53
It still has nProtect. So unless you like Publishers adding Kernel level anti-cheat to all the their multiplayer games...
nProtect sucks and if ah felt like they had to choose a kernel anti cheat they should have chosen anything else, but at least it's disabled on linux? That's better than a lot of other publishers.
I hate kernel level anti cheat but I give them a pass because at least they support Linux and on Linux the anti cheat isn't kernel level.
Still would prefer they just don't use kernel level anti cheat on all platforms
I just searched nProtect and what the fuck😡
That's real annoying and also:
I think this might be why Helldivers 2 keeps crashing on my friend's PC🤔‼️
I really hope the 🍀Stop Killing Games movement succeeds🍀💪💪, all this DRM, anticheat and anticonsumer bullshit is real annoying to say the least
Helldivers 2 will probably not directly benefit from SKG, as the campaign isn't aiming for retroactive legislation
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).
All those games are not exceptions, nor the main target of SKG.
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
Isn't it impractical, if not impossible, to make online-only multiplayer games work without company servers?
Not at all. [...] If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. [...] it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.
Isn't what you're asking for impossible due to existing license agreements publishers have with other companies?
For existing video games, it's possible that some being sold cannot have an "end of life" plan as they were created with necessary software that the publisher doesn't have permission to redistribute. [...] For the European Citizens' Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with "end of life" plans and stop this trend.
... 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.
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.
Potential regulation does not need to be retroactive, in order to apply to current products.
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
Fucking stop with the emojis.
Sorry about the double post for anyone that saw that😅; Voyager didn't properly make the post so all that appeared on submission was just the title :S
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
53 points (98.2% liked)
Helldivers 2
2264 readers
54 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