this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
542 points (98.4% liked)

Gaming

2493 readers
294 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A European initiative is now underway for videogame preservation and consumer protections against publishers "killing games."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] maniel@sopuli.xyz 75 points 3 months ago (4 children)

well, while i understand sunsetting old online multiplayer games because hosting game servers is a non zero cost, i can't understand the need for singleplayer games to be always connected and rendering them unplayable

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 65 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The company wouldn't be required to keep their servers online, just to allow other people to host their own. So it has 0 ongoing cost and maybe few hours of coding during game development.

[–] FPSkra@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Unless you are a game developer I would hold off on assuming how much work would be required to do what this proposal asks.

[–] calamitycastle@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Used to be the norm back in the day though. I'm saying 15 years or so before the old internet disappeared with AWS etc.

Self hosted should be an option and I think this is a reasonable requirement tbqh. Yeah it's not 0 work but it's not a hardship either, really, given the many hours that are going to be needed on netcode anyway. Especially if you know this going in to development.

[–] FPSkra@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That isn't an unreasonable take. But the language this proposal uses is far too vague and leaves too much in the hands of the government, and could be used by the EU, an organization not really known for their tech savvy, to place some burdensome requirements on developers....especially indie developers who do not have the resources that big studios have.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Indie developers are the only ones doing that, Knockout City devs released their hosting software for the community, it's the AAA developers that wanted to maintain control.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago

if they can code their own server software already, it wouldnt be a problem to release it.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

There's actually nothing wrong with no longer supporting a game you developed. The problem is these scummy bastards make sure no one can support the game or run it privately after they abandon it.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I can't understand the "need" for the server to be hosted by the company. Our computers are just as good.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Looking at you hitman...

[–] leave_it_blank@lemmy.world 61 points 3 months ago (8 children)

If you are a European Citizen, sign it. It takes a minute of your time. Not more.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] anakin78z@lemmy.world 41 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I could see this leading to standardizing and outsourcing multiplayer services, which would be interesting.

That being said, before that happens, as a developer I'd be like: here's a zip file with all of our proprietary stuff ripped out. Have fun spending the next few months getting it to work well. Congratulations, you're now supporting a game that did poorly enough for us to drop it.

But seriously, go sign it. Long term it should be a good thing.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Have fun spending the next few months getting it to work well.

judging by some fan mods out there, i think many people would genuinely have a blast doing this (and do a much better job than the original developers)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Sweats in GameSpy

Honestly, it would probably lead to the major distributors also having control over that... So I guess one more yacht for Gaben?

Kinda funny that people on this platform consider that centralization of the service would be a good thing.

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

On one hand, I'd love to see drop in replacements for steam services, especially something that could be selfhosted. On the other hand, if steam services ever goes down, there are metric megatons of reasons to reverse engineer a solution. The centralisation could end up being standardisation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

The proposal is precisely about not letting your snake ass do that, since it would be no different than spinning a private server, customers shouldn't have to learn how to analyse network packages and break DRM just to play a game they paid for because you turned off your server.

Either sell it as a subscription or sell it as packaged product, not both.

[–] rozPierog@lemdro.id 4 points 3 months ago

I'm old enough to remember when dedicated servers were the norm.

Oh sweet times before the matchmaking

[–] TheSealStartedIt@feddit.org 20 points 3 months ago

Just signed it. Took 10 seconds with my ID-Card.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 months ago (3 children)

While this would be great for those "online needed to play" games, wouldn't this also lead to companies preferring subscription models?

I'd assume it's easier to not include multiplayer in the "base" game and just charge a monthly subscription for the online part. Now the proposed law wouldn't apply, since the customer only paid for the base game.

It's pretty obvious what the intention of the writers of the proposal is, but I feel like it could have an opposite effect and push even more to the "games as a service" model those greedy publishers so desperately want.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Still better than the shit we have where Ubisoft just stole my game, The Crew.

That's part of the intention, either make a service or sell a game, companies are getting it both ways without the responsibility of neither.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

The problem is that a lot of companies are already launching dead-on-arrival live service games, so unless they're willing to make something unique, all they will do is saturate the market further and keep burning money. I don't think this law would change those incentives much if at all.

[–] nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago

The reality is GaaS is exteremely hard to success. Every one success GaaS, there are probably 20 or 50 failed one that we even never heard.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is limited to EU members, yes? Not anyone in Europe?

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I assume so. I signed it earlier. You can either fill out a form or use your ID to verify your identity online.

If your country shows up in the list, then it should work. https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

Its currently at 121.000 out of 1.000.000 and it has only been live for 3 days.

This is the link to the general overview of the petition. https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en#

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah sadly my country isn't listed - but I'll cheer you all on from afar!

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago

Anyone can sign, even from outside of EU, but the votes needed for petition to go through will only count from EU members.

load more comments
view more: next ›