Stop Killing Games (EU edition) - Moldman vs. Publishers

[Waffle Iron]

WOW was made by intelligent people that let you connect to whatever serve you want by simply changing the address in a text file. All you need to do is replicate the server and everyone can keep playing the game after the original server is shut down. Other older games were made similarly. You had server browsers that let you play online as long as someone bothers to run a server. Others used a 3rd party solution to let people find others to play with, but those could also be replaced. Because, again, the system was modular and let you replace pieces. Gamespy can be replaced by gameranger.

Then you had LAN functionality. If you want to play them after the servers were shut down, you could just get some PCs together and use LAN (and use LAN emulators to play online). Just look at blizzard. WC2, WC3, Diablo 1, Diablo 2 all have LAN and you can play them even if you don't have any internet. They all also let you set up your own server to replace battle.net. Even now, with battle.net still being supported, players play WC3 on WCchampions because of it's superior matchmaking. Diablo 2 has servers for big mods (like project D2).

Instead of just making half the game logic reliant on information stored on a central server, make it modular so you can switch out servers (like official to fan-hosted) without the entire game shitting itself. If 20 white nerds in the 90s could do it, your super diverse 500 man team should be able to figure it out.

 

[Wood]

if people reverse engineered a WoW server then anything is possible

The WoW server source code was also partially leaked back in 2004-2005, it was called Wow daemon. The current emulators started as a greenfield implementation of that. Not to belittle anyone's work on the emu, it's very impressive.

He is trying to say that reverse engineering networking logic is a gargantuan task that no human except the developers of said game are capable of

Wow servers were all in house and monolithic. Modern shit uses who know how many cloud or commodity third party solutions that the game's devs might not even have the rights or means to redistribute, this has been talked to death.

 

[Fag Alert Major Fag Alert]

Well now

 

[The Tall Man]

Well now

Nice, a collection of the midwitted lolbert counterpoints in one video.
His solution is stupid because he's a lolbert and can't look past his silly principles.

EU politicians like money; that's why they love fines. They already have an established process for this kind of punishment.
Creating a completely new system where companies lose their IP for non-compliance will never happen. It goes against all IP law, meaning every industry invested in it will be your opposition. EU bureaucrats would have to devise this novel system, and at the end of it, it just lightens their own coffers.
Not requiring devs to create an end-of-life version means many games won't be reverse-engineered and will die.
It's a half-assed solution with very low chances of ever getting passed.

He keeps bringing it back to copyright law. No, you lolbert bottom-feeder, the problem isn't fixed by abolishing IP law. It's not IP law that places a big chunk of the game on a company server. Even if you managed to abolish IP law, companies would still hide part of the game on their servers, and there's no reasonable way to reverse-engineer it. It's infinitely easier to obscure and encrypt something than it is to decrypt or reverse-engineer it.

 

[skykiii]

Well now

What I find notable is that Ross actually responded in the comments.

I can't screencap right now so here's a cut-n-paste:

Hey, I was asked to comment on this, I'll just try and hit a few relevant points:

-On malicious compliance, that's less of a thing in Europe. If an end of life patch stripped 99% of the game, that obviously wouldn't line up with existing advertising for the game, players would sent complaints to their national consumer agency, they would look into it, realize the company stripped out 99% of the game, then issue a fine. "Reasonably playable" doesn't have to be more defined (and might not be possible), it's kind of spectrum to how many complaints agencies get. If a company removes small things, there likely won't be many complaints and thus no penalty. If they remove huge things, that leads to many complaints and thus a penalty.

-As for paying the fines, we have no say in what the EU would mandate there, but I think it would work out over time. So say a company is fined $15 million for destroying all customer copies of a game. It's true, some companies may write that off. But what I think would happen is shareholders would look at this ongoing fee for each online-only game and the bean counters would realize they could put maybe $20k towards planning for this at the start of development and avoid it entirely. So there would be ongoing pressure to do what is most profitable over time and having an EOL plan would become the path of least resistance. I think the shareholders would end up insisting they do this if it's the more profitable route. As for small indie games, that's a more complicated answer, but the short version is most aren't making these types of games to begin with and if the AAA space is having to comply, I think tools and middleware would rapidly flow downstream to smaller devs to be compliant, since a new market demand would have been created for it.

-As for fear of government involvement, there are many cases where that's warranted, but we're operating from a space where having games you care about destroyed with no options to stop it from happening (and accelerating) is basically the worst thing that can happen to gaming. So while you're correct about the risk of government fumbling this, the risks from doing nothing are already as bad as it gets, so there's not much to lose. I view it like telling someone on death row "you shouldn't try to escape, then the guards might kill you!" Yeah, so? He's already on death row! Besides, sometimes it works. Apple being required to use a USB-C connector is a recent example of that. We're turning to government as a last resort, not because we wanted to do literally any of this. I would have far preferred companies just not destroy games people paid for.

-With your proposed solution, I have two main issues with it. The first is trying to carve out exemptions to copyright (and ESPECIALLY not allowing NDA agreements) is about 100x harder from a legal perspective than what we're doing; it's basically impossible for us. What we're pushing for actually conforms to consumer law in Europe, we're just dealing with trying to resolve a large legal grey area in our favor. So even if your way was the better solution, it's almost irrelevant, since the opposition there is so much stronger and codified, it would have to undo existing law. You can look to the Video Game History Foundation's failure on this front last year as evidence of how much more difficult that is. My second issue you mentioned, is that even if this is allowed, I think it's not the core problem, which is reverse engineering server emulators in the first place is hell. Even if legal, I think a minority of developers would leak code and risk getting blacklisted. I think it would help marginally, but not save the majority of games that get destroyed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not AGAINST what you're advocating for (I think that would be great), I just think it's unobtainable within the current system and wouldn't go far enough to fix the problem by itself.

 

[The Tall Man]

I can't screencap right now so here's a cut-n-paste:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdHjyzHysFU&lc=UgxcMEaLXqp5jNUrD1Z4AaABAg

 

[StacticShock]

What I find notable is that Ross actually responded in the comments.

anything that involves SKG gets passed to moldman on the 'cord.
but fuck lolberts tho, bunch of fucking commies.

 

[skykiii]

anything that involves SKG gets passed to moldman on the 'cord.
but fuck lolberts tho, bunch of fucking commies.

"Commies?" How so?

Mentiswave is usually got a good head on his shoulders but lately I have found some of his takes dubious, in part yeah because he wants to reach for the moon and completely ignores whether or not the solution he wants is actually doable. Kind of a Liu Bei but without a Zhuge Liang to balance him out.

 

[The Tall Man]

"Commies?" How so?

It’s pretty much the same thing in a different color.

Commies want to crush everyone under the boot of a captured commie state, and lolberts want to crush everyone under the boot of a captured private sector.
And just like the commie won’t admit there’s state propaganda, the lolbert won’t admit that PR and marketing have any significance.
They both fell for the delusion that there’s a significant difference between the state and the private sector, and they ascribe magical attributes to institutions.

All institutions are run by people with their own motives. The commie claims the state can be run by people of pure motive, and the lolbert thinks the private sector can be run by people of pure motive.

Both believe in the lie of the atomized individual, one just wants them to collectivize under their ideology, and the other wants them to subscribe to certain rules and maximize freedom (subscribe to their ideology).

Both don’t have a rational idea of what a country should be and are ignorant of the nature of humans.

PS: They’re incredibly annoying for attributing every problem to their own personal boogeyman and being sanctimonious and smug about it in the process.

 

[StacticShock]

"Commies?" How so?

whatever i say might be scoffed as "no true lolbertarianism" even though they work in the exact same way of trying to pose a definite solution that will never work just to get more people to adopt it because they share a similar point of view and have similar desires.
look for the corpo dicksucking thread and you'll see why it's extremely safe to call lolberts right-wing commies, controlled opps even.

Both don’t have a rational idea of what a country should be and are ignorant of the nature of humans.

yup, i belive they willingly ignore it because once they acknowledge the human nature factor it automatically attacks the main pillar of their retarded ideology which is some retardation about people naturally following their ideology's mandates as some sort of robot following their programming o algo, thus breaking any attempt of setting a moral grounding for them to use as a shield for said ideology to prevent attacks.

 

[Hermiöne Granger]

Ubisoft add offline modes for The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest. It is a start and it just shows these companies will change when you dont bend over for every shit they do.

Hybrid Mode for The Crew 2 is available starting today. With this update, players can now switch between the original online experience of The Crew 2 and a brand-new offline mode, letting you enjoy the game even without an internet connection. While it currently requires an online connection, The Crew Motorfest will also be playable offline later.

www.ubisoft.com

 

[Waffle Iron]

Ubisoft add offline modes for The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest. It is a start and it just shows these companies will change when you dont bend over for every shit they do.


www.ubisoft.com

Hey, it's the old "game is built up from the ground up for online we cannot change it to be offline compatible unless we completely restart development, oh by the way here's an offline patch we put together in a few months please forget we said anything", haven't seen that one since simcity.

 

[StacticShock]

Hey, it's the old "game is built up from the ground up for online we cannot change it to be offline compatible unless we completely restart development, oh by the way here's an offline patch we put together in a few months please forget we said anything", haven't seen that one since simcity.

so they pulled an EA?
lol, what about all of the turd party thingamabobs they had no control over? just told them to suck dicks?

 

[Dr. Arinsu]

What I can't get over is the fact that corpos keep bellyaching about "how hard" it is to keep a instant of a game alive. Like the resources. When most of those online games are owned by companies that HAVE enough.

There's like several online services that I can name that is still on by fans.

Pretendo - A Nintendo Proxy that allows 3DS and Wii U services to be online after 2024, even going as far as to fix and patch a console breaking bug for ACNL.
CPPS - Club Penguin Private Servers, though most notable for someone who ended up grooming and had the FBI and EVEN DISNEY involved. (See: Club Penguin Rewritten)
ToonTown Rewritten & Corporate Clash - ToonTown Private Servers, First one is a direct copy of OG TT minus the mascots and rhe second is a copy but adds more then just mascots being removed.
Smallworld/Mini Mania: A reopening of SmallWorld. Some niche Facebook MMO.
Sims Social - Alledgedly people are trying to revive this.
FreeSO - A new SimsOnline Private Server.

These are JUST examples. To them, they don't want to pay to keep a service alive. They just want to bellyache, bitch and moan about how tuff it is to keep a server alive because they ran out of ways to give it money.

 

[The Tall Man]

What I can't get over is the fact that corpos keep bellyaching about "how hard" it is to keep a instant of a game alive. Like the resources. When most of those online games are owned by companies that HAVE enough.

It's a complete lie, if an end of life plan is part of the development (which it should already be if following best practices, it took the industry a decade lots of effort and money to build all the tools to effectively kill games) then it cost nothing.

I think it's because they can see the quality of their products declining. They realize that complying with diversity hiring quotas means more low quality brown people working on their games and that complying with Larry Fink's Black Rock suggestions to up their ESG score means crippling creativity.

The last thing they want is to compete against their own games.

 

[Morrowind: GOTY Edition]

Haven't seen anyone discuss it, but SKG was debated in UK parliament the other day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONX2KUhyFow

tl;dr: Bongs are just as fucking cucked and useless as ever.

First, such a change would have negative technical impacts on video game development. It is true that there are some games for which it would be relatively simple to patch an offline mode after its initial release. However, for games whose systems have been specifically designed for an online experience, this would not be possible without major redevelopment.
Secondly, the approach carries commercial and legal risks. If an end-of-life plan involves handing online servers over to consumers, it is not clear who would be responsible for regulatory compliance or for payments to third parties that provide core services.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly from the perspective of gamers, there are the safety and security impacts to consider. Removing official moderation from servers or community servers increases the risk that users, including children, could be exposed.

 

[I Pick Minions]

First, such a change would have negative technical impacts on video game development. It is true that there are some games for which it would be relatively simple to patch an offline mode after its initial release. However, for games whose systems have been specifically designed for an online experience, this would not be possible without major redevelopment.

Non-argument, SKG isn't about patching already existing games. Additionally hybrid system consisting of server-side inventory/matchmaking + client side P2P game hosting exist for over a decade, it's not that hard.

Secondly, the approach carries commercial and legal risks. If an end-of-life plan involves handing online servers over to consumers, it is not clear who would be responsible for regulatory compliance or for payments to third parties that provide core services.

The only argument for discussion, it is difficult in law terms to talk about how to handle servers that use proprietary services.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly from the perspective of gamers, there are the safety and security impacts to consider. Removing official moderation from servers or community servers increases the risk that users, including children, could be exposed.

That is just blatantly retarded, you have Roblox where the official moderation might as well not exist and people took it to their hands to work with police and FBI to arrest pedophiles. But it is understandable coming from a Bong mouth-hole - they think that if someone doesn't watch you 24/7 with a gun a knife safety scissors to your head then you would turn into a rabid animal.

What a third world country, I am glad it is still going strong on its way for self-destruction.

 

[Super Dilator Duel 3D]

Removing official moderation from servers or community servers increases the risk that users, including children, could be exposed.

Is "muh children" the only argument the Bongs know how to use? I don't even see why they invoked the kids they love to let Muslims rape for this. They could've said "we are not passing this because we fucking hate you" and the English would grin and cheer, then proceed to brag about their lack of school shootings.

 

[Vertigo]

I did watch the stream as it was happening. However, I didn't post about since it's the UK and no one cares about them. I only knew it was happening because Ross posted about it on X (formerly Twitter).

 

[Spooky Space Kook]

I want AAA video game publishers to suffer. They haven't produced anything worth playing in like 5 years. I enjoy video games but at the same time people keep paying for slop and it would do some people good if they got away from their screens and see how shit everything thing is instead of being distracted by their virtual circuses.