1426
Stop Killing Games delivers 'absolutely incredible' hearing in European Parliament: 'There was no [parliament member] that wasn't responding positively' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
231 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's amazing what a difference a little bit of time can make: Two years after kicking off what looked to be a long-shot campaign to push back on the practice of shutting down server-dependent videogames once they're no longer profitable, Stop Killing Games founder Ross Scott and organizer Moritz Katzner appeared in front of the European Parliament to present their case—and it seemed to go very well.

Official Stream: https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/committee-on-internal-market-and-consumer-protection-ordinary-meeting-committee-on-legal-affairs-com_20260416-1100-COMMITTEE-IMCO-JURI-PETI

Digital Fairness Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14622-Digital-Fairness-Act/F33096034_en

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

Yes.

If they don't like it, they can keep supporting their older stuff. Or better yet, rethink their decision to impose a "live service" business model now that they'd actually be held accountable for it, and consider going back to giving users the means to run their own servers.

(Also, by the way, "security by obscurity" is bullshit. If disclosing their server-side code leads to exploits, that just means they're fucking incompetent. I have no sympathy at all.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Set the launch arguments of any Unreal game to "-log" and get back to me on how many lines of log types LogEOS* it spits out before the main menu loads. That usually interfaces SteamOSS, so if there are a low amount of EOS logs they will show up as LogSteamOSS. That is the best hint I can give.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    It sounds like you're trying to "hint" at the idea that a bunch of games are using Epic Online Services and/or the Online Subsystem Steam API associated with it, but beyond that I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

    If you're trying to obliquely cite that as some kind of counterexample where it's reasonable for a game's source code to remain secret just because part of it is that library, then no, it fucking isn't. I can't tell whether EOS has the source code available along with the rest of the Unreal engine or not, but if not, it ought to be and IDGAF about any excuses Epic might have for not making it so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Yes.

    If they don’t like it, they can keep supporting their older stuff. Or better yet, rethink their decision to impose a “live service” business model now that they’d actually be held accountable for it, and consider going back to giving users the means to run their own servers.

    Nobody can be forced to keep supporting their older stuff forever, assuming it is even possible.
    There are solutions to keep a server online or to give ways to run a local server (a docker image comes to mind), but you cannot think a company will keep a server active after years to just make few dozens happy with all the implications.

    I agree on the spirit of the initiative, but I cannot really see how it can carried out: my fear is that some types of game will not be sold anymore in EU: no legally sold copies, no legal obligation to keep the server online forever. And in this case we all lose something.

    (Also, by the way, “security by obscurity” is bullshit. If disclosing their server-side code leads to exploits, that just means they’re fucking incompetent. I have no sympathy at all.)

    Disclosing server-side code can leads to exploits, true, but I would not call them incompetent: they are not foolproof or omniscent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Nobody can be forced to keep supporting their older stuff forever, assuming it is even possible.
    There are solutions to keep a server online or to give ways to run a local server (a docker image comes to mind), but you cannot think a company will keep a server active after years to just make few dozens happy with all the implications.

    No shit, Sherlock. That's why the tenable and preferred option is for them to give it up once they're done profiting so that the public can do it themselves instead.

    I agree on the spirit of the initiative, but I cannot really see how it can carried out: my fear is that some types of game will not be sold anymore in EU: no legally sold copies, no legal obligation to keep the server online forever. And in this case we all lose something.

    LOL, nothing but FUD. Game publishers made plenty of profit before they came up with this "live service" bullshit, and they'll continue to make plenty of profit even after we stop allowing them to screw over everyone too.

    In case you weren't aware of it, the only reason we grant copyright to creative works in the first place is to encourage more works to be created and eventually enrich the Public Domain. If the works never reach it (because the publisher is using technological means to destroy it before copyright expires) then they have broken that social contract and don't deserve to be protected by it in the first place.

    These live service game publishers are trying to eat their cake and have it too, and they simply aren't entitled to that. The fact that they've been getting away with this theft from the Public Domain is unjust and must stop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I agree on the spirit of the initiative, but I cannot really see how it can carried out: my fear is that some types of game will not be sold anymore in EU: no legally sold copies, no legal obligation to keep the server online forever. And in this case we all lose something.

    LOL, nothing but FUD.

    As I said, it is my fear, I don't speak for anyone else than me, if we are discussing about something it is not that every doubt or fear I can have is automatically FUD.

    Game publishers made plenty of profit before they came up with this “live service” bullshit, and they’ll continue to make plenty of profit even after we stop allowing them to screw over everyone too.

    I know game publishers made a lot of money back at the time, but I am afraid that this "live services" bullshit was added to solve a problem: back at the time to play with your friends means setting up a lan party, which means to move PC, monitors and everything else (aside to have the space to do it). It was funny but had its limits.
    Initially live services solved this.

    And in the end we gamers are partially responsible for this situation: if we buy games that only work with a live service game publishers will continue to make them because they will make money from them. Stop playing these games and they will not make them anymore.

    Nobody think that a car manufacturer need to continue to have spare parts for cars it don't sell anymore, even if they are still on the roads (Actually, here there are laws here that require manufacturers to ensure the availability of replacement parts for ten years after a car model is discontinued), why game publisher should do this ?

    In case you weren’t aware of it, the only reason we grant copyright to creative works in the first place is to encourage more works to be created and eventually enrich the Public Domain. If the works never reach it (because the publisher is using technological means to destroy it before copyright expires) then they have broken that social contract and don’t deserve to be protected by it in the first place.

    Which is an interesting point. Copyright lasts how many years ? 70 after the death of the author ? So as long as the copyright do not expires, they are within their rights.
    Did this means that they are force to maintain it when no one pay for it anymore ? No.

    These live service game publishers are trying to eat their cake and have it too, and they simply aren’t entitled to that. The fact that they’ve been getting away with this theft from the Public Domain is unjust and must stop.

    No, they simply don't want to maintain something that do not even pay for itself, and I undestand it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    If you aren't supporting it anymore, then you aren't allowed to maintain exclusive access to it anymore. When you stop supporting it, then you now need to free the code and let other people run their own servers. That does not cost you money.

    If you don't want to do that, then you have to keep supporting it. It's that simple. Your right to maintain exclusive access to the source code of the software you are providing to people for money, is contingent upon you keeping the software in an operable state. If you are no longer capable of or no longer want to keep the software in an operable state, then you no longer get to keep the software private. This is not rocket science.

    If there are third-party libraries you are not allowed to release by contract, that's fine don't release them. Nobody is saying the source code you release has to be fully functional and have an easy-to-use build system, people will figure out ways to disable those functions or replace them with alternatives. Cleaning up that kind of legal mess before hand or not getting into it in the first place would be kind of you to do, and polite, but I don't expect it from a greedy miserable corporation. Honestly, I wouldn't even be that bothered if they didn't have to release source code at all. What I particularly care about is them losing the right to send copyright-takedowns when people try to share ways to make their own fucking game work. That's the bare minimum acceptable standard required here. If you are not selling the game or supporting the game, then you do not have the right to shut down the people voluntarily doing it for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent