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.
Digital Fairness Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14622-Digital-Fairness-Act/F33096034_en
I don’t see how this would put any additional burden on smaller devs. Small teams usually don’t make always-online type games because they’re very complex and expensive
Take Among Us. It is not some huge bullshit live service game, but it makes use of the internet. It was created by a small developer.
The game includes local network play which is a good thing because I assume it would have to under this law, so it can play “offline.”
Do we think that local network play was zero effort to include? Would it really have no effect on small developers if they all had to include this always?
I know what you mean about small indie games being simple but the reality is a little more complex than that image. Small developers do also create online games. They aren’t big shit shows like Fortnite but that doesn’t mean they don’t use the internet.
No one ever wants to hear that it’s more complicated than they think it is, but that’s the truth virtually all the time.
I understand the core case that this man wants to stop. But laws have to be written for all, with precise language, and can’t just say “you know the kind of game we’re talking about.”
And that’s where this gets difficult.
If you can make a multiplayer game over the internet, you can make a multiplayer LAN mode or even share the server implementation or give API specifications to allow the community to make their server software
Yeah I think there’s some promise in “open the source” as a remedy here. Because that doesn’t really put any onus on the game maker. They can keep making games exactly as they do now, but if they want to utterly walk away from a title, they have to open the source.
I think the complications with this would come from IP and copyright law, licensing, etc. for example, if the developer licensed any other software (or music or whatever) in order to make the game, do they actually have the rights to open source all of that? Perhaps not.
It’s kind of like accelerating the public domain thing. Very interesting remedy for this situation, but extremely complex legally, I would guess.
The music/artwork thing is usually not a problem since the license can just not cover art like many open source licenses already do
But then how could anyone use it? If it’s to download and run at home, you can get away with it. But in many of these cases they’re saying open source it so volunteer group XYZ can host a server and keep the game alive. Wouldn’t group XYZ be vulnerable to copyright action?
The artwork and music is usually on the client side (and if it’s not, the programmers need to get good lmao) so it’s really not a problem
open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for usage, modification from its original design, and publication of their version (fork) back to the community
(copied 1:1 from wikipedia, i was too lazy to write it myself)
So no, open source don’t mean that a specific group keeps the server game alive by hosting a server but that the server code is aviable to the public to do whatever they want;
Another solution is making the code Source-available (like some companies already do: eg Mojang) or just distributing a copy of the server for people to use, without being open sourc
I know what open source means.
A group that wants to host that game server is eventually going to need to fix it, or adapt it to new software / hardware if we expect it to be able to run in perpetuity. They will need to be able to modify that source code to do so.
So the game publisher can’t just publish one final compiled package “for people to use.” The software has to be able to be maintained, not just used. And if we expect the software to survive over time, it will need a community not just one group. Open source is the only thing that would allow the game publisher to walk away from it, but allow the software to live on.
I’d prefer an open source solution too, but tbh, there are other (more lazy) ways for the publisher, like sharing the APIs specifications so the people can make their own server, i hope that the EU will take the open source approach tho
Small teams and indies use things like photon to make multiplayer games.