Stop Killing Games Initiative Sucks(blog.skill-issue.dev)
blog.skill-issue.dev
Stop Killing Games Initiative Sucks
https://blog.skill-issue.dev/blog/stop_killing_games/
11 comments
The problem is the “reasonable means” requirement. Modern MMOs are huge: they almost certainly require more disk space, RAM, and clock cycles than a mere consumer-grade laptop has. Moreover, they’re designed to run on distributed servers, constantly, by professionals; they’re not just an `.exe` that you double click on your laptop.
A consumer-grade laptop can run an OSRS because it released over a decade ago. It can run a Minecraft server because Minecraft also released a decade ago, and was designed for servers to be run by players; even its single-player launches a local server. Running a server for e.g. No Man’s Sky is entirely different.
Publishers can certainly release their server binaries. I don’t see any issue with them being forced to make it possible for a dedicated group to keep the game running. But at minimum, “reasonable” has to be clarified to mean that publishers only have to put in reasonable effort to make the game playable. i.e. publishers can’t make it harder for players to run the server; but if the server is a mess of binaries that only runs on a million-dollar distributed cluster, it's not like that for a stupid reason, and the game company runs it like that, they can release it like that.
A consumer-grade laptop can run an OSRS because it released over a decade ago. It can run a Minecraft server because Minecraft also released a decade ago, and was designed for servers to be run by players; even its single-player launches a local server. Running a server for e.g. No Man’s Sky is entirely different.
Publishers can certainly release their server binaries. I don’t see any issue with them being forced to make it possible for a dedicated group to keep the game running. But at minimum, “reasonable” has to be clarified to mean that publishers only have to put in reasonable effort to make the game playable. i.e. publishers can’t make it harder for players to run the server; but if the server is a mess of binaries that only runs on a million-dollar distributed cluster, it's not like that for a stupid reason, and the game company runs it like that, they can release it like that.
If it "only runs on a million-dollar distributed cluster", they're probably wrong in that claim, and the community will be able to run it to support how they want to play. I agree that the developers should not be required to put in extra effort to be able to run on deployments other than their own, but I believe it would be reasonable to require the source code be distributed too. With the source code, the game will never die an artificial death.
Yeah, I don't get the infra cost at all. Especially with dwindling numbers. The cost of running servers for the remaining players is trivial. The staff cost will be higher, but that's self inflicted cost - ensure someone else can run the servers and you don't need to pay for anything.
> Under the proposed requirements, developers would be legally compelled to release server binaries or keep games in a functional, playable state indefinitely.
I'm not seeing any statement with regards to online gaming requirements in the text. If a server-environment is required in order to play a game, the OBJECTIVE (not "requirement" as none of this is legal text so far) could also be fulfilled by transferring the server-framework to a third party which will continue operating the game in this state.
In mid-term, this could create a market for a universal server-endpoint architecture, as developers will have to prepare for the eventual outcome of discontinuing the game and will look to simplify the process. It could lead to an industry-collaboration for a standardized server-framework to save costs for end-of-life compliance for gaming-studios, with code-evolution secured by code-contributions from them (in self-interest as they need to prepare for the hand-over of their games) and operation financed by the standardization body providing licensed access for players to the archive of games (by granting limited monetization).
It could also lead to a market of competing server-engine companies, which will license a server-platform and offer to take over the duties of keeping a game alive.
-
> Under the #StopKillingGames initiative, the studio would then be legally required to release the game’s server binaries. The attackers, having successfully driven the studio to this point [out of business] , can now take those binaries and create their own private server, monetizing the studio’s work for their own gain.
To quote the initiative itself:
I'm not seeing any statement with regards to online gaming requirements in the text. If a server-environment is required in order to play a game, the OBJECTIVE (not "requirement" as none of this is legal text so far) could also be fulfilled by transferring the server-framework to a third party which will continue operating the game in this state.
In mid-term, this could create a market for a universal server-endpoint architecture, as developers will have to prepare for the eventual outcome of discontinuing the game and will look to simplify the process. It could lead to an industry-collaboration for a standardized server-framework to save costs for end-of-life compliance for gaming-studios, with code-evolution secured by code-contributions from them (in self-interest as they need to prepare for the hand-over of their games) and operation financed by the standardization body providing licensed access for players to the archive of games (by granting limited monetization).
It could also lead to a market of competing server-engine companies, which will license a server-platform and offer to take over the duties of keeping a game alive.
-
> Under the #StopKillingGames initiative, the studio would then be legally required to release the game’s server binaries. The attackers, having successfully driven the studio to this point [out of business] , can now take those binaries and create their own private server, monetizing the studio’s work for their own gain.
To quote the initiative itself:
The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.
Many of these comments seem almost malicious in their take. It is an initiative not a law or referendum on one. The goal is for EU to take it in consideration and possibly start working in drafting suitable regulation to implement these goals.
And often it is forgotten that there is quite wide range of online dependencies. In some single player games there might be some features that use online. But most of the game would work well enough without these and be in essence "playable". For many games p2p matchmaking is well enough so simply little work for third-party interface would be cheap enough.
MMOs and heavily server based online experiences are a mess and probably not realistic, but for rest of the games. Only greed and maliciousness of developers and publishers kill them.
And often it is forgotten that there is quite wide range of online dependencies. In some single player games there might be some features that use online. But most of the game would work well enough without these and be in essence "playable". For many games p2p matchmaking is well enough so simply little work for third-party interface would be cheap enough.
MMOs and heavily server based online experiences are a mess and probably not realistic, but for rest of the games. Only greed and maliciousness of developers and publishers kill them.
One critique of the article is that the initiative explicitly doesn’t require publishers to give up IP or monetization rights. So if they release the server binary and a community tries to sell it to others, said community can be sued and the publisher takes their revenue.
Moreover, the publisher can release a server binary that still has advertisements and micro transactions, where revenue still goes to the company’s bank account. All logic to transfer the money can all be server, e.g. using Bitcoin, so the company doesn’t expend any resources (another thing the initiative explicitly doesn’t require). The publisher can release a server that is heavily DRMed and requires a copy of the game to start, then each connecting player needs a copy of the game (the server can even sell these copies). If the company wants to resume working on their game, the server can receive mandatory updates; it can even receive an update to permanently disable itself if the company restarts their own server.
Not to mention, the server binary is almost certainly obfuscated/encrypted, so extracting IP or disabling the DRM or microtransactions from the binary is difficult. It’s also illegal, just like putting copyrighted assets in your own paid game or disabling a “free trial” of a DRM-ed application is illegal. Remember, the company is not giving up their IP or monetization rights.
All the initiative states is that game must remain playable; companies must provide “reasonable means” for consumers to be able to keep playing the game. It doesn’t even address companies removing game features or requiring more payment to continue using them, just the game as a whole.
I acknowledge the other issues: that providing “reasonable means” to run a game like an MMO is actually very hard; that if the publishers must continue to provide not just the “game” but specific features, it severely hingers creativity (though the proposal doesn’t require that); and that it’s simply impossible to preserve an online game’s community, which is most of the fun, so these “preserved” games are probably going to die out anyways. Yes, the initiative may have a lot of serious issues. But stealing IP and monetization isn’t one of them.
Moreover, the publisher can release a server binary that still has advertisements and micro transactions, where revenue still goes to the company’s bank account. All logic to transfer the money can all be server, e.g. using Bitcoin, so the company doesn’t expend any resources (another thing the initiative explicitly doesn’t require). The publisher can release a server that is heavily DRMed and requires a copy of the game to start, then each connecting player needs a copy of the game (the server can even sell these copies). If the company wants to resume working on their game, the server can receive mandatory updates; it can even receive an update to permanently disable itself if the company restarts their own server.
Not to mention, the server binary is almost certainly obfuscated/encrypted, so extracting IP or disabling the DRM or microtransactions from the binary is difficult. It’s also illegal, just like putting copyrighted assets in your own paid game or disabling a “free trial” of a DRM-ed application is illegal. Remember, the company is not giving up their IP or monetization rights.
All the initiative states is that game must remain playable; companies must provide “reasonable means” for consumers to be able to keep playing the game. It doesn’t even address companies removing game features or requiring more payment to continue using them, just the game as a whole.
I acknowledge the other issues: that providing “reasonable means” to run a game like an MMO is actually very hard; that if the publishers must continue to provide not just the “game” but specific features, it severely hingers creativity (though the proposal doesn’t require that); and that it’s simply impossible to preserve an online game’s community, which is most of the fun, so these “preserved” games are probably going to die out anyways. Yes, the initiative may have a lot of serious issues. But stealing IP and monetization isn’t one of them.
Quite similar to when MS made their ebooks "stop working" because they shut off the validation servers. It's not that reading is a massive multiplayer thing either, only that the "book" needed to talk to a server before you are allowed to read it.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/account-billing/books-in...
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/account-billing/books-in...
Consumer protection = Mandating publishers to tell which parts of the game are affected by service EOL and which aren't. The Crew was marketed as an MMO but it wouldn't have hurt if they made it explicitly clear that the whole game is unplayable after the servers are shut down.
Consumer dictatorship = Mandating publishers to handle their EOL procedure in a certain way.
There are untold amount of different ways to build a game. From individuals to gigantic teams. Some development studios don't have a lot of networking expertise but still add multiplayer to their games by using third-party tools that do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Even kids are making networked games in Roblox. Some servers include simulation of the game world and having to release that to the open would make it easier to reverse-engineer the inner workings. A lot of old clients become a security liability over time as exploits are found. What about regularly updated games, that might have 200 different versions of itself over time? When is a game "dead"?
And even when server binaries are provided, it doesn't mean server operators necessarily play nice. Notch allowed third-party Minecraft servers to be monetized under certain, somewhat vague terms. Server operators went against the rules anyway and Mojang started to get angry calls from parents demanding reimbursement because their kids had gone on a shopping spree on a private server. Mojang clarifies the monetization rules and starts enforcing them. Server operators cry foul and start a smearing campaign on how Notch is killing Minecraft modding. Notch has had enough and sells Mojang to Microsoft.
I think from cultural preservation perspective this is an overreach. Or do we start demanding every "content creator" has to now figure out how to back up their streams in lossless format at original resolution on tape storage on their dime for the sake of cultural preservation? We would likely get a lot less "content creator content" on the internet after such a requirement. Just like we'd get less multiplayer games if something like this were to pass.
Consumer dictatorship = Mandating publishers to handle their EOL procedure in a certain way.
There are untold amount of different ways to build a game. From individuals to gigantic teams. Some development studios don't have a lot of networking expertise but still add multiplayer to their games by using third-party tools that do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Even kids are making networked games in Roblox. Some servers include simulation of the game world and having to release that to the open would make it easier to reverse-engineer the inner workings. A lot of old clients become a security liability over time as exploits are found. What about regularly updated games, that might have 200 different versions of itself over time? When is a game "dead"?
And even when server binaries are provided, it doesn't mean server operators necessarily play nice. Notch allowed third-party Minecraft servers to be monetized under certain, somewhat vague terms. Server operators went against the rules anyway and Mojang started to get angry calls from parents demanding reimbursement because their kids had gone on a shopping spree on a private server. Mojang clarifies the monetization rules and starts enforcing them. Server operators cry foul and start a smearing campaign on how Notch is killing Minecraft modding. Notch has had enough and sells Mojang to Microsoft.
I think from cultural preservation perspective this is an overreach. Or do we start demanding every "content creator" has to now figure out how to back up their streams in lossless format at original resolution on tape storage on their dime for the sake of cultural preservation? We would likely get a lot less "content creator content" on the internet after such a requirement. Just like we'd get less multiplayer games if something like this were to pass.
IMO This initiative is fundamentally not about preserving gaming history or anything so noble or academic; it is born from a temper tantrum and the twisting of French consumer law to serve the interests of a vocal minority at the expense of everyone else. The `#StopKillingGames` initiative claims to advocate for consumer protection and game preservation, but its underlying motivations appear to be rooted in dissatisfaction with the natural lifecycle of live service games and a desire to exert control over creative and business practices in the gaming industry.
> twisting of French consumer law
That's for the EU to decide.
> interests of a vocal minority at the expense of everyone else
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. You're commenting on a registered initiative which needs 1M signatures with minimums in a number of countries to be considered. The process itself is there to limit the idea of a vocal minority. Either it's true and we can disregard the initiative, or it will reach 1M proving it's not just a vocal minority.
> with the natural lifecycle of live service games
It covers games which don't need to be "live" just as well. That will cover singleplayer titles with online check requirements.
Also, what is the "natural lifecycle" for games? The bullshit business ideas created by companies mostly in the last 10 years? What part of that is "natural"?
That's for the EU to decide.
> interests of a vocal minority at the expense of everyone else
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. You're commenting on a registered initiative which needs 1M signatures with minimums in a number of countries to be considered. The process itself is there to limit the idea of a vocal minority. Either it's true and we can disregard the initiative, or it will reach 1M proving it's not just a vocal minority.
> with the natural lifecycle of live service games
It covers games which don't need to be "live" just as well. That will cover singleplayer titles with online check requirements.
Also, what is the "natural lifecycle" for games? The bullshit business ideas created by companies mostly in the last 10 years? What part of that is "natural"?
> Maintaining servers and infrastructure for games with dwindling player bases is economically unsustainable. Forcing developers to release server binaries or carve off single-player experiences would not only be a massive undertaking but could also leave them vulnerable to abuse and unauthorized monetization of their intellectual property.
If they have the infrastructure to distribute the game client, they have the infrastructure to distribute the game server. Saying it's a "massive undertaking" is a plain lie.
> Furthermore, the initiative’s FAQ fails to provide a realistic solution for large-scale MMORPGs. Running these games requires significant resources and expertise that cannot be easily handed over to players when servers are shut down.
Runescape private servers exist. World of Warcraft private servers exist. Heck, there are some Minecraft servers that can be considered MMOs. The author is juat grasping at straws to justify maintaining power over the people who play(ed) their games.