but I go back to the old saying "necessity is the mother of invention". Good alternatives will be created.
And regarding big publishers I literally couldn't care less, other than their bottom lines no one will be hurt, devs will even benefit from it since it'll be more work for them and probably also lead to more hirings. I doubt they'll be able to use AI as the main work horse in such an undertaking.
mèx
Member
Yep, it needs at least 1.3M to be on the safe side. I wouldn't rule out sabotage from some crowds...
Let's hope the momentum keeps going.
Bojji
Member
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It's impressive how fast this caught up to the goal. Almost there. I hope this results in meaningful and consumer-positive change for our hobby.
tomato shrub
Member
If you argue against this, get a life. For real, this hobby might have the worst "fans" in it. Doesn't matter how unrealistic these goals are, at least people start to understand this problem. Enough of corporate bootlickers leading the narrative.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
Dont jinx it now
Guilty_AI
Member
Tbf, there is an argument to be made that potential government involvement could make things worse due to sheer bureocratic incompetence - like for example if they were to try to enforce any game being sold in the EU through some approval proccess.
But i find the chances of that happening pretty low as this isn't a theme thats overly politicized, and if anything on that level were to happen, it would most likely be due to completely different reasons other than this initiative (stuff like broken releases or games with extreme content).
Also, the one at the forefront of it has a good head on his shoulders and understands the industry, enough to point out to any politicians hearing on this theme what is and isn't overreach or viable.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
I think thats due to the sheer number of people accessing it. Just a while ago i entered, immediatly realoaded the page and the counter went up by 50.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
nowhat
Member
At 99% right now WRT the EU proposal. Will probably have to go a bit over, because there undoubtedly will be many fake signatures, but with about a month to go, it's given. So yay! Also, fuck Piratesoftware (who used to work for Blizzard for 7 years, in case you didn't already know - albeit, only in QA/cyber security positions, but who cares, he's a pro dev).
ResilientBanana
Member
Developers need to start coming up with their own capital rather than expecting large publishers to provide them with money. You can't complain about your company shutting down while also reaching in the pockets of a company with a board of directors.
Last edited:
Peroroncino
Member
nooooicee, just a little bit more - the EU site is literally down
simpatico
Member
What examples are there of this ever happening? I hear about The Crew.
All this will do is stop more online games from being made. "Got this really cool idea for a persistent world video game, but I since I'm not sure I can keep the servers running for literal perpetuity, I'm just not gonna make it"
Between this stuff and the hilarious Read or Not outrage, it seems gamers are trying to sink as low as the publishers and developers. If I'm missing a truly good example of games being rendered unplayable, please point it out so I can correct my opinion.
All this will do is stop more online games from being made. "Got this really cool idea for a persistent world video game, but I since I'm not sure I can keep the servers running for literal perpetuity, I'm just not gonna make it"
Between this stuff and the hilarious Read or Not outrage, it seems gamers are trying to sink as low as the publishers and developers. If I'm missing a truly good example of games being rendered unplayable, please point it out so I can correct my opinion.
Last edited:
GudOlRub
Member
Probably a mix of people trying to sign and people just watching the counter go up.
It's insane what a little bit of drama did to this campaign.
If I were an advocate for a similar cause I'd honestly be taking some notes after watching this.
Get someone influential who's willing to be a martyr, have them be the most despicable bastards on the planet trying to demolish said cause with the most absurd arguments possible, then just watch the fireworks as other big and influential people begin chiming in and riling up the people to fight for the cause.
It's insane what a little bit of drama did to this campaign.
If I were an advocate for a similar cause I'd honestly be taking some notes after watching this.
Get someone influential who's willing to be a martyr, have them be the most despicable bastards on the planet trying to demolish said cause with the most absurd arguments possible, then just watch the fireworks as other big and influential people begin chiming in and riling up the people to fight for the cause.
GudOlRub
Member
And where did you get that from?
Literally nobody other than PirateSoftware ever said that.
The point of this is not to make companies have servers running forever, the point is for them to give tools to players that would allow them to run servers of their own once official support for the game ends.
And no, this would not apply retroactively and completely change the paradigm with which current, existing games were made. It would only be applied to future games.
And online games would not stop being made, the EU is too big of a market for companies to simply abandon it, not even Apple did and they're one of the biggest companies on the planet.
Bert Big Balls
Gold Member
Jesus it's nearly at a million. Nice!
simpatico
Member
And if those tools need patched? There would have to be crystal clear language about what exactly is expected of the developer. Even then, no one is going to put risk putting their money there once the law gets involved. It's just going to make for less games.
Why do gamers always want to get the government involved instead of just not buying things they don't have confidence in?
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Last edited:
GudOlRub
Member
The law doesn't deal in absolutes and this is not a new concept, many older games function in this exact same way.
Once the tools stop working due to problems with modern operating systems and such? The community steps in and fixes it, no one ever demanded that companies fix 20 year old games that don't work on Windows 11 anymore. Hell many of those companies already ceased to exist altogether.
You're creating absurd scenarios when all this initiative is trying to do is to start a conversation that would help curtailing planned obsolescence in videogames.
simpatico
Member
Right, but we could just not buy those games instead of getting a lumbering bureaucracy involved. Lawyers would be salivating at the prospect of a law like this going on the books. I get the principal of it sure. I even agree with it. But we live in hell world. Gotta be realistic about what would actually happen. Online games aren't going to go extinct over night, but people will be a lot more gun shy about putting a ton of money into them. Especially smaller publishers. You're asking for never ending risk exposure. The poor lads at Zipper would still be patching MAG, despite only 9 people being online (5 of which are lawyer interns waiting for it to blip out).
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I don't think so man. Multiplayer games that were released in the 90s are still playable today, so all they have to do is design future games in a similar way. Don't depend so much on centralised servers that kill the game once they pull the plug, and instead let the players machines be the host of whatever services the game needs to run.
tomato shrub
Member
lol, three months after this post, almost every physical Switch 2 game from 3rd parties is a game-key-card.
Shit needs to stop.