this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
1463 points (98.4% liked)

Games

40449 readers
1964 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 61 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Copyright was invented so artists would be able to sell their art, and more art would be made.

When copyright is protected on a product that's no longer sold, less art is made.

When a copyright holder stops selling their art, copyright protections should immediately cease, and they should be responsible for copyright obligations - releasing the source code to the public. Use it or lose it!

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is the most level headed approach to IP I've seen. If you're not willing to use the property you forfeit it. It's a common contact for licensing rights for movies that forces a studio to make a movie or lose rights. That way people can't squat on a licence to prevent others using it.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

The same thing should apply to private property, especially in cities.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] naught101@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Pretty sure it was so publishers (printing press owners) could have a guaranteed profit. Those two things (publisher and artist profits) were correlated at the time. Not so much anymore. Streaming/subscription mentality is like planned obsolescence for IP.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anti-murder laws are cuttailing my choice! What if I someday would like to make a choice to murder someone?

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Yes! When I read that, I immediately thought "curtailing developer choice is exactly the point."

Yup, that's correct. What about it?

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think people are overestimating what this petition is going to do. It will likely just end up in a response from the EU listing pros and cons but effectively saying "can't really do anything about it, sorry!". It's still good, even MMOs have server software gaming companies could release if legislation forced them instead of causing fandoms to die. Games are culture. They may also be entertainment, but that's culture as well. But I wouldn't hold out hope.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think forcing MMOs to release software is a bit much.

Opted for large scaled systems. It's more than just simple software. There is a ton of infrastructure and proprietary solutioning that goes into it. That's likely used for other games as well.

It may not even be possible to release the software because it is not just software and the resources to prepare it for releasing may not be available.

However, if a game company shut down their servers, they should not be allowed to prevent other people from try to reverse engineer and make their own servers.

Single player and local games 100% though should not be allowed to be killed.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Opted for large scaled systems. It’s more than just simple software. There is a ton of infrastructure and proprietary solutioning that goes into it. That’s likely used for other games as well.

Doesn't mean it can't be released, just that it might be difficult to reproduce. It would still be much, much easier to reverse engineer that than to reverse engineer everything from the client and network communication captures.

It may not even be possible to release the software because it is not just software and the resources to prepare it for releasing may not be available.

In other words, so you don't know, and vague assumptions on a closed box because closed boxes allow you to make them.

Most MMOs usually have multiple instances running, each which need to be maintained separately. That means they have usually gone through the process of encapsulating the server functionality in a way that can be reproduced and recreated into new instances. They have to be maintained at the same time, so they need to be relatively standard. At one point those supposedly absent resources to duplicate the instance of a server have likely existed, and just need to be packaged for public release. Proprietary portions can simply be excluded - an incomplete release is preferable to an absent one. Can't release databases, they can release schemas, etc. Incomplete > absent.

You largely seem to be giving MMO companies the excuse that if their server solution could theoretically be proprietary and convoluted enough, even if it really isn't, that they not be subject to the Stop Killing Games initiative. MMOs, unlike single player games, have a far more notable sociable and persistence factor to them, a bigger cultural footprint within those communities, that makes the Stop Killing Games Initiative particularly applicable to them. There's one simply way not to be subject to its demands - don't kill the games.

[–] TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 320 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Companies would still be cutting flour with chalk if they had their way. "It's limiting blah blah blah" that's the point you corpos, consumer rights are about the consumer not the bottom line

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 69 points 3 days ago (1 children)

History taught us that corpos would literally burn the world for a few more bucks. And by history, I mean right now.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Businesses would bring back slavery if we let them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alloi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

"but black dynamite!....... i sell drugs to the community!"

[–] Decq@lemmy.world 254 points 3 days ago (14 children)

This is just pure fabricated bullshit. They themselves started limiting options. Remember the old days where you could host your own server with basically any game? They took that away, not us. So they themselves are 100% responsible for this 'uprising'. Besides they could just provide/open-source the backend and disable drm. Hardly any work at all.

But of course it's not about that. They just try to hide behind this 'limits options' argument. But they simply don't want you to be able to play their old games. They want you to buy their latest CoD 42.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 62 points 3 days ago (34 children)

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.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 94 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (33 replies)
[–] FreeLikeGNU@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

I remember the "old days". That was when dialup internet was still popular and running a server usually meant it was on your 10Mb LAN. When we got DSL it was better and you could serve outside your LAN. This was also the time when games had dark red code booklets, required having a physical CD inserted or weirdly formatted floppies (sometimes a combination of these). You could get around these things and many groups of people worked hard at providing these workarounds. Today, many of these games are only playable and only still exist because of the thankless work these groups did. As it was and as it is has not changed. Many groups of people are still keeping games playable despite the "war" that corporations wage on them (and by proxy on us). Ironically, now that there is such a thing as "classic games" and people are nostalgic for what brought them joy in the past, business has leapt at this as a marketing opportunity. What makes that ironic? These business are re-selling the versions of games with the circumvention patches that the community made to make their games playable so long ago. The patches that publishers had such a big problem with and sought to eradicate. This is because the original code no longer exists and the un-patched games will not run at all on modern hardware and the copy-protections will not tolerate a virtual machine. Nothing has changed.

We can even go back as far as when people first started making books or maps that had deliberate errors so that they could track when their work was redistributed. Do the people referencing these books or maps benefit from these errors?

Why do some of us feel compelled to limit knowledge even at the cost of corrupting that knowledge for those we intend it for (and for those long after who wish to learn from historical knowledge)?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"... curtail developer choice" - This from a bunch of people for whom the term 'executive meddling' was created.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world 147 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lol. We're gamers. We know that if we encounter enemies we're going in the right direction.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 63 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Still trying to find the right direction on animal crossing.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 48 points 3 days ago

Towards the bees!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 35 points 2 days ago

Uh, yeah, that's the point of all regulations. To make you not pick bad things.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 118 points 3 days ago

"curtail developer choice" is such a weak argument because you could equally apply it to literally every piece of regulation ever passed. Of course it curtails choice, that's almost the dictionary definition of an industry regulation.

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 85 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Why are publishers speaking for devs about how much choice devs would have? Why not get devs to speak?

[–] Psaldorn@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Because sometimes publishers like to be the ones cuetailing dev choices

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 69 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 63 points 2 days ago

Whenever a large games company talks about "developer choice" you know they're referring to one of a few things:

  1. Think of the shareholders!
  2. Think of the rich CEO who adds zero value to the company!
  3. The people don't know what they want and therefore we need to tell them exactly what they want and need!
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Developer choice, ha-ha, very funny. I am not familiar with the industry and still feel safe to bet most of them (edit: actual software developers making games) just want to get enough money for doing what they can do without too much stress/disgust and also most of them don't have a desire to see their work die just because some manager decided it is time to make some other games instead

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I bet they're really pissed off with ubisoft right now. They basically started this whole movement by being so egregious with The Crew. Less than a month before they shut the servers down the game was still on sale for the full price that it had launched with.

Granted it was shut down because it was the most mediocre game ever made but that still isn't an excuse.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 101 points 3 days ago (3 children)

So does not allowing food companies to sprinkle lead and uranium in food. What's the point?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 76 points 3 days ago (8 children)

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.

[–] Natanael 40 points 3 days ago (6 children)

And "would leave rights holders liable" is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 56 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Giant corporations have proven no amount of profit is too much. There needs to be some guardrails. And some form of preservation of the games your loyal customers have enriched your company to access.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 54 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Curtailing developer choice is rather the point, no?

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago

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

[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 61 points 3 days ago (8 children)

If it means developers won’t make “live-service”/trash games anymore, we should hasten the SKG movement.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 73 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ah, the propaganda war has started.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's good news. Means the initiative has a shot.

It was disquieting back when they were just flat out ignoring it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago

they say "developer choice" because they know those words have positive connotations but what they mean is "publisher greed"

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It needs way more people, because I guess a lot of people from all over the world used VPNs to sign the petition and will get nullified.

So if you planned to do it, don't, you will hurt your goals more than you're doing an good.

[–] TheGreenWizard@lemmy.zip 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 59 points 3 days ago

Corporate jargon translation:

"It's going to limit innovation" = "We won't be able to use those new ways of ripping off our customers anymore"

[–] 58008@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the ~~children~~ devs!?"

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.

[–] maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world 46 points 3 days ago

"Developers" are the ones who are passionate about the games they make, and definitely don't want their games dead.

"Corporations" are the ones who only want to profit from selling the game, and then ditch it once it's no longer lucrative enough.

load more comments
view more: next ›