> That... basically kills the entire gaming industry.
>
> Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.
What you might be missing is that the author advocates for free software (which is framed differently from open source), while games typically aren’t pure software, but rely very heavily on art assets. The movement for free software traditionally draws a distinction between software and art. This means that only the software part of each game would need to be distributable, not the entire game.
It uses an independent reimplementation of the code of a Zelda game from the GameCube and combines them with the assets from the actual game to make native binaries for various platforms, which blows my mind a bit but demonstrates the power of this sort of split abstraction.
Yes! And there are many other re-implementation projects, like OpenMW, OpenGothic, fheroes2, and others, which allow you to play the games if you can provide the original assets. Largely for older games, but the point stands.
OpenMW has been on my list to try out for a while now, I should have thought of that one. I hadn't heard of OpenGothic, but I also only recently started learning about that game at all with the remake coming out soon, so I might need to add that to my list as well!
This makes me think, is there one of those "awesome" lists for open game reimplementations? If not, someone should make one...
Adding on to this but I'm not sure if it's 1:1 what you're talking about.
PokeMMO is a online Pokemon Fangame that combines the first 5 generations of games. From what I gather, this is possible because it is up to the user to provide the ROMs, so litigious Nintendo cannot say they are re-distributing copyrighted material
Presumably from the same methodology they laid out in the parent comment: clean-room reimplementation of the code is fair game, and you have to bring-your-own-assets (ostensibly from a legal copy of the original game, but however you do it is your own choice, not anything the people providing the free code need to be concerned with).
this was written (or 'output') by someone (or something) that clearly has not thought of the knock-on effects of those freedoms.
they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".
by all means i 100% agree that an ostensibly single player game should not be locked behind a login or telemetry, and that platforms like steam should not be able to lock you out of playing games you paid for. but i dont think forcing the whole free software thing would work out how the author is imagining it.
> […] in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".
This is exactly what has been happening for years, only illegally. If it became legal, I imagine far less people would end up buying the game, though probably still more than just one.
But again, games are more than just software, so the four freedoms do not enable this.
you don't need to liberate your project to GPL or whatever OSS to let users distribute them via torrent or at least being able to backup the DRM-free installer... i bet most if not all AAA games have their crack into the pirate land in less than a week after or even before release
As the article mentions, these arguments are basically all the arguments of the FSF, and everything Richard Stallman pushed for since the 80s. So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact.
>So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact.
what percent of businesses follow the FSF freedoms and turn a profit?
i would love it if i could get all my games for free, and legally give additional copies to all my students, family, and friends. but the developers pumping out those games probably want to see some sort of return more substantial than whatever trickles into their ko-fi account. they'll just stop developing games and go into CRM software or whatever.
Not really my point. My point is more that you suggested no one has thought about this, but yes, they have.
To answer your question, there have been plenty of business who have created and published free software (albeit plenty have later closed them). Notable examples are Databricks, Hashicorp, Mongodb, RedHat.
Sure they've built a moat on top of their free software, but they have (or had) free software regardless.
> That... basically kills the entire gaming industry.
> Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.
My reading of this was it was in terms of multiplayer games and servers. It was that the server should be freely redistributable and accessible. Much like you can download and run a minecraft server without owning a minecraft license.
The next sentence
> A multiplayer game cannot survive if only one person has the server files.
I read this more as game sharing. For example, say I buy a game and my friend also wants to play the game. In the past, I could just give them the disk and we both enjoy it. But today, with DRM and one use keys, this isn't possible. The game industry survived 20 years ago so there's no reason it can't survive without DRM and with sharable keys.
>For example, say I buy a game and my friend also wants to play the game. In the past, I could just give them the disk and we both enjoy it.
the difference being that only one person could enjoy it at a time. the math is a bit different when one person can put a copy of their game up online and let thousands of people enjoy it for free at the same time.
there is a happy medium somewhere between intrusive DRM and demanding games be free.
Game budgets were a lot lower 20 years ago, so maybe modern AAA games with $100m+ budgets can only exist in a world where every possible customer can be maximally shaken down.
To be fair, the legislation also kills any sort of multiplayer games, so it's in the same spirit. It just takes the idea to its logical conclusion. As a game developer, if this thing passes, I would just not build multiplayer ever anymore.
I’m guessing nobody here has ever actually tried to make games, let alone multiplayer ones. It’s not “oh just make it better” we’re usually already stretching the limits of what’s possible financially and time wise to get a working (fun) product.
You can add burdens all you want, but that means the games get simpler.. because they can’t be made cheaper (price sensitive customers) and time is finite in that context. something has to give.
As not a game dev myself, may I ask for clarification? How does ‘Stop Killing Games’ legislation kill any sort of multiplayer games specifically? Aren’t there already games which don’t have the problem the movement is trying to solve? Wouldn’t it only require action from you if you were trying to kill multiplayer in the first place? I feel like I may have misunderstood your point or am just lacking a lot of important insight.
Well, ok, you grasped at a few issues there that go off in different directions.
The issue with "Stop Killing Games" is that the legislation doesn't currently look like anything, it's a broad appeal and the solution for studios will depend on where it finally lands.
If it lands in the realm of "Games must be released FOSS after x years" then, aside from the fact that a lot of the times we don't own the copyrights to our own assets or certain code (they're on license for a single release) the second issue is how to release it.
First: the online backend for The Division or Destiny are just... not possible to run. The backend is fused to the products via a slurry of certificate pinning and object serialisation, with some things happening only on the server.
"Un-fusing" them is, basically impossible at this point; so the question is: can you build such a system without them being fused together in the first place?
The answer is: yes, but only by slowing down development. It would become much more about defining our boundaries and working on a "slim" version of the backend, or stubbing the backend completely. Obviously this is a lot of effort. The thing is we only barely managed to get a functional system, so adding an extra year for programming isn't going to be possible, we'll have to "cut" features that are hard to make.
"So, why don't you just release the server".
Well, that's a good question, we could remove the certificate pinning we have on the client, and the entitlement checks, stub out all the code that relies on third party APIs and give you a server binary.
But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs.
So, we'd have to work on slimming that down, or building things in a totally different way: which means "seamless" darkzones and safehouses becomes impossible.
THEN you have the issue of releasing a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product, which we already had a major issue with.
So, most likely, we just make single player games.
Honestly, the industry is moving that way anyway because unless you've been doing it for a while making multiplayer games is really hard from a game design standpoint and there's an ongoing operational cost which people are a bit too price sensitive to support.
That's why Massive released The Division 1 & Division 2 but then pivoted to doing single-player games like Star Wars and Avatar which only retains the most basic multiplayer elements.
> But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs.
As far as I understand that situation is accepted by the initiative. The requirement is not that it works on any specific hardware or software stack, just that it can theoretically work.
> a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product
Anti-cheat solutions aren't required to be released, and if there are bugs in the server, they might even be found and patched by the community.
What you're saying is true for the californian legislation, but not the EU which is currently being drafted (in a different direction) - nor the direction of the authors article, and like I replied in a sibling response: it's not like people would be pleased to get our binaries.
Second: anti-cheat itself is a fucking joke. A crutch, a last ditch hail-mary because we ran out of time to batten down the hatches or things were changed so often from the start of the project to the end that we couldn't add safety into the protocol design properly.
Exposing how our systems think about how you move, how you shoot, when AI ticks, when loot ticks, behaviour trees and how phase transitions are computed: gives an attacker a hell of a lot of leverage.
To put this into broader easier to understand terms: ask yourself why it's so easy to cheat in Unreal Engine games vs Battlefield.
It's not the anti-cheat. It's the complexity of digging through the engine and knowing what the memory is doing and what the server is doing.
Wow, thank you for the detailed answer! I understand your point much better now.
I still think ‘kills any sort of multiplayer games’ (what the other dev said) is a gross exaggeration, since you list some ways this could be made to work, but it sounds like some things would cost significantly more resources and need to be done differently. But hey, maybe that’s not necessarily a bad thing. (Plus, there are multiplayer games which aren’t quite as resource-intensive on the server side.)
>My reading of the law is that you need to make the binaries accessible, you don't have to provide the hardware to run it on.
if no one can run the binaries, despite them being accessible, then the regulation has failed and there will be a new movement to alter the regulation.
the spirit of the law is that i can reasonably spin up an instance of the server for me and my friends to play.
Community backlash will be fierce if it's not actually runnable.
Ubisoft doesn't have the most stellar reputation for example (I don't work there anymore) so people look at things we do by accident as if they are intentionally malicious.
Also, the California law is one law, the EU is also looking at this and it's likely to look different - that's why "Stop Killing Games" doesn't really mean anything yet, even people within the movement have differing definitions.
The key is communication. If the company says the binary has a certain min. requirement, then the vast majority of people will accept that.
Of course there'll be idiots, but I doubt you'll see a stronger backlash than to a company shutting down the servers without any solution, like they can do now.
If I subscribe to a service for $M/mo, I expect that service to work as long as I pay for it. If the maintainer of that service decides to turn it off and no longer charge me money, then so be it. I subscribed with eyes open about the lifetime that $M got me.
If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools over 50 years old. I would never expect Craftsman to sneak into my garage one day and destroy them because "they're old and unsupported and I should just buy new ones." I don't expect Toyota to repossess my car because it's hard to supply parts for old cars and they really just need me to buy another one.
So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for?
EDIT: I realize I am arguing for subscription pricing for software, which I am generally against. But for a game that requires a server operating in order to function, perhaps subscription pricing is more appropriate at least for that kind of game. It's still not appropriate for games or tools that run natively and don't have a significant reason for their logic to reside in a server.
Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly.
If a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.
Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs.
At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually.
It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.
I purchased a toy that I expect to be able to continue playing with long after the company that made that toy loses interest in it. I don't expect the company to run servers for my toy, I can do that if they gave that opportunity.
The way the industry currently operates is you show up to an all you can eat buffet, pay your $10, and then they give you a 30 page contract that you have to sign before you can start eating. You are further SOL if you sign that contract at 4:40 and they decide "well, today we are going to close at 5pm because there's not enough people here. This isn't profitable to us".
Once upon a time, all games operated like this. I could buy half life and run a half life server locally and all my friends could play half life together without valve ever getting in the middle. That didn't cost valve anything to support that. It was all part of the price of purchase of half life.
Heck, for games like Jedi Knight Dark Forces 2, 3rd parties like MSN hosted their own 3rd party services for matching players together. We still hosted the servers, but MSN did the match making. And when they stopped that service, it didn't matter. We can still host and play DF2. Theoretically another 3rd party could start up to match make again.
Games explicitly do not promise online features remain available perpetually. No reasonable consumer would assume perpetual access, either.
I also completely disagree that "it doesn't cost Valve anything to run Half Life". Firstly, it's patently incorrect, given Half Life has received 20+ updates in the last 5 years alone. Secondly, it's technically incorrect, given Steam going offline prevents you from opening Half Life at all. Newsflash, Steam games have CEG DRM and will not function for long periods of time without Steam.
Steam shuts down tomorrow, guess what? None of your games are working without a third party workaround. Even if you had them installed.
I'm not asking for free labor. I'm asking that if someone sells me a product for a one-time cost, then I expect that product to continue working as it did when I bought it. If ensuring it "continues working" represents a cost to the developer, then they should reconsider charging one-time for the product.
> they should reconsider charging one-time for the product
You wouldn't be able to afford it. It's well known at the time of purchase that online games will eventually become obsolete. Comparing that to tools is comparing apples to oranges.
Now, I do think that game companies should be compelled to make their servers available for others to host and maintain if they decide to stop hosting and maintaining them themselves. Some do, but all should be required to.
> At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way.
The legislation specifically carves out for things like this.
> Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs.
The legislation doesn't add this requirement at all.
> It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.
No. It's paying $10 and eating until 10pm and then leaving because they are done.
Your entire comment just reads as someone who has made assumptions about what is being asked for rather than actually looked into it.
Just the opening of your first two paragraphs proves that.
Can't see how an independent developer would ever be able to do this. We need more independent things not less... this would be my concern.
Better legislation would be to force developers to at least allow people to run their own servers... that doesn't need to include source or anything like that.
I love it but how do people tolerate the Steam launcher? Why is it a requirement to launch ages old games that lost support aens ago and do not even support Windows 10/11 and the best way to launch them is under emulation or virtualization, e.g. in Windows XP, but modern Steam is not compatible with XP, so ... you're screwed?
Valve could have made `steam.dll` optional for really old games but DRM is DRM and it's here to stay.
> Valve could have made `steam.dll` optional for really old games but DRM is DRM and it's here to stay.
It mostly is if you digging a bit. Yes, it should work out of the box, but at least it's possible to make it work. When the battle of getting games to not permanently break is still being fought (not to mention that there's (somehow?!) significant sentiment that games permanently breaking isn't an actual problem), there's little wonder why the battle of inconvenient DRM isn't really happening.
For a multiplayer game, especially for something like an MMO where there's lots and lots of content that exists only on the server, there's an interesting question. How do you keep the game going? Do you force the company to release a full working server with all of its content? I'm not opposed to that, but it's a much taller ask than "allow the end users to keep using their clients."
But then who's allowed to run servers? Can I modify the servers and mod them and republish my changes? Does killing the game also need to cancel any copyright on any server-side assets?
But then we need to get into licensing. What if Fortnite goes offline and they publish their server assets? Does that give me the right to use Naruto and Family Guy avatars on my homebrew server?
Free games aren't as crazy an idea as one might think, the same way open-source projects like Blender are able to make quite a bit of money. If any of you are fans of space simulator games, I'd check out Kitten Space Agency by RocketWerkz. Their intention is to make this game not only free but DRM-free, so that users can legally put it on a thumb drive and share it with each other. You can also play it entirely offline. Because it's an educational game that's a spiritual successor to a beloved Kerbal Space Program with a significant cult following, they are hoping to continue the project via donations and by partnering with educational institutions. We'll see if this works out for them, seems a little ambitious, but I really hope they set a precedent.
The discussion here is amazing! Takes me right back to the early days of Linux and discovering Free Software. How will developers eat?? Who would write software for free?? These people clearly didn't think this through!! Amazing to hear it all again, lol!
Let's think about it. Free software just applies to the source code. Artwork, logos, even trademarked names are not Free. Support, services, and documentation can also be non Free. This is the Red Hat business model and they make a ton of money.
Right now several very popular games are free or almost free to install and play. The game studios make money off of in game purchases. There's no reason that couldn't continue.
Games could be Free but connecting to the server for multiplayer would of course cost money.
What about anti cheating? I think motivated software engineers working together around the world could come up with solutions to this. Or (and?), good social engineers could come up with incentives/punishments that heavily encourage fair play. I worry about this one the least. Here's one idea that my son just made me aware of this morning. Some game he was playing allowed him FPV of his teammates after he was eliminated from the round. He saw his teammate could see through walls. This angered my son and he called the teammate out. The cheating was defeated.
There’s so many nuances around assets, trademarks, copyright, monetisation, cheatware(?), multi-player etc but the article ignores all of it and goes for the straight freedom angle. How do you even have in-game purchases when you can’t control client code? Do we even have a single example of FOSS and mainstream game that made money and was multiplayer?
> If you're a gamer who has watched a $70 purchase turn into a useless desktop icon overnight, you're entirely justified in your outrage.
If you're a gamer whose game became unplayable from cheaters running hacked clients because the game's developer decided to share their source code online, you're entirely justified in your outrage.
It should be legal to make and sell proprietary software with whatever server entanglements you want as long as they are clearly disclosed.
If customers and care about open source and free software games, they will support them. There is no need to dictate the funding model people want to use for art or software products. This is an industry with an unbelievable amount of competition.
> What gamers are actually experiencing is the inherent injustice of proprietary software.
The inherent injustice of developers being able to eat? The entire reason we're in this mess of a field is because of this ideological purity crusade. We could have a world where independent developers make a modest living producing good software that people pay a reasonable amouunt for, but because everyone expects everything for free, the majority of developers are forced into working for soulless corporations, who make the money that pays their salaries with the most predatory software imaginable, spamming ads, tracking, and microtransactions all over "free" software.
You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. The article mentions DRM, which is almost always bypassed, and private servers, which people do host -- so where's the lack of control, exactly? You just feel entitled to be given everything on a silver platter, you can't even be bothered to put effort into taking free stuff. Give me a break.
To be clear, I am fully in support of Stop Killing Games. Especially given the annoying copyright regime around hosting private servers, legislation to mandate some kind of fallback for termination is helpful. But trying to pin this cause to this horrible movement that has done 100x more harm than good? No thanks.
> You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there.
It’s never been about what’s possible in theory, but what’s feasible in practice. By the same kind of logic you apply here, every country in the world is as good as democratic because you can work your way to free elections eventually, even if it takes a while.
The literal next sentence after your quote was addressing the feasibility, of which it is clearly feasible because people actually are reverse engineering games at scale.
The point I was trying to make is that understanding and modifying software to do your bidding is significantly more feasible if you already have the source code than if you have to reverse-engineer it yourself, to an important degree.
Sure, and then it's significantly less feasible for developers to eat, to an important degree. It just comes across as entitled - it's too much effort to reverse engineer, give everything to me for free! Never mind that it can be done, I don't want to do it, I'm entitled to 10,000 manhours of free labour because software yearns to be free!!!
Yes, please. Also ask yourself why that old tumble dryer, fridge, amplifier, vacuum cleaner and water cooker from 40+ years ago refuse to die while modern units die about the same week the warranty expires.
They make you buy new or else the manufacturers fear going out of business. It's just sad that this has extended to practically everything.
I have a vision for an art exposition where common tools and household items are enriched with remote shut down technology. Devices that have no business being smart like a hamer, a tire iron, a lug Wrench and perhaps shoes.
The entrance will feature the obvious candidates that normally use electricity then gradually transition into things like a manual powered citrus juicer for which the battery is only for contract enforcement and planned obsolescence
Apparently one reason cars from the 90's last longer than new ones (which almost always fail in some way immediately after warranty expires) is the advancement and increased usage of computer modelling / simulation.
In the 90's they had pretty much mastered car manufacturing and made parts which they were certain would outlast the warranty, erring on the side of caution they mostly ended up making parts that lasted much longer than the warranty.
Now, with computer modelling and simulations, they can accurately design a part to be as cheap as possible to make while being just durable enough to last for the duration of the warranty.
D4A did a good video on it.. https://youtu.be/SeMZGICNSMg?si=sideQIwNBr9s9QW6
Is there evidence this is actually true? When I’ve looked I’ve found the historical reliability is overstated and also ignores cost, availability, and environmental impact of manufacturing and using newer appliances and devices. Lots of older things were heavy, resource intensive, and overbuilt. Quality items are still available today for all of this stuff, probably cheaper than in the past in most cases.
> or if it is illegal to modify the game client to point to a fan-run server
This would suggest entitlement to be able to allow the game to function in any capacity. They aren't expecting the developer to host it, but the legal right of someone to host it and the capacity for anyone to direct their client to it.
I can still play Quake without Id spending any of their own money running servers.
That's literally all anyone wants
Community run servers were killed because there's a possibility the community run servers would let you play with content you (gasp!) didn't pay for, as happened with TF2, so they can't possibly let you have that option! If they don't get $6 for a texture file, the world will end!
And don't give me bullshit about "But they would have to put extra effort into building that", as if nearly every game server application provided to players has ever been anything other than a random exe file with no documentation and critical flaws that require third party hacks to fix. Pretty much anything built on Unreal or the Source game engine had a ready to go server by default, or with a checkbox.
Hell, even nothing more than a carveout in the DMCA to allow people to legally reimplement servers after shutdown would buy a lot of goodwill. This carveout is only needed because the DMCA dramatically limited your legal rights in respect to software products just a couple decades ago.
There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them.
I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say:
> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
That... basically kills the entire gaming industry.
Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.
What you might be missing is that the author advocates for free software (which is framed differently from open source), while games typically aren’t pure software, but rely very heavily on art assets. The movement for free software traditionally draws a distinction between software and art. This means that only the software part of each game would need to be distributable, not the entire game.
It uses an independent reimplementation of the code of a Zelda game from the GameCube and combines them with the assets from the actual game to make native binaries for various platforms, which blows my mind a bit but demonstrates the power of this sort of split abstraction.
https://openmw.org/
https://github.com/Try/OpenGothic
https://ihhub.github.io/fheroes2/
This makes me think, is there one of those "awesome" lists for open game reimplementations? If not, someone should make one...
https://luxtorpeda.org/packages
PokeMMO is a online Pokemon Fangame that combines the first 5 generations of games. From what I gather, this is possible because it is up to the user to provide the ROMs, so litigious Nintendo cannot say they are re-distributing copyrighted material
That is impressive there is OSS Gothic 2
I wonder if its legal, how is it MIT
they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".
by all means i 100% agree that an ostensibly single player game should not be locked behind a login or telemetry, and that platforms like steam should not be able to lock you out of playing games you paid for. but i dont think forcing the whole free software thing would work out how the author is imagining it.
This is exactly what has been happening for years, only illegally. If it became legal, I imagine far less people would end up buying the game, though probably still more than just one.
But again, games are more than just software, so the four freedoms do not enable this.
what percent of businesses follow the FSF freedoms and turn a profit?
i would love it if i could get all my games for free, and legally give additional copies to all my students, family, and friends. but the developers pumping out those games probably want to see some sort of return more substantial than whatever trickles into their ko-fi account. they'll just stop developing games and go into CRM software or whatever.
To answer your question, there have been plenty of business who have created and published free software (albeit plenty have later closed them). Notable examples are Databricks, Hashicorp, Mongodb, RedHat.
Sure they've built a moat on top of their free software, but they have (or had) free software regardless.
i didnt say no one has thought about free software.
i said that this specific llm that output this article did not think about how the freedoms would work in todays gaming industry.
there are dozens of issues that immediately pop into my head, mostly specific to gaming, which are not mentioned or addressed at all.
> Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.
My reading of this was it was in terms of multiplayer games and servers. It was that the server should be freely redistributable and accessible. Much like you can download and run a minecraft server without owning a minecraft license.
The next sentence
> A multiplayer game cannot survive if only one person has the server files.
I read this more as game sharing. For example, say I buy a game and my friend also wants to play the game. In the past, I could just give them the disk and we both enjoy it. But today, with DRM and one use keys, this isn't possible. The game industry survived 20 years ago so there's no reason it can't survive without DRM and with sharable keys.
the difference being that only one person could enjoy it at a time. the math is a bit different when one person can put a copy of their game up online and let thousands of people enjoy it for free at the same time.
there is a happy medium somewhere between intrusive DRM and demanding games be free.
I’m guessing nobody here has ever actually tried to make games, let alone multiplayer ones. It’s not “oh just make it better” we’re usually already stretching the limits of what’s possible financially and time wise to get a working (fun) product.
You can add burdens all you want, but that means the games get simpler.. because they can’t be made cheaper (price sensitive customers) and time is finite in that context. something has to give.
The issue with "Stop Killing Games" is that the legislation doesn't currently look like anything, it's a broad appeal and the solution for studios will depend on where it finally lands.
If it lands in the realm of "Games must be released FOSS after x years" then, aside from the fact that a lot of the times we don't own the copyrights to our own assets or certain code (they're on license for a single release) the second issue is how to release it.
First: the online backend for The Division or Destiny are just... not possible to run. The backend is fused to the products via a slurry of certificate pinning and object serialisation, with some things happening only on the server.
"Un-fusing" them is, basically impossible at this point; so the question is: can you build such a system without them being fused together in the first place?
The answer is: yes, but only by slowing down development. It would become much more about defining our boundaries and working on a "slim" version of the backend, or stubbing the backend completely. Obviously this is a lot of effort. The thing is we only barely managed to get a functional system, so adding an extra year for programming isn't going to be possible, we'll have to "cut" features that are hard to make.
"So, why don't you just release the server".
Well, that's a good question, we could remove the certificate pinning we have on the client, and the entitlement checks, stub out all the code that relies on third party APIs and give you a server binary.
But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs.
So, we'd have to work on slimming that down, or building things in a totally different way: which means "seamless" darkzones and safehouses becomes impossible.
THEN you have the issue of releasing a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product, which we already had a major issue with.
So, most likely, we just make single player games.
Honestly, the industry is moving that way anyway because unless you've been doing it for a while making multiplayer games is really hard from a game design standpoint and there's an ongoing operational cost which people are a bit too price sensitive to support.
That's why Massive released The Division 1 & Division 2 but then pivoted to doing single-player games like Star Wars and Avatar which only retains the most basic multiplayer elements.
As far as I understand that situation is accepted by the initiative. The requirement is not that it works on any specific hardware or software stack, just that it can theoretically work.
> a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product
Anti-cheat solutions aren't required to be released, and if there are bugs in the server, they might even be found and patched by the community.
Second: anti-cheat itself is a fucking joke. A crutch, a last ditch hail-mary because we ran out of time to batten down the hatches or things were changed so often from the start of the project to the end that we couldn't add safety into the protocol design properly.
Exposing how our systems think about how you move, how you shoot, when AI ticks, when loot ticks, behaviour trees and how phase transitions are computed: gives an attacker a hell of a lot of leverage.
To put this into broader easier to understand terms: ask yourself why it's so easy to cheat in Unreal Engine games vs Battlefield.
It's not the anti-cheat. It's the complexity of digging through the engine and knowing what the memory is doing and what the server is doing.
I still think ‘kills any sort of multiplayer games’ (what the other dev said) is a gross exaggeration, since you list some ways this could be made to work, but it sounds like some things would cost significantly more resources and need to be done differently. But hey, maybe that’s not necessarily a bad thing. (Plus, there are multiplayer games which aren’t quite as resource-intensive on the server side.)
> So, we'd have to work on slimming that down
...why? My reading of the law is that you need to make the binaries accessible, you don't have to provide the hardware to run it on.
if no one can run the binaries, despite them being accessible, then the regulation has failed and there will be a new movement to alter the regulation.
the spirit of the law is that i can reasonably spin up an instance of the server for me and my friends to play.
If the company puts an artificial proof of work demanding a rack of the latest data center GPUs, that should be illegal.
If the binary has the same hardware requirements that the company used when the service was up, I see it as totally fair.
Ubisoft doesn't have the most stellar reputation for example (I don't work there anymore) so people look at things we do by accident as if they are intentionally malicious.
Also, the California law is one law, the EU is also looking at this and it's likely to look different - that's why "Stop Killing Games" doesn't really mean anything yet, even people within the movement have differing definitions.
Of course there'll be idiots, but I doubt you'll see a stronger backlash than to a company shutting down the servers without any solution, like they can do now.
If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools over 50 years old. I would never expect Craftsman to sneak into my garage one day and destroy them because "they're old and unsupported and I should just buy new ones." I don't expect Toyota to repossess my car because it's hard to supply parts for old cars and they really just need me to buy another one.
So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for?
EDIT: I realize I am arguing for subscription pricing for software, which I am generally against. But for a game that requires a server operating in order to function, perhaps subscription pricing is more appropriate at least for that kind of game. It's still not appropriate for games or tools that run natively and don't have a significant reason for their logic to reside in a server.
See also 'Juicero'.
Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.
There are carve-outs in the legislation for this. It's a moot point.
At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually.
It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.
The way the industry currently operates is you show up to an all you can eat buffet, pay your $10, and then they give you a 30 page contract that you have to sign before you can start eating. You are further SOL if you sign that contract at 4:40 and they decide "well, today we are going to close at 5pm because there's not enough people here. This isn't profitable to us".
Once upon a time, all games operated like this. I could buy half life and run a half life server locally and all my friends could play half life together without valve ever getting in the middle. That didn't cost valve anything to support that. It was all part of the price of purchase of half life.
Heck, for games like Jedi Knight Dark Forces 2, 3rd parties like MSN hosted their own 3rd party services for matching players together. We still hosted the servers, but MSN did the match making. And when they stopped that service, it didn't matter. We can still host and play DF2. Theoretically another 3rd party could start up to match make again.
I also completely disagree that "it doesn't cost Valve anything to run Half Life". Firstly, it's patently incorrect, given Half Life has received 20+ updates in the last 5 years alone. Secondly, it's technically incorrect, given Steam going offline prevents you from opening Half Life at all. Newsflash, Steam games have CEG DRM and will not function for long periods of time without Steam.
Steam shuts down tomorrow, guess what? None of your games are working without a third party workaround. Even if you had them installed.
You wouldn't be able to afford it. It's well known at the time of purchase that online games will eventually become obsolete. Comparing that to tools is comparing apples to oranges.
Now, I do think that game companies should be compelled to make their servers available for others to host and maintain if they decide to stop hosting and maintaining them themselves. Some do, but all should be required to.
The legislation specifically carves out for things like this.
> Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs.
The legislation doesn't add this requirement at all.
> It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.
No. It's paying $10 and eating until 10pm and then leaving because they are done.
Your entire comment just reads as someone who has made assumptions about what is being asked for rather than actually looked into it.
Just the opening of your first two paragraphs proves that.
Can't see how an independent developer would ever be able to do this. We need more independent things not less... this would be my concern.
Better legislation would be to force developers to at least allow people to run their own servers... that doesn't need to include source or anything like that.
[1] This is still way more than the industry would want.
If the are successful we will see quite a bit more open source.
Valve could have made `steam.dll` optional for really old games but DRM is DRM and it's here to stay.
It mostly is if you digging a bit. Yes, it should work out of the box, but at least it's possible to make it work. When the battle of getting games to not permanently break is still being fought (not to mention that there's (somehow?!) significant sentiment that games permanently breaking isn't an actual problem), there's little wonder why the battle of inconvenient DRM isn't really happening.
But then who's allowed to run servers? Can I modify the servers and mod them and republish my changes? Does killing the game also need to cancel any copyright on any server-side assets?
But then we need to get into licensing. What if Fortnite goes offline and they publish their server assets? Does that give me the right to use Naruto and Family Guy avatars on my homebrew server?
that happens at the end of nearly every paragraph here
Let's think about it. Free software just applies to the source code. Artwork, logos, even trademarked names are not Free. Support, services, and documentation can also be non Free. This is the Red Hat business model and they make a ton of money.
Right now several very popular games are free or almost free to install and play. The game studios make money off of in game purchases. There's no reason that couldn't continue.
Games could be Free but connecting to the server for multiplayer would of course cost money.
What about anti cheating? I think motivated software engineers working together around the world could come up with solutions to this. Or (and?), good social engineers could come up with incentives/punishments that heavily encourage fair play. I worry about this one the least. Here's one idea that my son just made me aware of this morning. Some game he was playing allowed him FPV of his teammates after he was eliminated from the round. He saw his teammate could see through walls. This angered my son and he called the teammate out. The cheating was defeated.
There’s so many nuances around assets, trademarks, copyright, monetisation, cheatware(?), multi-player etc but the article ignores all of it and goes for the straight freedom angle. How do you even have in-game purchases when you can’t control client code? Do we even have a single example of FOSS and mainstream game that made money and was multiplayer?
Terrible slop and I am flagging it.
If you're a gamer whose game became unplayable from cheaters running hacked clients because the game's developer decided to share their source code online, you're entirely justified in your outrage.
If customers and care about open source and free software games, they will support them. There is no need to dictate the funding model people want to use for art or software products. This is an industry with an unbelievable amount of competition.
The inherent injustice of developers being able to eat? The entire reason we're in this mess of a field is because of this ideological purity crusade. We could have a world where independent developers make a modest living producing good software that people pay a reasonable amouunt for, but because everyone expects everything for free, the majority of developers are forced into working for soulless corporations, who make the money that pays their salaries with the most predatory software imaginable, spamming ads, tracking, and microtransactions all over "free" software.
You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. The article mentions DRM, which is almost always bypassed, and private servers, which people do host -- so where's the lack of control, exactly? You just feel entitled to be given everything on a silver platter, you can't even be bothered to put effort into taking free stuff. Give me a break.
To be clear, I am fully in support of Stop Killing Games. Especially given the annoying copyright regime around hosting private servers, legislation to mandate some kind of fallback for termination is helpful. But trying to pin this cause to this horrible movement that has done 100x more harm than good? No thanks.
It’s never been about what’s possible in theory, but what’s feasible in practice. By the same kind of logic you apply here, every country in the world is as good as democratic because you can work your way to free elections eventually, even if it takes a while.
Submissions on HN with interesting titles keep ending up being revealed as AI slop halfway down towards them making their point.
Authors: you don't need this. Don't disrespect your reader's time with LLM slophancement.
They make you buy new or else the manufacturers fear going out of business. It's just sad that this has extended to practically everything.
Unless perhaps it means only companies selling the cheapest are surviving. Which also doesn't seem broady true.
Maybe we can say "whoever sells the cheapest acceptable units survives".
The entrance will feature the obvious candidates that normally use electricity then gradually transition into things like a manual powered citrus juicer for which the battery is only for contract enforcement and planned obsolescence
Now, with computer modelling and simulations, they can accurately design a part to be as cheap as possible to make while being just durable enough to last for the duration of the warranty. D4A did a good video on it.. https://youtu.be/SeMZGICNSMg?si=sideQIwNBr9s9QW6
This would suggest entitlement to be able to allow the game to function in any capacity. They aren't expecting the developer to host it, but the legal right of someone to host it and the capacity for anyone to direct their client to it.
That's literally all anyone wants
Community run servers were killed because there's a possibility the community run servers would let you play with content you (gasp!) didn't pay for, as happened with TF2, so they can't possibly let you have that option! If they don't get $6 for a texture file, the world will end!
And don't give me bullshit about "But they would have to put extra effort into building that", as if nearly every game server application provided to players has ever been anything other than a random exe file with no documentation and critical flaws that require third party hacks to fix. Pretty much anything built on Unreal or the Source game engine had a ready to go server by default, or with a checkbox.
Hell, even nothing more than a carveout in the DMCA to allow people to legally reimplement servers after shutdown would buy a lot of goodwill. This carveout is only needed because the DMCA dramatically limited your legal rights in respect to software products just a couple decades ago.