53
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
53 points (98.2% liked)
Helldivers 2
2268 readers
58 users here now
Welcome to the Helldivers 2 Community on the Fediverse.
Links
Galactic War Status
Rules
- Be kind to other Citizens of Super Earth
- No discussion of cheats or bug exploits.
- Posts or comments with leaked / unreleased info must be clearly labelled. Example: Use [Spoiler] in the title or spoiler tag in comments.
- No spam or advertising (YouTube, Twitch, etc)
- Automaton bots/AI will be reported to a Democracy Officer
Banner by Noobmasterpro
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Helldivers 2 will probably not directly benefit from SKG, as the campaign isn't aiming for retroactive legislation
This is true and you're probably right.
I'm just hoping that the future will turn out better than expected.
I have a tiny bit of hope that AH will remove nProtect and maybe even hand out some APIs for reverse-engineering projects like OpenCOMBAS to have something to work with, if Sony doesn't pull a Nintendo and sue anyone for even trying
Helldivers hasn't shut down yet.
SKG absolutely seeks to protect games that have already been published. It won't apply to games that have already shut down.
But if the game is still making money? On the hook it goes.
The reason it's not retroactive is that existing games and games already being developed would require significant efforts to restructure in a way that would make them compliant to proposed laws; SKG only seeks to protect games whose development has not begun yet, and games that are generating revenue being preserved is not a primary goal.
How would you decide the cost of rewriting the innards of a live service anyway? It could go from a coffee and 200$ in cash paid to an intern, to an entire year and tens of millions of dollars spent between dev time, perpetual licenses and royalties.
While I agree that they should spend that capital in the first place, you'd have to convince lawmakers - people without any technical expertise - that such policy wouldn't do more harm than good.
It has to apply to current games. If we give an out to "current" games, it creates a loophole. Blizzard could avoid needing to comply by just "updating" Overwatch forever.
When did the current Overwatch launch? Was it when it became Overwatch 2? Or was it all the way back when OW1 first came out?
What about Destiny? Each expansion is essentially a whole sequel title to the last one, but does Bungie get to treat them as mere updates, unbeholden to preservation?
What about WOW? Would something like Classic count as a new game? Or could Blizzard spin off new MMOs to skirt regulation?
Could old games be entirely re-mastered and re-launched, and still not count?
Obviously there should be some kind of phase-in. But there can be NO exceptions once it is in effect.
All those games are not exceptions, nor the main target of SKG.
Keep in mind that we're talking about what is currently a vague proposal, and an eventual phase-in will most likely be discussed by the initiative's representatives; Ross discussed this in some of his update videos, at some point he even gave examples and Helldivers 2 was one of them (tbf he is not officially a part of SKG but whatever).
What? I'm not saying they are.
Ross has made it pretty clear that the target is ALL games.
Potential regulation does not need to be retroactive, in order to apply to current products.
The only thing the initiative definitely doesn't look to do, is make publishers go back and spend resources on titles they haven't touched in years. Unlike what your initial comment suggests, currently live games do not fall into that category.
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
... we are talking about the EU initiative in particular, right? I assumed so, mb if that wasn't the case but given Ross' "I just want this to happen" attitude I still believe they're not going for retroactive legislation.
Did I say otherwise?
Let me put some emphasis on what I have been saying.
Perhaps you are confusing "current" with "today", rather than with what is intended. That being the future point in time at which any such regulation comes into effect.
No, I got it, but if Helldivers 2 is an existing game today it is also an existing game at the time of potential regulation, dead or alive.
The Helldivers 2 backend has been planned before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
-> Arrowhead designed the Helldivers 2 backend before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
-> the EU can't (or shouldn't) mandate Arrowhead or Sony to design the Helldivers 2 backend in a way to accomodate compliant end-of-life plans.
To emphasize my point: judging by how things have been going, a significant part of the game is spaghetti code, which doesn't bode well for said EOL plans.
And my point is that allowing further updates without having to abide by preservation is a giant loophole publishers absolutely WILL use.
There would simply never be a new FIFA game again. Only "updates".
Do you see what I mean?
I'll just sleep on it, maybe I will