from Hacker News

Stop Killing Games

by r1chardnl on 8/5/24, 8:06 AM with 259 comments

  • by reddalo on 8/5/24, 10:14 AM

    All fellow European users should sign the petition!

    By the way, this is an official European Union initiative, it's safe and useful to add your vote (unlike those useless petitions on websites such as Change.org).

  • by usrbinbash on 8/5/24, 10:31 AM

    Someone please define "reasonable playable state".

    Because, for something like an MMORPG, "playable" means being able to run a server. So, what does "playable" entail? Source and internal sysops documentation? That isn't "playable" for the vast majority of people. Working binary? Now you may be required to develop these specifically for consumer hardware, and/or in different versions.

    Example: MOBAs with ladders and matchmaking algorithms. You will likely need a separate server architecture that works independently of the userlist and matchmaking system. Bear in mind these systems are usually not made to be modular, they are custom-built to work in a given environment.

    Not saying that it cannot be done, I am also supporting the idea, but there should be a VERY CLEAR definition of what counts as "reasonable playable state".

  • by cpojer on 8/5/24, 10:22 AM

    This is great! As an indie game developer I care a great deal about game preservation. The game I'm working on requires Internet upon the first start and seamlessly syncs game state across your devices, but I pushed for open sourcing as much code as possible. We released 75% of the game's code under the MIT License[1], even before the game's full release. With the infra we built, we can publish the entire source within minutes once the game is no longer commercially viable.

    [1] https://cpojer.net/posts/athena-crisis-open-source

  • by dguest on 8/5/24, 12:43 PM

    Best similar case I can think of is the EU regulating charging cables (and mandating USB-C for a lot of devices).

    It was a common consumer good with a problem that really annoyed some people so much that they made a law to "fix" it. Others said it would stifle innovation. To me how people feel about that probably says something about what chances this proposal has.

    How do people feel about the USB-C mandate? Are there other similar recent examples?

  • by tmtvl on 8/5/24, 10:33 AM

  • by gg2222 on 8/5/24, 2:19 PM

    If games are a kind of software, why must games face this kind of regulation when other kinds of (actually more important) software doesn't / won't?

    In saying this, I'm not in favor of this regulation, actually the opposite - because imagine if this regulation passed for games and then passed for software in general next.

    MMORPGs are software provided as a service, but this proposed regulation wants to make them playable even after the service provider discontinues service. If applied to software in general then that means all SaaS once it has any customers, then it has the obligation to make (and keep?) that software usable indefinitely.

    And what if the reason you had to discontinue was out of your control? Eg. one of your critical service providers went out of business? Guess you'll have to recreate that service provider's whole service so your now open source software can still work on top of it before you can actually go out of business yourself.

    It is just an absurd expectation for game companies to have to consider this. And in the end it just makes it harder for the smaller not-established game companies while giving the bigger companies another boost, concentrating their advantage.

  • by daveoc64 on 8/5/24, 9:37 AM

  • by JTBooth on 8/5/24, 11:14 AM

    What if, in stead of a requirement, we created an opt-in obligation for companies? If you promise "EOL support guaranteed" you register a plan with whatever agency and pay some fee and they check in every couple years and make sure you remember. And if you don't, then you don't get the badge, and we find out if consumers actually care.

  • by davidwhitney on 8/5/24, 11:26 AM

    The intent "don't turn off my games!" is generally good, but in practice the most likely thing that'll come from this is one of:

    1. It passes, and subsequently a large amount of games just don't launch in the EU. GG. 2. Nobody can write enough caveats to make it workable, and it's abandoned. 3. People don't care because it's just videogames.

    I'm broadly supportive of "can we make offline modes standard where the game in it's current design reasonably could be played offline", but that kind of language is too loose for legislation, and too prescriptive for technical innovation.

  • by lokimedes on 8/5/24, 11:00 AM

    I’m highly ambivalent about this. On one side, I agree it is a problem, on the other, is regulation really the answer? I don’t want my taxes poured all over this, but perhaps more information about the longevity risks of the game at purchase?

    The market incentives are not there, why not try finding those first?

  • by hermannj314 on 8/5/24, 11:39 AM

    When you are on Prime and you click buy instead of rent for a movie, what does the EU do to protect you?

    Is there a reason this digital protection is narrowly limiting itself to video games and not all digital goods or all implied warranties for any good sold?

    I also think workers should be paid fair wages, and also that we should protect artists from the threats of AI, but only if they work in the video game industry, not anywhere else. Did I do it right? Is that how we do this now?

  • by jowea on 8/5/24, 10:52 AM

    I watched a video on this proposal, and one interesting argument is that this isn't even supposed to be necessary, since leaving a game broken that you paid for is a violation of your property rights. Any (armchair) lawyer wants to opine what the courts would think of this?

  • by xbmcuser on 8/5/24, 12:33 PM

    This is just a proposal not the law once it is up for debate then every european and game developers etc will get to have a say and a real framework hammered out.

  • by lynx23 on 8/5/24, 1:21 PM

    I think we have a much more pressing problem in the apps industry. I, as a consumer, don't want my UX to change with every software update. I want an ption to lock the features down, and only receive security updates. Why? Because I might use the app on a daily basis, and grow used to how it behaves. I dont want it to change without my consent. I think this would be a much more pressing problem then conserving games.

  • by GardenLetter27 on 8/5/24, 12:45 PM

    I doubt it'll change much, but I do agree with it. If you buy something, it shouldn't be pulled out from under you.

  • by saaslave on 8/5/24, 10:26 AM

    Replace "games" with "software" and we will get the freedom but probably a 2008 style crash.

  • by miohtama on 8/5/24, 12:42 PM

    It’s not possible to expect software to be runnable forever.

    We do not expect this for the desktop software (Microsoft Windows), so we cannot expect this from games. Hardware changes, Internet changes, integrations change (Steam may die on one day).

    Just have “a minimum of X years” is simple and sufficient.

  • by sanitycheck on 8/5/24, 10:40 AM

    I'm not sure if this approach can really work.

    What I definitely would like to see is a requirement to preserve a working VM containing source code, assets and build tools, set up to compile everything without an internet connection. It'd be much more useful to have than old binaries when all this stuff eventually becomes public domain.

  • by neontomo on 8/5/24, 11:57 AM

    still sour about ubisoft killing co-op for splinter cell games. it's only been 11 years! ;)

  • by kaycey2022 on 8/5/24, 4:12 PM

    I think people are just beating around the bush and not saying what they really mean here. On one side are consumers (these petitioners) who just want the companies to give them everything so they can continue using these products without any consideration for the other side's point of view that software is the creator's property unless specified otherwise.

    On the other side are the producers, who just don't want any legislative burden to be placed on them and want to create and distribute software exactly how they want to.

    In a serious negotiation both positions would be untenable and a compromise has to be reached.

  • by ChrisArchitect on 8/5/24, 2:41 PM

  • by nwoli on 8/5/24, 11:25 AM

    The path to too much friction to make new things is paved with regulation with good intentions

  • by thepra on 8/5/24, 6:13 PM

    Signed, from Italy ;D

  • by steinuil on 8/5/24, 10:48 AM

    To all the comments who expressed doubts on how this would work in practice: please read the FAQ, it answers a lot of questions and gives concrete examples.

    https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

  • by arizen on 8/5/24, 12:49 PM

    The discussion around the EU's "Stop Killing Games" proposal is quite interesting and touches on broader issues of consumer

    "The 'Stop Killing Games' initiative highlights a fundamental tension between consumer rights and the current business models in the gaming industry.

    On one hand, the idea of preserving games for future access aligns with broader movements toward digital preservation, similar to efforts in other digital media industries like film and music.

    However, as some users have pointed out, implementing these requirements could significantly disrupt how games are developed, particularly when games rely on proprietary servers or content licensed under restrictive terms.

    A middle-ground approach might be to incentivize companies to create 'preservable' versions of their games, possibly through tax credits or other benefits for depositing source code or playable copies with national archives. This could foster a culture of preservation without forcing drastic changes to current business models.

    It's also worth considering how this policy could set a precedent for other digital services—shouldn't we be having similar conversations about software, apps, and even streaming content?

  • by johncoltrane on 8/5/24, 1:21 PM

    Stop buying games you don't like.

  • by HunOL on 8/5/24, 11:56 AM

    No, thank you, I am tired of EU regulations. Vote with your money. Buy games that you could download (GOG) , avoid external launchers and make sure that it's possible to play a game without additional account.

  • by ricardobayes on 8/5/24, 10:19 AM

    A good way to justify games costing 100 USD/EUR or more, due to longer support period.

    Personally, I don't support this, just because there were a few cases where studios closed support to an online game, doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be a rule. It is self-regulating pretty well. Games that are good, are going to be popular and don't need their servers closed. I personally don't expect mediocre games to have online support forever.