this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
212 points (93.4% liked)
Games
32424 readers
822 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, that's why he says it's stupid. It seems like he's fine with the idea of removing DRM that makes single player games unplayable but forcing devs to make online multiplayer games playable forever is ridiculous.
To clarify, your position is it's ridiculous, or you're stating that his position is that it's ridiculous?
My position is it's ridiculous. I agree with Thor. Saying all games must exist forever is too vague because I don't think all games should be forced to exist forever.
Per the official Stop Killing Games FAQ: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq (apologies if formatting ends up looking weird)
That's fine for single player games but modifying some massive MMO so that someone can host it on a laptop is literally impossible. This language applies to everything. EVE Online, WoW, FFXIV, all of it would need to be able to run on someone's home computer when they're purposefully built from the ground up to work on massive servers?
It's not impossible at all. People have done this literally for decades. Classic WoW only exists because people hosted their own seevers and Blizzard wanted in on the money. Star Wars Galaxies the same. I think Everquest 1 as well. And probably others as well.
So why does this law need to exist if everyone is doing it and has been doing it for decades?
Because they can be sued for that. Have been sued for that. And while it is possible to reverse engineer this stuff it is incredibly hard to do. So games with smaller fanbases might lack the manpower to achieve it. Or the game was made in such a way as to make reverse engineering impossible.
Just because it's possible with a small sample of games doesn't mean it's possible for all or even most of them.
Also, even if a normal desktop can't run a particular game server, there is almost always a way to get a computer that will.
The difference between a home server and a larger business server is simply the scale of how many players it can host at once.
WoW's server binary was reverse engineered by fans, and a large ecosystem of privately run WoW servers that players can connect to exist at this very moment.
Private servers running older vanilla versions of wow became so popular, blizzard then created their own vanilla wow server to get in on the action.
People have been running private wow servers for a long time now apparently, so it seems possible for mmos.
Not a fair comparison. The private servers were written with the small hosting in mind. They would very likely never scale to what Blizzard has in place. For all I know, Blizzard could run their stuff on a Mainframe with specific platform optimizations against an IBM DB2.
But I also don't think this has to be transferable to a local setup without effort either. Once they release the source, people can refactor or reengineer it to run on smaller scale, replace proprietary databases with free ones, etc.
You found the point. It's not about having it scale to the level the official servers are at. It's about preserving it in some fashion, so that the dedicated few can still experience it. We don't need thousands, we need a few dozen. And, if developers develop with this design philosophy - that eventually the game servers will be shut down and we have to release a hostable version at end of life, then the games can be written from the ground up with that implementation in mind.
Such an architecture is typically shit. Building a system that is simple AND scales high won't work. Complexity usually gets added to cope with scale. If we don't allow companies to build scalable (i.e. complex) systems, we simply won't get such games anymore.
Again: I am completely in favor of forcing devs to release everything necessary to host it. I am not in favor of forcing devs to target home machines for their servers, when their servers clearly have completely different requirements. That's unrealistic.
Its not said that they need devs to target home machines, it says they need to give the resources so people can host it themselves, period.
Also, tell me you've never worked with scalable infrastructure without telling me you have never worked with it.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of games, including MMOs, that are privated hosted, and by that I don't mean hosted in a basement potato.
Look at Ragnarok servers, there are hundreds of them, DEDICATED servers, with all the newest technology, for an old game nonetheless.
Have you ever seem how massive the infrastructure are for those big minecraft multi-servers? Thousands and thousands of concurrent players.
Im not asking you to research what you're talking about or anything, but if you clearly dont know what you're talking about, refrain from sharing your opinion so you may not negatively influence a similar minded person.
Before attacking me with such an arrogant rant, maybe read what I wrote.
I said:
So of course it's about releasing anything (!) at all.
I simply said that you can't compare a small fan project like a WoW self hosted server with Blizzards infrastructure and the requirements to have a high available setup for millions of players.
ArenaNet is quite open about their infrastructure and you can see that this is far from trivial, but also allows them to have zero downtime updates. That is a huge feat, but also means that self hosting that thing will be a pain in the ass. Yet I would not want them to not do this just so it could be easily (!) self hosted some time in the distant future.
Fair enough.
I don't think there's any language in this petition that says it must be hosted on a laptop. The server binary, with a reasonable expectation that someone with documentation, the hardware, and the know-how to use it, would be enough.
This comment betrays a technical misunderstanding.
Not only is it possible, but designing games from the ground up in this way makes it easier for developers to test and make robust software.
Lol that not impossible.
FFXIV has headed in the opposite direction of your claim. They’ve recently been making a lot of changes to major story dungeons so that the experience relies as little as possible on online communities. Right now, playing requires a subscription. It’s more and more believable to see that requirement removed if the game was somehow dead and that ‘had’ to happen.
If a big MMO closes that'd be rough, but those types of games tend to form communities anyways like Minecraft. You don't have to pay Microsoft a monthly rate to host a Java server for you and a few friends, you just have to have a little bit of IT knowledge and maybe a helper package to get you and your friends going. It's still a single binary, even if it doesn't run on a laptop well for larger settings.
With a big MMO, there will form support groups and turnkey scripts to get stuff working as well as it can be, and forums online for finding existing open community servers by people who have the hardware and knowledge to host a few dozen to a few hundred of their closest friends online.
Life finds a way.
If it's a complicated multi-node package where you need stuff to be split up better as gateway/world/area/instance, the community servers that will form may tend towards larger player groups, since the knowledge and resource to do that is more specific.
God, finally someone with common sense. The devs do not need to change the software for you to host a server in your 10 year old ThinkPad, they just need to make the software available. It's not up to them to figure out HOW you are going to host the game's server, they just need to make it POSSIBLE.
They all should still be preserved. The code can be stored without needing servers to be kept open, for example
Code is already stored, it's just not public.
What? I write some code and then delete it and I'm in trouble because I didn't preserve it?? I really don't understand this concept at all
You sold someone some code that you then rendered inoperable by actions beyond their control; that's what you'd get in trouble for. Delete your own code all you like.
That's a different statement than you made before. I am also against disabling something someone paid for. But what did you mean by
I have to store code? Can't I delete my own code?
If you sell someone a game that relies on a server you own, and did not advertise clearly that you were selling a service, not a good (something you own), and then break that product for the customer without any possibility of them repairing their good, and you delete the code that could've fixed it, you'd be sorta commiting fraud.
If you abandon a product that was sold as a good, and it became inoperable due to forces unrelated to you, you'd be in the clear.
Right, so an MMO charging a monthly fee shouldn't need to make their game available to everyone if they stop charging people the fee and shut it down? Because that's what I think too.
Yes, legally an mmo sold as a service would not be targeted.
But the FAQ on the stop killing games site specifically says this applies to MMOs. That's why I disagree. Specifically for the part about MMOs.
A few things. People use MMOs as an example of a thing that cannot be run by users, and the FAQ calls out that this is demonstrably false. Second, there's the idea of a good and a service, and games have been happy to blur this line over the past decade and change. When you pay a monthly subscription fee, there's no question that you're paying for a service; your service ends when that month is up. The problem comes from selling you things as though they're goods but then revoking access to them at some unknown time in the future as though it were a service or lease that you had no idea when it would expire. So this campaign also demands that if you're selling microtransactions like a cosmetic mount in an MMO, you need to be able to use that mount after the servers are no longer supported, and as we've already proven, it is definitely actually possible for ordinary people to run MMO servers, even if they're hosting them for a few hundred or a few thousand people rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.
The question on the FAQ is asking if it's possible, which it is. But in his big video on this topic, he says that subscription based MMOs really don't count (even if he'd like it to).
I agree with that. That's what I meant in my original comment that applying this to all games is ridiculous. Subscription based MMOs are a game but this initiative shouldn't apply to them.
In the ideal world they could release the code open source, there's no money lose on that.
That is not what is being discussed and was never being discussed. You're sounding like you're being pedantic to try to pick a fight
I'm being specific because this is being intended as a law everyone must follow. "All games need to be available forever" is very vague. How will this vague law be applied in practice? People brought up the idea of eternal code preservation. Alright. How does that work?
I'm not picking a fight. I want supporters to explain in vivid detail their expectations because it's clear not even all the supporters agree on how it would be implemented. Some said it doesn't apply to MMOs. Some said it does. It needs to be one or the other. That's not being pedantic, it's being realistic.
What the petition says is what it's asking for. What we want may be different. What European parliament drafts, if we're so lucky, will be what's actually the law. The concerns in the petition are quite clearly about how this applies to EU consumer protections, and many of us are interested in that plus the bonus that this will grant to preservation by proxy.
Any company that isn't completely incompetent has some revision control solution like GitHub. It saves the original and all the changes throughout the life of the code. It's designed specifically to allow developers to update or even delete code while still maintaining records
An indie dev recently lost the source code to their early access game and had to remove it from Steam. If this law was in place, what punishment would they face for their incompetence? It would be rare for a massive company to not have source control, but it probably isn't uncommon for small first time devs. So now you have a well intentioned law putting regulations in place that hurt small devs and raise the barrier to entry.
Removing the game from sale is not disabling the game for existing owners. These are two very different problems.
A game's code can be submitted to a repository on release to the public to be stored for the sake of preservation. The repository can always be made access on a case by case basis, thus preventing the loss of code and culture while also protecting the IP holder's rights
And every single game dev would be required to do this for the thousands of games released every year? Who would host this massive repository? Who would determine access on a case by case basis? It's a nice suggestion but mandating this as a law everyone has to follow? Why? I thought this was about consumer protection
Iunno, the Library of Congress in the states seems capable of holding every movie, book, journal, etc.
I think a way could be found for games in the EU if even the US can manage this for other media
Is that repository required by law? Is every author and director required to follow it or be punished? What if an author only publishes it on their website and then takes the website down and it never makes it to the archive are they in trouble? It's a nice thing, but mandating it as law is ridiculous.
Well, it wouldn't be retroactive. As a consumer, I don't think it's ridiculous to know what I'm buying. If anything, this petition is way softer than my stance. As per this petition, you could get around doing the honest thing of providing the customers the ability to host the servers themselves by just clearly informing the customer at the point of sale how long services will be up for, if you truly want to try to convince people that it's a service and not a product that they just made worse for business reasons. But they don't want to do that, because then they can't sucker people into buying something that isn't long for this world.
Many consider games to be works of art in the same way that music, books, movies, and paintings are. In the same way that historians use the creative works of yesteryear to guage how people during events like World War I, historians of tomorrow need access to games to study the events of our lifetimes.
Book burnings have occurred throughout history and they have been devastating, but many works can still be studied because other copies exist elsewhere. The problem with games is that they're deliberately designed to self-destruct. Historians 50 years down the line can't study Fortnite's mechanics or its evolution because as soon as a new update releases, the servers for the previous chapter of the game are gone. Even if we wanted to preserve just the final release, we can't because it is far easier for Epic Games to hide or throw away the server source code rather than properly archive it when they inevitably kill the game. This is a huge deal because Fortnite has genuinely had an impact on our culture, for better or worse. Even if it didn't, it is a technical feat to get a game like that to work well, and programmers need to be able to study the game after the industry inevitably moves on.
To be clear, companies shouldn't need to maintain their games and software forever. However, there is simply no way to play many games because there are no usable servers for them, which is entirely unacceptable. The initiative simply wants us to be in a world where someone can put in a reasonable amount of effort to play abandoned games, and I don't think that's a huge ask.
Only if you think the campaign means that companies must pay for the multiplayer servers forever which Ross has said on MULTIPLE occasions is not reasonable and not what he wants.
Giving players the tools to host their own servers or adding LAN functionality, though? That’s entirely reasonable seeing as that’s how multiplayer always used to work. I mean, there are still plenty of Unreal Tournament servers active today without any involvement from the developer in decades.
Especially since, if this initiative works, developers will make games with that functionality in mind.