This is a great excuse to also ensure the legality of third party reverse-engineering as a legitimate and reasonable reaction to the unavailability of official support. I believe EU law already to a certain degree supports this.
Just look at the situation Fisker Ocean Car owners are in at the moment - the company has gone bankrupt, and their fate is in the hands of whoever buys the assets. eSIMs may not be paid for, and there is no guarantee there will be an online service for the cars to phone home to in the future. Some features - like the sunroof - won't work without it.
Ha, be glad its just a car. I know a true story about the first woman in my country to go through the process of getting a bionic eye. Long story short, she got it. Forward a few years, and the company that built it goes bust, leaving her without support for a technical implant that was experimental at best, meaning, had a lot of issues. Yes, a articular Lem short story comes to mind, although just tangentially related. We're entering a truely scary time.
I've signed this, and, as an aside, I was extremely impressed that the Europa.eu site localized the CAPTCHA to the Greek alphabet. That's some commitment to accessibility by the general public.
As I understand it copyright on a videogame is 50 years but the vast majority of games- or all entertainment really- stops making money after a few years.
It gets worse if your game has licensed music in it!
I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive. Publishers just aren't going to spend a dime if it doesn't make a buck.
> I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive.
The problem is that piracy doesn't help for always online "games as a service" games where the game is killed after the server has shut down. You can't pirate the server because it was never available, and outside of being lucky enough that a few hackers dedicate a lot of spare time to reverse engineering it, that game is gone forever.
The point of this initiative is to ensure that game companies have a legal obligation that at the point of shutting down game servers they must either release the server software, patch the game to work offline, or do whatever else to ensure that the game continues to function.
It's worth noting that this would only count for games sold as goods i.e you paid a fixed fee at the time of sale with the expectation of owning a product indefinitely. Games with explicit subscriptions such as MMO's would not be subject to this since there was never an expectation of access to the product continuing after the subscription expired.
50 year copyright on video games is insane. A really good ten year old game could be considered a “classic”, certainly a twenty year old one. SNES games are like 28–33 years or something.
Now consider how many of the modern classic PC games are kept playable/relevant (a problem with some older games are things like terrible playing mechanics; graphics less so) by an enthusiast modding community.
> but the vast majority of games- or all entertainment really- stops making money after a few years
I don't think that's universally true. Paradox Interactive are a studio with grand strategy games, and even decades-old games still get new sales of the base game and the DLCs, with a strong user base.
I think people might miss how rules like this can be nice if you are a game developer.
As someone who writes software, I'm honestly happy when someone is requiring that the source be open, that my results be reproducible, that my changes are reviewed, etc. Without that my boss is just asking why I waste my time on things with no profit margin but which are quite satisfying if you take any pride in your work.
In a lot of cases, just requiring that something work without phoning home will cost developers almost nothing and insulate them from silly cost shaving from the higher ups.
Releasing source code or protocol specs for the server side software after the live service is put down would be a good PR bonus for any game corporation. Of course there might be third party IP involved but just publishing a document stating what the server should do is probably good enough to get some good guy points.
Besides it might keep the game alive and even generate some residual revenue even though you aren't spending a dime with server infrastructure.
Or rather, take a look at this page: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/find-initiative_en?CAT... and consider signing all initiatives that you identify with. I know that preventing their favorite game(s) from being killed off is very important to some people, but in the grand scheme of things, there may be more important causes to support...
We should do both - reduce copyright duration to the absolute minimum required for it's goal (to encourage creation of useful science and art, and yes zero might be the optimal term here) while also making sure that benefiting from copyright means the author/company has to ensure that the creation is available to the public after the copyright period. Both things are needed for the copyright deal to be fair to the greater public.
How is shorter copyright going to help with games being built with remote kill-switches? The server-side component isn't a thing you even posses. AIUI, reverse engineering or releasing patches to fix such games is already legal in the EU.
>Most revenue is generated during the first N years.
With the shift to GaaS models this is becoming less true. once you get a hit, you will easily have a steady income stream for 5,10+ years. WOW is well over 20 at this point.
>Requiring companies to do things they don't want to do... has limits. It's hard to prevent them from doing a crap job.
Not sure about that. It seems like Apple is having a pretty hard time skirting around the gatekeeper legislation right now, and I've asked for a copy of my data to a dozen different companies and all of them complied very closely to what gdpr is requiring.
Signed. I think this is an important initiative and could either get publishers to support the games longer or release the server-side parts, so that fans can keep them going. Just look at Freelancer, still going strong after 21 years thanks to fans.
Would it be challenging for small developers financially to design their games to meet these requirements? And for multiplayer online games to live without publisher support... Yet the proposal is a strong step towards protecting!
> Would it be challenging for small developers financially to design their games to meet these requirements?
I would doubt it. Already the smaller developers are less likely to be part of the current problem, most of those games at least work offline if they aren't already entirely DRM free.
And the ones that require online access, when the game is designed to be self-hostable this is 0 problem. I'd almost wager it is more difficult and time consuming ensuring they are the only ones that the game can connect to if they'd publish the server binary.
And regarding licensing of server software: you'd need to take into account that you need to publish it down the line when sourcing your dependencies, so I wouldn't count licensing complications a valid excuse, as it's already done with the game software itself.
Another (beside DRM policy) reason, to buy games exclusively on GoG. I would never pay for game that need third party launcher for running it and keep updated.
For same reason I'm unable to play (and pay for) online games because I don't have control over saved progression and future development of the game.
You probably already know this but GOG does sell games with online components, including ones tied to a license key (=DRM). So simply only buying from GOG is not enough to escape this madness.
Why does this only apply to video games? Why doesn't this apply to apps in general?
I don't want to suggest that I'm in favour of sunsetting every game once a publisher or developer is done with it, but there's got to be a middle ground between "you must ensure that your game can have all online components replaced" and what we have right now. And I think the sheer amount of work involved in the former for every game combined with perverse incentives from a very small subset of users that cause a disproportionate amount of hassle makes this not a good idea. It's a great example of a change that greatly favours existing companies who could meet the legislation, and will negatively effect smaller games and studios.
release the source and people will maintain it for you for free. you can't say it's not profitable anymore to keep maintaining something that people paid for and at the same time say it'd hurt your profit if you release it.
I believe the source files for the game, without specific branding and stuff, should be released so another company can essentially make the game if they want to. As for forcing companies to lose money with unprofitable games or renew expensive licensing deals, it doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
Also, perhaps based on the time spent in the game, players should receive some kind of compensation such as credits for their next purchase.
Wouldn't this just incentivise companies to move to a F2P and/or subscription model?
There's no expectation that, just because I've downloaded the client, I should be able to use a VPN service after the servers are discontinued. Or use AutoCAD after my licence has expired.
You don't need to leave the gaming realm to imagine the unintended consequences of this petition - just look at the hellscape that is mobile gaming.
Possibly, but it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly. People approach free-to-play games and subscription based games with different attitudes than purchased games. A purchase carries a reasonable expectation of durability.
On the other hand, if you sell cosmetic items in your subscription based or free-to-play game, then you have sold something with a reasonable expectation of durability which is somewhat already enshrined in the digital goods laws. If you rent those items for a limited time then the relationship is again honest.
If it is reasonable to expect a limited time frame of usage from the software then it is reasonable for the company to state what guarantees they are willing to make for that time frame in a subscription contract. The presumption of durability should carry the weight of law (up to consumables and wear and tear).
As I understand, this would also apply to e.g. micro-transactions/cosmetics which would be categorized as 'possessions' if I follow the wording in this proposal. So this would include F2P games, requiring them to provide a way to enjoy those cosmetics.
As for subscription-based games, Ross Scott put them in a separate category in a previous video of his [1], as you willingly pay for access to a service which has a known end date (end of the month). Although with the micro-transactions angle in mind, I'm not sure how this changes things.
If some companies explicitly switched to subscription model that would also be an improvement. With proper subscriptions the company at least needs to clearly specify how long they will provide their service in exchange for your money, and there are laws for dealing with situations when they take money for x months but fail to deliver it.
With many games you are currently paying money for unknown period of time. Maybe you will get 5 year, maybe 1 year, maybe 1 month or even just 3 days. It's not that much of exaggeration, there have been examples of companies continuing to sell a game without any warning that they will kill the servers making the product useless in a few months.
Any fair trade whether it's a purchase, subscription or rental needs to clearly state what exactly and how much of it each party will get from the deal.
I don't think this is a good argument - that is, to not hold companies accountable because doing so might get them to do other undesirable things. It's not like the mobile F2P dumpster fire doesn't exist already without the proposed changes and even PC games have moved significantly towards F2P, especially for online titles which are the main concern of the petition.
Also while this may not be the current public opinion, F2P generally still involves income via sales - not of the whole game but of tiny portions of it dangled in front of you. Any worthwile rule change would also require those to continue to be available to you when the company decides to shut the servers.
Okay? That is generally the difference between a resident and a citizen in a democracy - a citizen gets to have a say in how the country is run, a mere resident does not.
They just mean the companies can still do whatever they want while the game is being supported. It's an extremely poor way of writing that they are only interested in modifying the rules for end-of-life of games instead of regulate existing playable games. The whole thing is poorly written, but the idea is reasonable.
Games aren't really things you can keep forever anymore. They're events, like concerts. Or like movies were before that piracy device, the VCR, was ruled legal in American courts -- something industry moguls still fulminate about (Jack Valenti saw it as the Boston Strangler for his industry until he died).
Get used to this new reality. Enjoy your gaming experiences when you have them.
People want to be hooked up on subscription because schools and parents do not preach long-term values (well, maybe only orthodox religious minorities do).
We are in this situation because of a shrinking time horizon for the modern society (aka "high time preference"). People want instant gratification, buy-now-pay-later, pay attention to the packaging, not content. Most citizens are conditioned to live here and now. Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical right now, otherwise the world's gonna end tomorrow.
> Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical right now, otherwise the world's gonna end tomorrow.
This looks more like a consequence of the issue you described previously, than part of the issue itself. If everyone is concerned only with the next 5 minutes (and even if they are with the next 5 years), how would you possibly get them to care about the next 50 or 500 years? So you frame it in terms that align with the modern approach of "only here and now exist".
Customers generally do not want to be hooked on subscriptions, that's a choice that's forced on them by the "you will own nothing and be happy" rentier faction.
> Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical
No need for "hysterical" in there. But the more and sooner action is taken the better the outcome.
I rarely think the market is the answer to anything. But this is one of the times were letting the market solve the problem it the actual fix. In the end nothing of value is lost when the Nth ubisoft project is taken offline. And if people keep buying them it is what it is. Triple A slob are not competing actual good games out of the market.
When you stop thinking about games as just entertainment but also as an art form you realize that a lot of art has already been lost to time. It's shit to regret down the line when you could have just prevented the loss of art at an earlier point in time.
As much as I don't play a lot of AAA games due to how they either play or monetize, it is important to me to preserve them for future times considering I still play a lot of older games and even some games from before I was born.
petterroea|1 year ago
Just look at the situation Fisker Ocean Car owners are in at the moment - the company has gone bankrupt, and their fate is in the hands of whoever buys the assets. eSIMs may not be paid for, and there is no guarantee there will be an online service for the cars to phone home to in the future. Some features - like the sunroof - won't work without it.
lynx23|1 year ago
graeber_28927|1 year ago
cchi_co|1 year ago
worble|1 year ago
Original video with all the different avenues he's trying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE
The one specifically about this initiative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI
He's done smaller update videos on how it's been progressing on his channel if you want additional info.
stavros|1 year ago
MrGilbert|1 year ago
gschizas|1 year ago
Good job!
heckerhut|1 year ago
aitchnyu|1 year ago
Yeul|1 year ago
I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive. Publishers just aren't going to spend a dime if it doesn't make a buck.
worble|1 year ago
The problem is that piracy doesn't help for always online "games as a service" games where the game is killed after the server has shut down. You can't pirate the server because it was never available, and outside of being lucky enough that a few hackers dedicate a lot of spare time to reverse engineering it, that game is gone forever.
The point of this initiative is to ensure that game companies have a legal obligation that at the point of shutting down game servers they must either release the server software, patch the game to work offline, or do whatever else to ensure that the game continues to function.
It's worth noting that this would only count for games sold as goods i.e you paid a fixed fee at the time of sale with the expectation of owning a product indefinitely. Games with explicit subscriptions such as MMO's would not be subject to this since there was never an expectation of access to the product continuing after the subscription expired.
keybored|1 year ago
Now consider how many of the modern classic PC games are kept playable/relevant (a problem with some older games are things like terrible playing mechanics; graphics less so) by an enthusiast modding community.
sofixa|1 year ago
I don't think that's universally true. Paradox Interactive are a studio with grand strategy games, and even decades-old games still get new sales of the base game and the DLCs, with a strong user base.
cchi_co|1 year ago
dguest|1 year ago
As someone who writes software, I'm honestly happy when someone is requiring that the source be open, that my results be reproducible, that my changes are reviewed, etc. Without that my boss is just asking why I waste my time on things with no profit margin but which are quite satisfying if you take any pride in your work.
In a lot of cases, just requiring that something work without phoning home will cost developers almost nothing and insulate them from silly cost shaving from the higher ups.
irusensei|1 year ago
Besides it might keep the game alive and even generate some residual revenue even though you aren't spending a dime with server infrastructure.
yawnbox|1 year ago
rob74|1 year ago
kwhitefoot|1 year ago
netcan|1 year ago
Requiring companies to do things they don't want to do... has limits. It's hard to prevent them from doing a crap job.
The actual "solution" is radically reducing copyright duration. Most revenue is generated during the first N years.
account42|1 year ago
extraduder_ire|1 year ago
johnnyanmac|1 year ago
>Most revenue is generated during the first N years.
With the shift to GaaS models this is becoming less true. once you get a hit, you will easily have a steady income stream for 5,10+ years. WOW is well over 20 at this point.
sebstefan|1 year ago
Not sure about that. It seems like Apple is having a pretty hard time skirting around the gatekeeper legislation right now, and I've asked for a copy of my data to a dozen different companies and all of them complied very closely to what gdpr is requiring.
jagermo|1 year ago
cchi_co|1 year ago
NekkoDroid|1 year ago
I would doubt it. Already the smaller developers are less likely to be part of the current problem, most of those games at least work offline if they aren't already entirely DRM free.
And the ones that require online access, when the game is designed to be self-hostable this is 0 problem. I'd almost wager it is more difficult and time consuming ensuring they are the only ones that the game can connect to if they'd publish the server binary.
And regarding licensing of server software: you'd need to take into account that you need to publish it down the line when sourcing your dependencies, so I wouldn't count licensing complications a valid excuse, as it's already done with the game software itself.
throwaway48476|1 year ago
t0bia_s|1 year ago
For same reason I'm unable to play (and pay for) online games because I don't have control over saved progression and future development of the game.
account42|1 year ago
maccard|1 year ago
I don't want to suggest that I'm in favour of sunsetting every game once a publisher or developer is done with it, but there's got to be a middle ground between "you must ensure that your game can have all online components replaced" and what we have right now. And I think the sheer amount of work involved in the former for every game combined with perverse incentives from a very small subset of users that cause a disproportionate amount of hassle makes this not a good idea. It's a great example of a change that greatly favours existing companies who could meet the legislation, and will negatively effect smaller games and studios.
Sakos|1 year ago
This is to the benefit of everybody now and in the future. It doesn't matter if only an insignificant fraction of people recognize the importance.
exe34|1 year ago
XoXo2y0|1 year ago
Also, perhaps based on the time spent in the game, players should receive some kind of compensation such as credits for their next purchase.
dalmo3|1 year ago
Wouldn't this just incentivise companies to move to a F2P and/or subscription model?
There's no expectation that, just because I've downloaded the client, I should be able to use a VPN service after the servers are discontinued. Or use AutoCAD after my licence has expired.
You don't need to leave the gaming realm to imagine the unintended consequences of this petition - just look at the hellscape that is mobile gaming.
BlackFly|1 year ago
On the other hand, if you sell cosmetic items in your subscription based or free-to-play game, then you have sold something with a reasonable expectation of durability which is somewhat already enshrined in the digital goods laws. If you rent those items for a limited time then the relationship is again honest.
If it is reasonable to expect a limited time frame of usage from the software then it is reasonable for the company to state what guarantees they are willing to make for that time frame in a subscription contract. The presumption of durability should carry the weight of law (up to consumables and wear and tear).
teroshan|1 year ago
As for subscription-based games, Ross Scott put them in a separate category in a previous video of his [1], as you willingly pay for access to a service which has a known end date (end of the month). Although with the micro-transactions angle in mind, I'm not sure how this changes things.
[1]: "Games as a service" is fraud, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw
Karliss|1 year ago
With many games you are currently paying money for unknown period of time. Maybe you will get 5 year, maybe 1 year, maybe 1 month or even just 3 days. It's not that much of exaggeration, there have been examples of companies continuing to sell a game without any warning that they will kill the servers making the product useless in a few months.
Any fair trade whether it's a purchase, subscription or rental needs to clearly state what exactly and how much of it each party will get from the deal.
account42|1 year ago
Also while this may not be the current public opinion, F2P generally still involves income via sales - not of the whole game but of tiny portions of it dangled in front of you. Any worthwile rule change would also require those to continue to be available to you when the company decides to shut the servers.
prmoustache|1 year ago
andres_diaz|1 year ago
account42|1 year ago
surfingdino|1 year ago
Needs better explanation.
vasco|1 year ago
eesmith|1 year ago
ChrisArchitect|1 year ago
Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570
bitwize|1 year ago
Get used to this new reality. Enjoy your gaming experiences when you have them.
surgical_fire|1 year ago
Such a bizarre take, when most games I play are from a decade ago or more.
I have very little interest in current gaming trends.
Aachen|1 year ago
scanny|1 year ago
Quothling|1 year ago
Fethbita|1 year ago
pjmlp|1 year ago
voidUpdate|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
keybored|1 year ago
[deleted]
withinboredom|1 year ago
oleganza|1 year ago
We are in this situation because of a shrinking time horizon for the modern society (aka "high time preference"). People want instant gratification, buy-now-pay-later, pay attention to the packaging, not content. Most citizens are conditioned to live here and now. Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical right now, otherwise the world's gonna end tomorrow.
close04|1 year ago
This looks more like a consequence of the issue you described previously, than part of the issue itself. If everyone is concerned only with the next 5 minutes (and even if they are with the next 5 years), how would you possibly get them to care about the next 50 or 500 years? So you frame it in terms that align with the modern approach of "only here and now exist".
pjc50|1 year ago
> Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical
No need for "hysterical" in there. But the more and sooner action is taken the better the outcome.
Dban1|1 year ago
tokai|1 year ago
NekkoDroid|1 year ago
As much as I don't play a lot of AAA games due to how they either play or monetize, it is important to me to preserve them for future times considering I still play a lot of older games and even some games from before I was born.
sbergot|1 year ago
[deleted]