They cant run servers forever. Which is why they should release the server code when they decide to shut down.
Yeah that would be awesome but it’s easier said than done (to no surprise, I’m sure).
One of the big issues I see from a developer standpoint is the potential for leaking proprietary code that they may not want to publicize like things related to authorization, server side anti cheat implementations, etc.
Why would they care? The product is done right? Well every project is not written from scratch and so to publish this stuff it could incur risk to the org’s other current/future projects in addition to helping outside sources get a leg up on said other current/future projects.
This could be dealt with potentially as well but that means extra dev resources and time and potentially inter-org collaboration to develop common OS standards but again that’s work that does not generate $$$
I’m not defending these assholes mind you, I just understand the blockers in the way. The greedy fucks could indeed do this but they never will because of said $$$
common OS standards
By OS, did you perhaps mean open or open-source?
Because it seems most people understood it as operating system.
One of the big issues I see from a developer standpoint is the potential for leaking proprietary code
It is no longer proprietary then.
that they may not want to publicize like things related to authorization,
If it has any impact, then it means they were insecure all along. Or in other words, they had CWE-656 vulnreability.
server side anti cheat implementations, etc.
There are lots of effective opensource anticheats. Server-side, obviously. See minecraft anticheats.
and potentially inter-org collaboration to develop common OS standards
So, POSIX?
it could incur risk to the org’s other current/future projects in addition to helping outside sources get a leg up on said other current/future projects.
It’s called anti-social behaviour. “Why help someone else?”
Oh, well, if it’s not proprietary anymore, no problem!!! Did you not read the context regarding the impact to other existing and in-progress projects?
Also I like how you threw out POSIX as if that somehow makes this concept not only feasible but also fits into profit margins to be able to secure the additional funding. Who will sign up to contribute time and resources and stick to those same standard long term? EA? Ubisoft? I didn’t say it couldn’t be done I said it’s not something corporate would ever go for.
Go ahead and tell those big corpos to stop being anti social, I’m sure that’ll secure the funding and commitments necessary industry-wide
Go ahead and tell those big corpos to stop being anti social, I’m sure that’ll secure the funding and commitments necessary industry-wide
We are literally trying to pass a law to force them.
as if that somehow makes this concept not only feasible but also fits into profit margins to be able to secure the additional funding.
> mentions AWS> says POSIX is not feasable
Are you imagining them renting AWS and running windows?
Go ahead and tell those big corpos to stop being anti social, I’m sure that’ll secure the funding and commitments necessary industry-wide
That’s what we are doing. Even your argument is about success.
Let me guess, you are from USA. That’s how we have healthcare and labour laws.
EDIT: where did mention of AWS go? Was it in another thread? I can’t find it.
EDIT 2: found https://lemm.ee/comment/16849765
Here is a completely noncontributory comment.
I stumbled across a copy of a physical book from the author of the comic this is from. I wondered to myself if this meme is in it.
It is.
THE PROPHECY HAS BEEN FULFILLED!
THE CHOSEN ONE IS AMONG US
“They can’t run servers forever!” Open source the server then Let people who want to play it run it themselves then
EDIT: typo
I remember being able to run a private World of Warcraft server on my computer back in like, 2009. Surely if WoW can be reverse-engineered, so can many other titles.
But yes, it would obviously be better if they’d just open-source it.
Surely if WoW can be reverse-engineered, so can many other titles.
This is solving wrong problem. Or rather, this problem should not exist at all.
they can’t keep running servers forever
That’s exactly why we need it to pass.
Which EU citizens can help with by signing it. We are 40% there, we need your signature.
“Stop Killing Games” is literally a way to force companies to let you host your own servers. That’s the intention. The company loses nothing, they can wash their hands and move on.
In fact, they can even continue to sell games without servers.
I feel like wayyy too many engineer minds lean back on “too vague” without understanding how many judgment calls judges make in cases every day. It’s not uncommon for them to have to decide what someone’s intent or knowledge was when taking a certain action.
Software engineer here. I find the petition to be very specific, and totally feasible.
Anyway, this isn’t a true referendum where its text would become immediate law as soon as it passes. It’s a petition that would be presented to legislators who would write the actual law. The petition doesn’t need to be written in legalese.
(Also: if the customer paid them even one cent, then they DO owe the customer something. Also: They should be forced to release the server software when they shut down the servers.)
It’s a petition that would be presented to legislators who would write the actual law.
Oh-ho-ho! It’s about to get better: they can instead say, that existing laws cover this. Which will have even greater impact.
That’s someone who shouldn’t be a judge, that’s what a jury or maybe even mediators would be for. A judge is black and white, and shouldn’t judge on anything they aren’t 100% educated on.
Meanwhile ragnarok online a 2002 mmorpg is alive and kicking with hundreds of private servers…
If your game relies on your servers, I won’t buy your game.
Switch this meme with “people want video games they own” and it’s this thread. There are still plenty of games you can self host: Palworld, Minecraft, Satisfactory, Factorio, Terraria, Space Engineers, Counter Strike 2, The Forest, ARMA III, 7 Days to Die, Rust, Valheim. The average person obviously doesn’t care about self hosting their own game server.
They can connect to a server of those who do care about self hosting their own game server.
Getting back to the old status quo
Or just release an offline patch so the game can be still playable?
While this could technically work to keep games playable, for a lot of games where the point was to play it online (not games that were forced to be online for arbitrary reasons like Sim City) then it doesn’t make much sense to do. If I had an offline version of Overwatch 1 then yeah I could still look at the characters, skins, and do practice, but that’s not really the point of the game. Games like OW1 are part of the reason people are calling for being able to set up their own community servers so the game could still be playable by dedicated fans without requiring the developers to support it forever.
It would be great if servers were just running in the background with an update
If you want to make this a law, how would anyone handle this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jMKeg9S-s&t=73
This argument holds true for developers of all sizes and is somehow totally ignored by most here.
If a game has reached EoL then they’re just being straight greedy worrying about someone else making a little money off it. Running a public server costs money too.
And again, nobody said they have to release a ready to go and fully functioning standalone binaries. Just the documentation on how it works as a bare minimum would go EXTREMELY far for the open source community and then the whole “ThEY DiDnt MaKE anY ConTrIBuTIOns” goes up in smoke
Stop killing games said that games need to be kept in a functioning state afaik. That means exactly that. I am very for modding games but modding a game does not entitle me to the original creators intellectual property, but merely the part j have added.
Also what documentation? :)
Because it would almost certainly not happen in reality. The server being released means everyone could spin up one for free. You wouldn’t be able to monetize it to any significant degree.
If you want to be generous toward Thor, he is a security expert trained to focus on any hypothetical risks, however unlikely. If you don’t, he is a game developer with monetary interest in this not passing and vast experience conning people.
It may be true that it may not actually happen. However:
- I have elaborated on monetization in another long comment.
- it cannot be wrong to have monetary interest in your product.
- A law (which is the goal afaik) needs to account for unlikely scenarios, thats why its usually so hard to make new ones
I am not against leaving games playable, but the fact that people like the game means that the devs did a good job and their fate needs to be accounted for. Devs who make good games are not an enemy
it cannot be wrong to have monetary interest in your product
There is nothing wrong with making money off the games you make. But once you are done doing that, you shouldn’t be allowed to just wipe the thing people paid you for.
idk https://pretendo.network/ seems to be doing pretty good. It would be nice to just host my own small server after the game is done for just me and some of my friends.
I am talking about the video hypothetical. Trying to destroy a game only to profit off the released server.
I really doubt it would happen.
One thing that would go against monetization of servers after hostility to get the original to go down would be that anyone could spin up a free one in competition. Once the server binaries are available to everyone, anyone can run a server. Why would someone pay for something they can get for free?
This still doesn’t cover for the abuse of studios which is the main concern here, after all making games harder to kill off shouldn’t come with making the production or maintenance more risky or significantly mor expensive. A malicious party trying to kill a game because they dont like it or part of the community is still a valid motive.
Regarding your Question, minecraft servers are a good example of this: there are many servers out there which monetise in game resources or grind shorteners for real world money. I dont think that it is a stretch to say that a non sandbox game could be adjusted to work in such fashion. Also the point is not that there are other options, but that someone may easily make money with stuff the dont own and have never contributed to in its making.
At the end of the day all of us still want new games to be made. Therefore we need to accept that the people making them need to be able to have a steady income doing their job. Monetising ones own creation is, and should be, well within your rights. Even if some of us dont like it providing a platform in form of a game, as a service / with ever fresh content can be a valid value proposition and there are many studios out there doing this successfully while being well respected, think of Deep rock galactic or path of exile.
You can abuse studios right now. This would not change that. It would not make maintenance risky or more expensive.
It provides an extremely theoretical motive for people to do the abuse, that is unlikely to materialize in reality.
And if you want to be theoretical, it removes ideological reasons for abuse. Right now, if you dislike an online game, and got the studio shut down, the game would be gone. With this initiative, it would survive removing the motivation to try in the first place.
It provides an extremely theoretical motive for people to do the abuse, that is unlikely to materialize in reality.
Yeah, this whole argument seems like a theoretical spurious hypothetical.
The dude in the video is acting like this is completely legal too, when all of the abuse is already illegal and the authorities just cannot prevent it because of the scale and size of the Internet combined with their own ineptitude.
If I’m in the business generally of blowing up and attacking company servers, why would I suddenly want to pivot to hosting monetized game servers? That’s an entirely different business. The whole thing strikes me as “OH NOES SOMEBODY MIGHT MAKE SOME MONEY OFF OF MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES!!!”.
Centralized, proprietary servers for games other than subscription MMO games are complete and utter bullshit. Either make the game a subscription and keep all of it server-side, or allow people to host the servers and stop acting like assholes.
I prepared for this argument very long time ago.
He omits a number of unrealistic assumptions:
- Bots buying game somehow is not infinite money glitch for developers. Assumption of complete lack of mental capacity of dev.
- Nobody except ‘Bad Guy’ can run server. Or if there is, none of them will run server just to play game instesd of profiting. Assumption of complete lack of mental capacity of players.
- ‘Bad Guy’ somehow makes more money from servers than spends on botting.
And now I will add new assumption I missed:
- ‘Bad Guy’ spends less on botting, than it costs to reverse engieneer protocol or make new game.
EDIT: forgot most important assumption, that was in another message:
- Game should not loose players, or there will be nobody to profit off.
You dont need bots to ruin a game, ddos is sufficient and cheap enough to come by, probably even easier in the future. Argument 2 already covered in other comment below
Your reply basically was “even if they will not profit from it, they still can abuse company by doing it”. It does not address critique of implicit assumptions such takes.
Such position is fundamentally anti-social and similar to making shopping center contaminate enviroment with radiation when company, that owns it, goes bankrupt, because “it would open ways for abuse”. Except it’s even more nonsensical(see 2, 3 and 4).
If anything, this is not an argument against SKG, this is argument against capitalism as a whole.
