The signatures are still coming and it's already making an impact
-
I understood that from a IP and trademark stand point. It could be hard to retain your copyright or trademark if you are no longer controlling a product
No, copyright isn't relinquished from any of that (not even any effect on damages if you still require players to have bought the game to use the private servers), and trademarks wouldn't be affected at all if you simply require that 3rd party servers are marked as unofficial
-
Why are publishers speaking for devs about how much choice devs would have? Why not get devs to speak?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Because sometimes publishers like to be the ones cuetailing dev choices
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the
childrendevs!?"The last refuge of a dying argument
-
Much like every form of security measure, the intention is not to completely eliminate the possibility of an attack (which is impossible in most cases). Instead, the intention is to increase the amount of effort that's required to make an attack.
What you're referring to is deterrence, and it doesn't apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn't ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.
And the efficacy being so bad is the reason why client-side anti-cheat keeps getting more and more invasive to the point of being literally, by definition, a type of malware and system rootkit. And yet it's still not enough to defeat cheaters, because the cheaters have full access to the system itself.
And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.
-
Curtailing developer choice is rather the point, no?
Yeah just the choices that fucks over paying customers. They are saying they would like to keep doing that and this laws would curtail that.
Will someone think of the poor shareholders? /s
-
"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the
childrendevs!?"The last refuge of a dying argument
The devs would probably prefer if their work for several years wasn't thrown in the trash. It's the publishers and suits killing games.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
This initiative sure would make things more complicated for the game publishers, yes.
Because they're currently not doing the bare minimum.
If they weren't so accustomed to not doing the bare minimum, maybe they would have different opinions! Just saying.
Edit: Just signed the petition. Didn't think this was necessary before because, as soon as I heard of it, Finland was already top of the list percentage wise. But I did sign it, just for the hell yeah of it.
-
Why are publishers speaking for devs about how much choice devs would have? Why not get devs to speak?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Because most devs are just codemonkeys implementing what they're told to. This is pure manipulative propaganda from the suits who are already robbing wages from good devs.
-
This initiative sure would make things more complicated for the game publishers, yes.
Because they're currently not doing the bare minimum.
If they weren't so accustomed to not doing the bare minimum, maybe they would have different opinions! Just saying.
Edit: Just signed the petition. Didn't think this was necessary before because, as soon as I heard of it, Finland was already top of the list percentage wise. But I did sign it, just for the hell yeah of it.
It's not just for the hell of it!
Invalid votes will be removed when it's time for the final tally, so the initiative needs a solid buffer to still he over a million after.
There's been a talk of some people using bots to inflate the numbers in a misguided attempt to help the initiative, so every vote is still very welcome.
Also, I kinda want to see just how high Finland can go above the threshold.
Tell your friends!
-
I think your response is coming off as kinda "oh just do it different". But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things. (And still spend time and money evaluating things at the end, just to be sure nothing slipped through.) I'm in favor of this at least being looked at and honest conversations happening, (which will not happen without this.) But there will certainly be an adjustment period where people on ground level learn and develop new "best practices". And invariably someone will screw up. The companies are obviously only worried about money. They'll get over it, is my opinion. But I think it's worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it's worth the pain/money. And that's open sourcing or just creating a new mode for offline play in everything.
But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things.
Companies do that all the time in response to government regulation. You like seat belts and backup cameras in your car? No sawdust in your food? Transparent pricing when buying internet access? Government regulation. None of those companies went out of business.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Whenever a large games company talks about "developer choice" you know they're referring to one of a few things:
- Think of the shareholders!
- Think of the rich CEO who adds zero value to the company!
- The people don't know what they want and therefore we need to tell them exactly what they want and need!
-
That's easy have some self control and only buy games that respect you
I don't know how you could do that without staying exclusively on open source
I'm old enough that the games I'm nostalgic for are on floppy discs on my shelf, but now the games I play are downloaded and rely on whatever company keeping a server up to authenticate me
Who knows what Microsoft will do with Minecraft in 30 years
Who knows what Steam will do with the licences it's sold me
-
I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them
That kind of already exists, you can buy hosting for Minecraft and other games. AFAIK, moderation isn't a part of it, but many private groups exist that run public servers and manage their own moderation. It exists already, and that should absolutely be brought up as a bill is being considered.
Minecraft has private servers (at least on Minecraft java) as well as their own server platform "Realms", also every client is also a server. Though the authentication system is a Microsoft account so that's likely to still be online well into the future
-
Or buying a physical book where they printed it with ink that fades after 2 years so it is no longer readable.
Fun fact a company did this with DVDs back in the day, once you broke the seal on it the air would react with a coating on the disk which would become increasingly dark until it became unreadable.
-
Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games. No one wants to play a game against cheaters since they typically have an unfair advantage. If you can't combat cheating then you might as well not make the game since no one will want to play it. Fine by me since I don't care for such games but I could imagine people who like playing them might prefer to play against as few cheaters as possible. What are the alternatives?
So just don't let them join/kick them from your server?
-
Imo, that should be the primary role of the government
I think providing human rights to it's citizens is definitely more important, not sure if it is necessarily the primary one though.
-
This isn't paying to see a concert, play, or musical. This is buying a book for amazon's e-reader, and them not allowing you to read the book anymore when they put out the book's sequel.
But you are not buying a game, you are renting it.
I absolutely agree that companies shouldn't be able to say they're selling you a game. They should make it 100% clear that you are renting it.
I'm also onboard with requiring p2p/LAN functionality for multiplayer.
-
So just don't let them join/kick them from your server?
Before you can do that, you need to determine whether someone is cheating. This is the purpose of anti-cheat software.
-
What you're referring to is deterrence, and it doesn't apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn't ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.
And the efficacy being so bad is the reason why client-side anti-cheat keeps getting more and more invasive to the point of being literally, by definition, a type of malware and system rootkit. And yet it's still not enough to defeat cheaters, because the cheaters have full access to the system itself.
And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.
What you're referring to is deterrence, and it doesn't apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn't ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.
Why are you comparing theft to game hacking out of nowhere? Did you accidentally reply to the wrong person?
And the efficacy being so bad...
Source?
full access to the system itself.
What do you mean by system in "full access to the system"? Too vague to even say anything about.
And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.
The potential guys that can write the cheat software and how quickly it can be developed is the part that matters. Much like when it's easy to use an exploit once it's already discovered. Someone still has to discover the exploit.
-
I'm speaking from ignorance but isn't the server backend often licensed and they couldn't release it if they wanted, even as binaries? Granted, going forward they'd have to make those considerations before they accept restrictive licenses in core parts of their game. And the market for those licenses will change accordingly. So there core of your argument is correct.
Maybe so, but that's a decision they make. Surely I as customer shouldn't be taken away what i paid for because of that? And if so they should have mentioned clearly upon sale that they would take away my product after 3-4 years (though maybe that's the case in those dense ToS?) . Everything else should be considered illegal and fraudulent if they planned/knew it from the start. Which is the case if it's a licensing issue
Besides, I'm pretty sure after those 4 years the code is outdated and they could renegotiate the license to be more open to release a binary.
