Stop Killing Games - Calling all europeans

[danutz_plusplus]

Ross and his campaign have launched a call for people that are european citizens and are old enough to vote:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI


Do it! Even though I'm not too optimistic about going against big business, something like this can't hurt.

 

[Redglyph]

I've already signed on another website, but I'll do this one, too.

That being said, this guy should present things better. Saying that 'games work indefinitely' and 'are designed to stop working the second the support ends from the publisher', that's a 'planted obsolescence', and that 'publishers are destroying games they've already sold to you, but keeping the money' is all big words and conspiracy theory BS. I didn't know such a fanatic was behind that campaign.

No, games don't work indefinitely. OS and drivers change, monitor resolutions change, hardware changes. Also, I've never seen a game that stopped working the instant the support ended. Actually, I've never seen a specific date for the support to end; they just stop replying or say that they've passed the issue to their development team and leave the ticket open indefinitely. I've seen a very few games being removed from stores or servers shut down many years after release, but it's standard practice to retire a product after a while.

However, I do like the idea of trying to prevent that, at least by not making games artificially online, but when I heard his talk, it had the opposite effect on me and almost stopped me from signing.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

I've already signed on another website, but I'll do this one, too.

That being said, this guy should present things better. Saying that 'games work indefinitely' and 'are designed to stop working the second the support ends from the publisher', that's a 'planted obsolescence', and that 'publishers are destroying games they've already sold to you, but keeping the money' is all big words and conspiracy theory BS. I didn't know such a fanatic was behind that campaign.

No, games don't work indefinitely. OS and drivers change, monitor resolutions change, hardware changes. Also, I've never seen a game that stopped working the instant the support ended. Actually, I've never seen a specific date for the support to end; they just stop replying or say that they've passed the issue to their development team and leave the ticket open indefinitely. I've seen a very few games being removed from stores or servers shut down many years after release, but it's standard practice to retire a product after a while.

You can still play very old games, games where their developers have been out of business for 20+ years. That wouldn't be possible if the game had its own drm that needed to phone home. Unless you use cracked versions.
Sure there are technical reasons why some might be more difficult, but having drm on top of that makes it guaranteed that it won't work (unless again, you use a crack that removes that).

The biggest example that I can think of, in games, is the one this whole campaign started from. The Crew, is gonna be taken offline with players having no option to continue playing it.
In the realm of software in general, I constantly hear of verification servers being taken offline so if you're stuck with an older version of certain software, you're shit out of luck. I think Adobe is one of the biggest sinners in this.

Companies don't just get to retire my particular product after a while. The same way when I buy a washing machine, if I can still repair it and manage it, it doesn't just get retired because they have a new product to sell. Sure don't update it or change it anymore, but don't brick it either.
If they want to do that they should have to put on the box when it's gonna be non-functional, so that people can at least make an informed purchase. Or introduce a subscription. That changes the nature of the transaction, from a product to a service.

All he's asking for is for companies to have an end-of-life plan for when they no longer support it. And that should be easily achieved if planned ahead and the software is developed with that in mind. There's loads of ways of doing that.
I think this should be regulated into law.

And about planted or planned obsolescence, if you really believe companies don't do that, or that we should give them the benefit of the doubt until ... I don't know what to say but that's a whole lot of trust in companies whose main priority is to maximize profits. It's no conspiracy theory. They're doing worst things than planned obsolescence.
Also, I'd recommend watching more of Louis Rossman's youtube channel. He's has an IT repair company for almost 20 years and has stories up the waazoo about all of this, and planned obsolescence.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5psUktwYgt0

Other examples involve other industries, like farming. Where they make the hardward as difficult as possible to diagnose, and refuse to release the diagnosing software to even find out what the issue is.
They force farmers to haul that tractor to the John Deer repair shop, where very likely they'll force them to just buy a new one. And when John Deer was sued by some farmers organization for this, all the Microsoft and Apple, and other interested parties, showed up with their lobbyist to make sure that any repair legislation or regulation doesn't get passed. Because they know it will sooner or later affect them. Is that also not planned obsolescence?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPYy_g8NzmI

That this is viewed as a conspiracy theory is impressive; and by people that only stand to lose due to this.

 

[sakichop]

How about a movement to get games to work on release first then maybe we can worry about them lasting forever.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

How about a movement to get games to work on release first then maybe we can worry about them lasting forever.

We can walk and chew bubble-gum at the same time?

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

And when John Deer was sued by some farmers organization for this, all the Microsoft and Apple, and other interested parties, showed up with their lobbyist to make sure that any repair legislation or regulation doesn't get passed. Because they know it will sooner or later affect them. Is that also not planned obsolescence?

If I recall this correctly, the EU is going forward with planning a law which forces companies to enable repair.

 

[Redglyph]

How about a movement to get games to work on release first then maybe we can worry about them lasting forever.

It's because they don't work on release that they have to last forever (for all the patches).

 

[Redglyph]

In the realm of software in general, I constantly hear of verification servers being taken offline so if you're stuck with an older version of certain software, you're shit out of luck. I think Adobe is one of the biggest sinners in this.

I'd be curious to see how many games or software had this problem; personally, I never had that issue. OSes tend to be supported only for so long, but it's clearly stated from the beginning.

Isn't that just a few vocal customers? I sure don't hear that constantly.

All he's asking for is for companies to have an end-of-life plan for when they no longer support it. And that should be easily achieved if planned ahead and the software is developed with that in mind. There's loads of ways of doing that.
I think this should be regulated into law.

I also think it's a reasonable request for games allowing it, which is why I signed. But people have to be reasonable, too. My point is that this guy makes it sound as if failure were planned, whereas it's the opposite: it must be planned for that not to happen (which isn't always possible).

Products just get old and stop working after a while. For physical products, it's wear and tear, and since they're usually built with economy in mind, they tend to last less than we'd like them to. I'm not going into the 'planned obsolescence' rabbit hole here; I suppose it must have happened in some rare cases, but a constructor has much to lose if it's discovered.

For software, you can't expect it to last forever, since it depends on the back-compatibility of the OS, new hardware, and drivers. If it relies on a server, I think it's reasonable if the publisher shuts it down after 10 years or so, especially if there's no subscription fee.

If it's because of a DRM, it's a little sad indeed and could perhaps be avoided. In fact, I doubt DRMs have a positive impact on sales anyway, but I've never seen a conclusive study that would convince publishers to stop that practice. DRMs are sometimes a nasty piece of s...oftware.

People should read the fine prints in the EULA before deciding if they want to buy a game. Nobody's forcing them. When I see something I don't like, I don't buy it.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

Ross makes it very clear, maybe in other videos, that he does not want games to be supported indefinitely. That's not the purpose of this whole campaign.
The purpose is to remove anything that might kill them prematurely, for no good reason. Most often this is either DRM or something like acts like DRM, like a server component that needs to be contacted.

DRM can be easily patched out, to not require contacting some remote server which they no longer want to support. And a server component could be released to customers, just like for most LAN multiplayer games. Though, for that they maybe could argue that they don't want server-side code to be inspectable, since they might be reusing that codebase for current projects. So maybe multiplayer games are out; though it's not mandatory. I'd even find that acceptable, as personally I don't much care for multiplayer. But it is still a shame to kill a game that people worked on, and could still be enjoyed in communities.

Both of these could be done ahead of time, so that when the moment comes they can release them into the public.

All he's asking is that arrangements are maybe, from the start, so that when they do decide they're no longer selling something and/or supporting it is to simply hit a configuration and disable anything that's blocking it from running.

 

[Redglyph]

I think the website is quite clear about the intentions, and more sober. I copied the links below. I just had a moment of hesitation when they asked for my national registration number, which is for us THE way to identify someone here and that we should never give away. But it's a legit EU website, so it's fine.

Stop Killing Games

www.stopkillinggames.com

Initiative detail | European Citizens' Initiative

citizens-initiative.europa.eu

I've seen some other interesting or even funny initiatives, including one about the use of cannabis 'for medicinal purposes' or something like that. I didn't know they hosted all those initiatives; that's pretty cool.

DRM can be easily patched out, to not require contacting some remote server which they no longer want to support. And a server component could be released to customers, just like for most LAN multiplayer games. Though, for that they maybe could argue that they don't want server-side code to be inspectable, since they might be reusing that codebase for current projects. So maybe multiplayer games are out; though it's not mandatory. I'd even find that acceptable, as personally I don't much care for multiplayer. But it is still a shame to kill a game that people worked on, and could still be enjoyed in communities.

Yeah, no need to keep those DRMs for years anyway. As you say, its deactivation could be pre-programmed. Who knows, that might even get them a few extra sales when it happens.

The server is a more delicate matter, and you've got a good point about the code, too. It could be annoying because MP often has a longer life (though I personally don't care much for MP, either).

 

[Couchpotato]

Not European so my vote wont matter but I support the cause. As DRM and greed has ruined any preservation of newer games. Denuvo and online servers has stopped that.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

I finally managed to also sign the form.
I had some issues accessing the link, so Ross seems to have provided a more direct link that doesn't break on the EU's website.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819462909304754250

View: https://x.com/accursedfarms/status/1819462909304754250


Some more opinion on this

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SgTf_ghiRU

 

[sakichop]

Just watched the video. Since you buy a license to the game and not the game itself for the vast majority of games, would this have any effect even if passed?

 

[danutz_plusplus]

Just watched the video. Since you buy a license to the game and not the game itself for the vast majority of games, would this have any effect even if passed?

I would imagine so. The regulation is for the actual game, not the license. Of course it all depends on how it is specified and enforced.
But if the requirement is for the actual product to be left functional beyond its active/supported period I would assume the license has no bearing. The license just legally allows you to play something that they're forced to not kill.

 

[Redglyph]

If it passes, it may win a battle but not the war; we'll have to see whether publishers and distributors do anything about it. Those outside Europe probably won't care, and a platform like Steam has broken European and other laws a few times. Maybe paying the fine is a more interesting solution for them.

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine it won't be too hard for publishers who don't respect the regulation (I suppose it has to be a EU regulation) to defend their case in justice, too. Hopefully it will improve things a little, though, at least in the trivial cases of DRMs with absurd requirements for an absurd number of years (like Ubisoft has been doing for a while).

 

[Redglyph]

Here's an interesting point of view.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioqSvLqB46Y


In summary, this game dev doesn't agree with the idea because the target is too vague and too general (all video games) instead of focusing on the real problems, and he's concerned that laws coming from this initiative would be too restrictive and, in practice, would make some types of games impossible (mobile games, GaaS, etc).

He remarks that The Crew is online-only, has a MP server/client structure, and that it doesn't make sense not to shut it down after so long. So it's not a good example or motive for an initiative like this one.

He analyses a few items in Ross' video and concludes he's naïve and not entirely honest (which was my problem, too).

Finally, he explains a few concrete issues that should be stopped, which is more or less what we discussed above.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVBiN5SKuA

A through q&a for a lot of the points that were raised in the last few weeks.

I skipped around PirateSoftware's video some time ago, and I don't agree with a lot of his points. Honestly, sometimes it even feels like he's just being contrarian.
And I understand he was asked to a live debate/discussion with Ross from AccursedFarms and Louis Rossmann, the repair dude from New York, to discuss his concerned more in depth and what other alternatives there are and he just refused to participate.

Some of his arguments don't even makes sense and seem dishonest. If I remember correctly he complains this will affect indie games and developer. Yeah, I'm sure indie devs regularly develop live-service games or multiplayer games. I'd imagine the number of live-service/multiplayer games developed by indies to be < 1%. Most indies do not have the budget or want to tackle building multiplayer games.

Also, on the topic of devs not being allowed to distribute certain binaries since they're cuffed by contractual agreements ... This is exactly the sort of thing that can push back on those sorts of practices. If the whole industry is forced to distribute binaries to players, at the moment the game is taken offline, those 3rd party developers that try to force those contractual agreements will have no choice but to remove those, or go out of business. Since no one will be able to accept their terms.

But I also don't like all this focusing on multiplayer games. The biggest chunk of games that will benefit from this are singleplayer games that have online DRM. Sometimes I wonder if it would've not been smarter to just tackle singleplayer games, so maybe on that I might agree with the PirateSoftware dude.

Ultimately, yes, some games will be affected and practices will need to change. I have no issue with that for the greater good we’d be gaining.

 

[Redglyph]

Some of his arguments don't even makes sense and seem dishonest. If I remember correctly he complains this will affect indie games and developer. Yeah, I'm sure indie devs regularly develop live-service games or multiplayer games. I'd imagine the number of live-service/multiplayer games developed by indies to be < 1%. Most indies do not have the budget or want to tackle building multiplayer games.

He's not talking about indie games at all.

Games as a service and multiplayer are the backbone of the video game industry, and Ross' initiative goes against that - not even mentioning the IP licencing which is never indefinite. More ironically, the game that triggered it is a MP game that needs a server, so it couldn't benefit from that initiative. The 10 years it got was already quite a lot; in the video, PS shows how little the game was used after a while, and it's obvious it wouldn't make sense to maintain servers for nothing. I think others would have shut that down long ago.

The publisher might be cool and give the source code for people to take over, but it's really not an obligation.

But I also don't like all this focusing on multiplayer games. The biggest chunk of games that will benefit from this are singleplayer games that have online DRM. Sometimes I wonder if it would've not been smarter to just tackle singleplayer games, so maybe on that I might agree with the PirateSoftware dude.

That's the idea. The goal should be more precisely and more carefully framed. This initiative would make perfect sense for everything related only to DRM. Perhaps there are other cases, too.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

He's not talking about indie games at all.

Games as a service and multiplayer are the backbone of the video game industry, and Ross' initiative goes against that - not even mentioning the IP licencing which is never indefinite. More ironically, the game that triggered it is a MP game that needs a server, so it couldn't benefit from that initiative. The 10 years it got was already quite a lot; in the video, PS shows how little the game was used after a while, and it's obvious it wouldn't make sense to maintain servers for nothing. I think others would have shut that down long ago.

The publisher might be cool and give the source code for people to take over, but it's really not an obligation.

I'm not sure I believe multiplayer games are the backbone, compared in sales in revenue to single-player games. They certainly are the most active and vocal and the ones you hear about, but I'd imagine they're a minority when speaking just numbers. They probably do have a long tail, but that depends on how much people buy random microtransactions. I mean, look at Destiny 2, you'd think it was probably the biggest multiplayer game and it seems to be going into the ground, with Bungie apparently almost bankrupt before being bought by Sony. Anyway, this is sort of a different point.

But I still don't agree, that just because it's been 10 years the game is supposed to shut down. If it had a subscription, and therefore a clear understanding that you get access to it as long as you pay or the game allows you to pay for it, I'd have no issue. This goes back to the confusion about whether it's a product or a service. Let them make it a subscription or put a date on the box, for how long they aim to support it, and I'd have no issue.

That's the idea. The goal should be more precisely and more carefully framed. This initiative would make perfect sense for everything related only to DRM. Perhaps there are other cases, too.

The only reason I would've maybe made it only for singleplayer and DRM games is that it would probably make the whole fight easier. But philosophically speaking I'd want multiplayer games to be covered. As long as you're buying a product and not renting a service I'd want it covered.

Thought I might be guilty of not being too concerned about disrupting the current multiplayer games situation, and not caring much about what it turns into, since I don't play a lot of these. Probably close to none nowadays. So maybe that should disqualify my opinion. But if I were to give an opinion it would probably still be that.

The part that would still interest me though, is the hybrids. Games that can fully be played singleplayer but the two components are sort of needlessly tied together. I'd want this to cause a more clear separation between the singleplayer and the multiplayer. Games like most of the souls games. I'd want the singleplayer part to be fully playable in singleplayer, and with no DRM or calls to remote servers when the game ends support.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

Seems the topic is kind of blowing up, and with other developers voicing their opinions. I can imagine not all of them will voice it, whether it's pro or against this position. Since it can lead to headaches at their current jobs.
This dude though, a game developer for 15 years, seems to take issue with PirateSoftware saying he speaks for a lot of developers. And technically he's right. Even if you don't want to put your face out there you can communicate your position. Like this dude does, by just not showing his face.

Onto the video itself, this developer says he's also heard from developers, from a lot of the companies PirateSoftware also mentioned (Blizzard, Riot, etc), and take the pro position on this. But probably with some adjustments, which is fair, but Ross already mentions that they did not craft a pice of law there. They just stated what they want the outcome to be. It's up to the EU legal bodies to craft the law.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trR4dpkdUjw