You're viewing a single thread.
Are people actually advocating for game publishers to have to keep the servers running forever? That would seem a bit of an unreasonable ask. I think a reasonable compromise would be that if they plan to shut down the servers, the publisher should have to release the server side software.
No “running the servers forever” is a bad faith argument against the initiative making it seem “unreasonable”
It's also subtly re-enforcing capital's position games need to operate on a centralised server model. I look back at many old multiplayer games where all I need to play with my friends is a local network. These days we get sold single player games that can't run under those conditions.
They aren't scared of being made to run servers forever. Quite the opposite, they are scared of us not needing them to.
Doesn't even have to be local.
Still plenty of Enemy Territory servers going around. No need to set up a VPN or anything to play with your friends.
Why else would you want to play their new games if they can't force restricted access on your old games.
For real though, I miss games that could sync up multiplayer over LAN.
I mean, it could be interpreted as such. Easiest way to deal with this interpretation is by providing clear and concise explanations what precisely is being fought for. Not for those of us who are keeping an eye on things, for those who hear about it suddenly or purposefully use bad faith arguments.
Gotta communicate STRONGLY nowadays.
i think the simplest explanation is this:
If your game requires a server component to be played, let players run the server. Ideally from day 1, but at least as part of shutting down your game.
it's really not hard, that's how multi-player games worked until lootboxes took off and replaced modding.
WoW was server side long before that… RuneScape…
Don’t make shit up, it doesn’t help get people on your side of the argument, it actually pushes them the other way.
i am not making shit up, I promise I've ran many game servers over the years. I am obviously generalizing as of course there are counter examples especially MMOs.
But then there is warcraft 1 through 3 that were peer to peer and quake, half life, unreal, painkiller, enemy territory, and just about every fps game of the era that came with the software to run your own dedicated server, or could host a listen server while playing.
If you want to just look at a single very mainstream example, look at call of duty. Everything up to and including cod4:mw came with the software to run your own server. nothing after it did, though a few let you 'run your own server' by paying their approved hosting provider to run a copy for you, but it was always under their control and not something you could just set up on hardware you already have.
Absolutly!!! Dedicated servers was and is the bomb. Gives you a way to build community around your servers.
i bring you, the incredible concept of a dedicated server.
A few games, small ones, like minecraft, have discovered that you can just release a server binary, and people will figure everything else out, regardless of whether or not you document anything, or tell anybody how to do anything.
Even if you have a huge MMO with a centralized server, i see no reason you shouldn't have a dedicated server infrastructure.
No, that’s not what stop killing games is about. What’s demanded is that the games remains in a playable state even if servers are shut down.
What about multiplayer games? The server side is always going to be a necessity for those games.
AFAIK the initiative calls for the publishers to release the software needed to host your own servers. If everyone can host their own servers(what is quite common for some games) Theres no need for the publisher to pay for their own servers.
So then release the server side data. Or unlock the game from the need of a server, or allow users to create their own servers.
My guess they won’t coz server code recycled for future games. Nobody will play for CoD MWBOCW187 coz with server code published you can just mod older server and pay the only fair price of new game which is 0.00 €$
Who's talking server side code? just releasing the compiled server binary should be enough. Just like games typically are released as binaries and assets, and not as source code.
Can you decompile the server binary? Yes you can! But you can also decompile the game to work without the server or with a makeshift server. Either is just a lot of work that few people are willing to do.
Protecting the server code is rather useless if the game can be cracked, since then you can also play the game for '0.00 €$'.
I mean this isn’t about asking the companies nicely to do this. We are asking law makers to enforce this by law. We are past asking corporations to not be crap.
Back in the old days you could host your own multiplayer server locally. Regardless of that, most multiplayer games have single player modes where you go against bots, which I'm sure will satisfy the "still playable" criteria.
They should open source the server if they are going to shut it down.
This is clearly the best option. Sometimes they can’t, though, because they have deals with 3rd party companies for libraries they depend on and they don’t have permission to release.
Personally I’d prefer they just rip out all the 3rd party code and release whatever they have left, leaving it up to the community to fill in the gaps with open source alternatives.
I think what they really want is to shut down the game and release the sequel so that everyone is forced to upgrade. I hate that. If they do that then they should forfeit their copyright.
I love that I can still play Quake… 28 years later
Your idea is exactly what the movement is trying to achieve. But people keep repeating these bullshit arguments instead of listening for five seconds.
No. It’s a made up burden by publishers to avoid releasing control of games.
Everyone I have ever seen comment on this has basically suggested to just release the server code so that the community can run their own servers and continue gaming.
My ideas about the topic are a bit different, and might go a bit further:
-
If a company sells a license to an end customer (i.e. any private individual not posing as a business themselves) for any piece of software, games or otherwise, in exchange for something of value (like money, usually money), and they do not make abundantly clear both in the official advertising materials and during all steps of the sales process that the license is time-limited, the law should view that license as being in perpetuity and non-revocable, even if the fine print says otherwise.
-
Any company that sells software licenses should be required to make sure that none of the copy protection mechanisms it employs to protect it from software piracy will ever effectively keep any legitimate license holders from using the software, for as long as the license is valid. If the license is perpetual, that means forever. If the company decides to implement its copy protection by requiring the software to log on to some server on the internet before it will do its work, the company should have the choice between running that server and keeping it internet-reachable forever or providing all legitimate license holders a means to disable the licensing server requirement.
-
If a computer game requires a login into a server that cannot be provided by the license holder themselves or a third party of their choice before the core functionality of the game can be used, and this login requirement is not an unavoidable technical requirement from a software developer's side (i.e. if the game is not a pure multiplayer or MMO game at its core), then this login requirement should be seen as a copy protection mechanism for the purposes of the previous paragraph. Just like in the previous paragraph, software companies should have the choice between running those servers forever or disabling the requirement, with the additional option of allowing the license holder to run a suitable replacement server themselves. I'm thinking of games like Simcity (2013) or Flight Simulator 2024 here.
I do not believe these demands are radical. I believe the current situation, where publishers can sell a game to a large numbers of customers and then later just take away the right to use it on a whim is radical.
I also believe that computer games are an essential part of cultural life for large parts of the last three generations, and I believe that preserving these cultural artifacts is no less important than preserving books, movies, music, etc. from previous generations.
As an aside, the notion that running a simple licensing server for software you sold is too much to ask for is absolutely asinine. Unless you are being intentionally stupid about it, running a license server for a ten+ years old software, that presumably gets used as broadly and frequently as 10+ years old software gets used, is ridiculously cheap. Unless your software company is literally just a one-man operation, it shouldn't even amount to a rounding error on the balance sheet. Even if it is a one-man operation, this is definitely still doable without breaking the bank.
Or to put it more succinctly: If you make the license server requirement be forever, you must run the license server forever.
In point three, forget about MMOs or "unavoidable technical requirements". Either MMOs are temporary with a monthly license like many are. Or they are forever, but then on shutdown the server software has to be provided to at least license holders.
-
No, nobody is actually saying they'd have to run servers forever, it's a bad faith argument. All that is being said is if/when they do stop running servers they make the game playable without the servers and/or make available the code or tools needed for people to run their own servers.
"IrateAnteater"? More like "IlliterateAnteater" or "AnteaterThatCantReadTheFirstParagraphOfTheFuckingPetition".
Are people actually advocating for game publishers to have to keep the servers running forever?
if you have about 2iq, and just woke up, haven't drank coffee, and refuse to do any research at all.
Then yes that is what they want to do.
If you actually read into it, that's not even close to what they want.
also it's not "a bit unreasonable" it's entirely unreasonable.
I think a reasonable compromise would be that if they plan to shut down the servers, the publisher should have to release the server side software.
you just reiterated 95% of the entire campaign, great job.