The signatures are still coming and it's already making an impact
-
Let's be real, open sourcing it isn't "hardly any work". All the code has to be reviewed to make sure they can legally release it, no third-party proprietary stuff.
It will be hardly any work once a law passes, because they'll make sure it is. Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn't just get merged in "by accident" unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Besides, no one is saying they have to open source it. To be honest, the outcome from this petition that I would most like to see is simply a blanket indemnity to the community attempting to revive, continue and improve the software from that point forward. If the law says that it's legal once a software is shut down, for the community to figure out a way to make it work again and make it their own, and puts no further responsibilities on the "rights holder" at all, I think that honestly solves the problem in 99% of cases. It would be nice if they gave the community a hand, released what they could, and tried not to be shit about it, (and I know some of them will be shit about it, but we're pretty resourceful), as long as they're not trying to sue every attempt into oblivion I think we'll make a lot of progress on game preservation and make the gaming world a much better place.
-
The original article completely misrepresents the initiative:
We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.
Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
...
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:
- provide alternatives to any online-only content
- make the game P2P if it requires multiplayer (no server needed, each client is a server)
- gracefully degrading the client experience when there's no server
Of course, releasing server code is an option.
The expectation is:
- if it's a subscription game, I get access for whatever period I pay for
- if it's F2P, go nuts and break it whenever you want; there is the issue of I shame purchases, so that depends on how it's advertised
- if it's a purchased game, it should still work after support ends
That didn't restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they're expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they're done).
I argue Stop Killing Games doesn't go far enough, and if it's pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.
And "would leave rights holders liable" is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did
-
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?
EvE Online doesn't use root access anticheat software. I know it doesn't because it runs on Linux just fine. That particular player base is the worst hive of scum and villainy that you'll find outside of government. Clearly the anticheat software isn't as essential as game studios would have you believe. The only major cheating I'm aware of in EvE was the BoB scandal, and that involved Devs cheating because they were Devs.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Good. Your choices are bad
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fuck developer choice! What about my choice as a consumer?
-
This post did not contain any content.
If it means developers won’t make “live-service”/trash games anymore, we should hasten the SKG movement.
-
Lol. We're gamers. We know that if we encounter enemies we're going in the right direction.
Still trying to find the right direction on animal crossing.
-
Oh but with the new rules they could do that before making their code work that way. The idea is not for the new laws to apply retroactively but for new games.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
The original article completely misrepresents the initiative:
We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.
Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
...
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:
- provide alternatives to any online-only content
- make the game P2P if it requires multiplayer (no server needed, each client is a server)
- gracefully degrading the client experience when there's no server
Of course, releasing server code is an option.
The expectation is:
- if it's a subscription game, I get access for whatever period I pay for
- if it's F2P, go nuts and break it whenever you want; there is the issue of I shame purchases, so that depends on how it's advertised
- if it's a purchased game, it should still work after support ends
That didn't restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they're expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they're done).
I argue Stop Killing Games doesn't go far enough, and if it's pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers
I don't think this is what they mean. They say that of they provide the tools for users to deploy the servers, bad things can happen. So I think they understood SKG, they just lie about the consequences for gamers
-
And "would leave rights holders liable" is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did
The argument there is if a game is left online with no studio to care for it then they believe they would be liable for community content.
I don't think it applies to offline games at all.
-
This post did not contain any content.
they say "developer choice" because they know those words have positive connotations but what they mean is "publisher greed"
-
Why would coding something with less restrictions take more time and money?
It doesn't, that's why companies rarely open-source their code. If you want to publish it you have to make sure you have all the rights to do so, you have to code in a way that's readable for outside users, you have to make sure people can reproduce your build process, and ideally you provide support.
On the other hand, if you're not developing the source for publication, you can leave undocumented dirty hacks, only have to make sure it builds on your machine, and include third-party proprietary code wherever you want. That's faster and cheaper, so naturally companies will prefer it.
-
It will be hardly any work once a law passes, because they'll make sure it is. Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn't just get merged in "by accident" unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Besides, no one is saying they have to open source it. To be honest, the outcome from this petition that I would most like to see is simply a blanket indemnity to the community attempting to revive, continue and improve the software from that point forward. If the law says that it's legal once a software is shut down, for the community to figure out a way to make it work again and make it their own, and puts no further responsibilities on the "rights holder" at all, I think that honestly solves the problem in 99% of cases. It would be nice if they gave the community a hand, released what they could, and tried not to be shit about it, (and I know some of them will be shit about it, but we're pretty resourceful), as long as they're not trying to sue every attempt into oblivion I think we'll make a lot of progress on game preservation and make the gaming world a much better place.
Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).
Heh. You are still overestimating the average developer. Random code gets copy-pasted into files without attribution all the time. One guy might know, but if he gets moved to a different team, the new guy has no idea. That can be a ticking legal time-bomb.
-
Maybe they should have made sure their code was fully legal to use before releasing the game initially
What? There's a big difference between "legal to sell as a compiled binary" and "legal to release as source".
-
The argument there is if a game is left online with no studio to care for it then they believe they would be liable for community content.
I don't think it applies to offline games at all.
wrote last edited by [email protected]If server code is released such that people can run private servers after the official servers are shut down, then legally the people running the servers should be the ones liable for illegal activity that happens on them.
I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them. Maybe a subscription service that provides access to servers for several different online service games.
Of course, it would be more likely that it would be just a player who hosts a server for themselves and their friends and doesn't attempt to be profitable. That would be fine too.
-
Why would coding something with less restrictions take more time and money?
Because you can buy other people's code for cheaper than developing it yourself, as long as you use it within the restrictions of the license you paid for.
-
And "would leave rights holders liable" is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did
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
-
What? There's a big difference between "legal to sell as a compiled binary" and "legal to release as source".
Just saying, if my highschool programming classes are any indicator, there's a ton of released binaries out there that use copywritten and otherwise plaigarized code
-
Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers
I don't think this is what they mean. They say that of they provide the tools for users to deploy the servers, bad things can happen. So I think they understood SKG, they just lie about the consequences for gamers
If that's their argument, then the counterargument is simple: preserve the game another way. If hosting servers is dangerous, put the server code into the client and allow multiplayer w/ P2P tech, as had been done since the 90s (e.g. StarCraft).
What they seem to be doing is reframing the problem as requiring users to host servers, and arguing the various legal issues related to that. SKG just needs to clarify that there are multiple options here, and since devs know about the law at the start (SKG isn't retroactive), studios can plan ahead.
It's just a disingenuous argument trying to reframe the problem into cyber security and IP contexts, while neither has been an issue for other games in the past.
-
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
They retain copyright based on existing law, and trademark is irrelevant since it's defended in courts, not EULAs.
