Hacker News Reader

Comment by chickenzzzzu | Hacker News Reader

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea.

All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client.

Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turned off is a legitimate business strategy, and not even just for games. And no, "just release your source code then" is not a valid rule to enforce either.

If you like video games so much but don't like the terms of serivce and price, have you tried making your own? It has never been easier to do so, and there are freely usable code and art assets on hundreds of different platforms for you to attempt.

View on HN

>is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client.

opposed to absolutely nothing? yeah i think we can do with "mediocre"

>video games that are eventually turned off is a legitimate business strategy

if they aren't misleading customers about it sure. make the game a subscription and you can shut it down whenever you want :)

>And no, "just release your source code then" is not a valid rule to enforce either.

nobody said that. the petition explicitly leaves out the "how" because it could possibly run against existing copyright laws.

>have you tried making your own?

ad hominem and irrelevant to the topic. i don't need to have every build a roof to be against building it with asbestos.

Re subscription marketing messaging, totally agree.

Re mediocre, ok that's fine.

Re the "how", then we arent really talking about anything here. Until there is a how, there is nothing to firmly agree or disagree with, so we have to talk in hypotheticals, which we are, and which is semi valuable.

Re making your own, when a company sells you a toilet and it breaks, you fix it yourself or buy a new one. When your 1999 game doesnt run on Windows 11, you fix it yourself or you buy a new one. If you require companies to fix it for you, the small ones will go bankrupt and the big ones will find a loophole.

>the small ones will go bankrupt and the big ones will find a loophole.

you mean the loop hole that was industry standard before 2000 and a handful of dudes in basements solved?

Sorry I am not sure what you mean, but I would actually really like to know what you are referencing

private server where the default in the past. that's why games that are 30 years old like quake, doom and unreal tournament (all created by dev teams the size of about a dozen with as much funding as current indie games) can still be played to this day and as long as software allows it forever with 0 effort or cost by the developers.

I completely and thoroughly agree with this suggestion. It shouldn't be a requirement, however. You should reward companies who do this with your money, and it should be clearly labeled that you will or will not be receiving this.

> If you like video games so much but don't like the terms of serivce and price, have you tried making your own?

This is such and odd thing to suggest. People want to play the games they paid for, _obviously_ they aren't going to make their own game.

What you have paid for is not a physical copy of something that is guaranteed to work forever.

All you will achieve with this initiative is that that will be clearly labeled now, instead of implied.

If that's all that will happen, why do you have a problem with it?

If that was the end of the road, then I definitely don't have a problem with it. Like another poster said, it would be like labeling for cigarettes, and that is totally fine.

What I do fear however, is that they will go a step further, requiring companies to release server builds, client and server sourde code, and then of course the ultimate dream, "well no you actually can't turn it off, we require you to maintain it forever even if it loses you money because gaming is a right".

>requiring companies to release server builds, client and server sourde code

you did not read the initiative. they do not mention any of that and explicitly state that this won't be required (even if they wanted because of copyright laws).

Politics is a forward looking industry. As you can see with Trump, he went from talking about deporting so called illegal immigrants to deporting naturalized citizens.

Do not be surprised when they go from something harmless to something punitive that forces small companies out of business.

punitive won't be "break there own laws to enforce others" but nice fear mongering. copyright infringement might as well be above murder in terms of politician interest don't worry.

>What you have paid for is not a physical copy of something that is guaranteed to work forever.

untested legal ground in the EU

>All you will achieve with this initiative is that that will be clearly labeled now, instead of implied.

maybe or maybe not. creator of the infinitive has already acknowledged that its possible but still preferable to a surprise rug pull grey area.

Your games are mediocre now.

It's better to have a mediocre game that one can play, than an exceptional game that one can't.

You're free to make games now, and yet it's most often hard to justify money for a game that isn't a skin on a version of solitaire (on sale).

That's how bad your industry is. So, please, with your warning. As if you have work product to bargain with.

You act as if your industry is busy. Outside of a couple of exceptional studios, and infinite sequels on literally only a few popular formulas (whether or not these formulas are good is another discussion), your industry is largely non-productive. If we are utilizing your metric of good vs mediocre.

I agree with you that there is a mountain of shit in the gaming industry.

Is any other industry different? Are Instagram and Tiktok literally not brainwashing hundreds of millions of people? Do defense companies care that innocents are murdered with their weapons? Do airplane companies face any enforceable moral judgment that they encourage relatively rich people to engage in idle leisure in other countries rather than being productive with their time for society, to which they owe some level of production in exchange for the society that raised them?

The argument knows no bounds. It is a matter of taste.

Points for the most insane answer possible, no offense. No idea what you are talking about.

Given that you work for the video game industry, perhaps your comment is in a sense perfect.

The last part of it is just me going off the rails, but do you really think only the game industry is bad?

Good luck with that really weird approach.

> If you like video games so much but don't like the terms of serivce and price, have you tried making your own?

No need to go that far, there's plenty of games sold with better terms of service than the ones your company offers.

Forcing companies to be upfront about this aspect will help concerned consumers choose these instead of yours.

And which company is that?

e.g. Factorio. e.g. Hades.

Both games available offline and DRM-free.

How do they handle piracy, unless they don't? In which case, very good for them that they have such a great group of supporters. I am not sure if we should require every company to behave in such a way, and simply let consumers reward such companies with their money? This is just a fundamental economic model argument that I apply to any industry, except maybe baby formula or something.

> How do they handle piracy, unless they don't?

So your point is that you need to fuck your paying customers in order to mildly annoy people who don't buy your games?

Besides, the proposal doesn't even require you not to have anti-piracy servers; it only requires you to avoid bricking the game once you turn of the servers.

> simply let consumers reward such companies with their money?

For that you would need to be upfront about it.

It is about truthful advertising. If you are selling a video game, you aren't allowed to yank access to that game away from users.

If you wanna do a subscription or a rental, you have to call it that.

I don't see why forcing companies to stop lying is a bad idea.

ah, yes, for example quake3 an extremely mediocre game that has server executable along with the client? what is this argument even about?

Ok, so your idea is that we will require all companies to release server and client builds, and also the source code as well (?), at some clearly defined point in the future, if they decide to terminate the live service?

Will we also require the same of the smart fridge companies? Will we also require the same of companies that don't sell live services, such as toilets?

If I buy a smart fridge and the company that made them suddenly decided to turn them all off, then I'd definitely like the ability to turn mine back on, yes.

And no, there's no expectation of source code. That's been covered many times.

How can we ensure that if we legislate the games industry, then we also legislate all other industries with no special carve outs? That would make me much more supportive.

So your argument is that you won't support Stop Killing Games, but you'll support Stop Killing Things In General?

That's a strange stance. Even if that was your position SKG has a good opportunity to act as a stepping stone towards something grander.

Yes that's right. My opinion is that I am against legislating anything until we legislate everything.

Put yourself in the shoes of an employee or owner of some business. Would you enjoy being forced to follow certain rules of actual consequence, while others are allowed to do whatever they want?

Games and non-games don't compete, so no problem here.

We'll do so, one at a time.

good idea! we need to give rights to the consumers!

I'm all for it if no industry receives a special carve out!

I think there’s a mid ground where industry does nothing except slap a sticker on warning people that game features will sunset in the future, making parts of the game unplayable, perhaps making some commitment like no sooner than December 31, 2030.

It will essentially be the similar thing as the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes or the Parental Guidance logo on an album. The are US things, not sure if EU has similar.

This is already one of the proposed solutions. Although you would have to state a specific date as not to mislead consumers. I would then have to decide if paying 80$ for a game I won't be able to play in the next 5 years is worth it.

Completely and thoroughly agree. That is a very reasonable outcome.

> server authoritative video games that are eventually turned off is a legitimate business strategy

It is a legitimate business strategy... for now.

It seems you didn't read the initiative text. The initiative does not force game Devs to release the code or make specific technical demands.

Game Devs only have to make a plan for when the game gets shut down to still allow the users to be able to play the game. How that is archived can be decided by the developers. Of course the law could be different in the future.

But most people do agree that it is bad to intentionally break games that people payed money for. All they are basically are asking for, is that games are built in a way that they can be enjoyed as long as possible (maybe supported by the community). Is that not also in the intention of the game developers?

It might be the intention of some game developers. I can tell you however that the intention of the people who run my company is to make as much money as possible.

My opinion is that you, as a consumer, should reward the companies who treat you best with your money. You should not require the government to do it for you, because if you do, the thing you end up with might not be the thing you receive, sadly.

And yes, this logic holds for most industries, but not all. I for one think there should be stringent rules for food processing, since that can actually kill you, and yet still putrid beef and tainted baby formula are sold on a relatively frequent basis.

Yup, consumers should predict future. Classic liberal logic. Vote with your wallet tactics has it's limitations.

> Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition ... server authoritative video games that are eventually turned off is a legitimate business strategy

The only people you're effecting are legitimate players. Pirates crack the games and have an easier time for it. Unless you're talking about multiplayer games, which wasn't the target of the proposal (though even there I'd argue it's definitely doable).

> I work for a game company

You work for a shit game company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com