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
[–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

There's no need to release any source code if your game doesn't require an internet connection to your server to run in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Do you think only big studios make games that need an internet connection? Or why is this comment relevant?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    The important part is "to your server".

    Mostly big studios/publishers put "always online" requirements in single player games for a start. And even if it's not only big studios, those requirements can be omitted without effort (if anything it reduces effort to not put them in).

    Multiplayer games are a different beast, but I'd argue that yes, small studios rarely make games that exclusively rely on the developer's own servers for multiplayer. That is because they are smaller studios and server architecture for a multiplayer game is a big investment for them. Even if I'm wrong there, future games can be designed with the legislation in mind (this would not affect existing games retroactively) and don't have to keep using centralized server architecture for everything.

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

    Again, I never disagreed with the issue: (90%) solo games requiring an internet connection disappearing suddenly is a major issue in the gaming industry

    I disagree with the solutions people want for it, which I find shortsighted.

    And yes, such a legislation would force to rethink some designs, and force using one over the other not because it fits the final product better, but because it does not have the additional pressure of compliance. And that, I think, makes it a poor solution.

    What I'd like to see is something similar to minimal warranty in the EU. So, a game has to provide X years of playability, clearly shown on the product page/box. They can guarantee longer if they wish. They then have a legal obligation to keep it online. Add to it a mandatory warning X years before shutdown.

    Then the consumer is no longer deceived, and the studio has less pressure to comply with EoL requirements.

    And why not make releasing the source code a viable way to comply with these requirements, and have a special label for "forever playable" games, either fully singleplayer or through code release.

    Just don't force every studio to release their codebase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent