• Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Copyright was invented so artists would be able to sell their art, and more art would be made.

    When copyright is protected on a product that’s no longer sold, less art is made.

    When a copyright holder stops selling their art, copyright protections should immediately cease, and they should be responsible for copyright obligations - releasing the source code to the public. Use it or lose it!

    • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 days ago

      This is the most level headed approach to IP I’ve seen. If you’re not willing to use the property you forfeit it. It’s a common contact for licensing rights for movies that forces a studio to make a movie or lose rights. That way people can’t squat on a licence to prevent others using it.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 days ago

        Sony has to make a Spiderman movie every few years even though DVDs of the old ones are still being sold, but Ubisoft can just delete games forever and they can never be played again.

    • naught101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Pretty sure it was so publishers (printing press owners) could have a guaranteed profit. Those two things (publisher and artist profits) were correlated at the time. Not so much anymore. Streaming/subscription mentality is like planned obsolescence for IP.

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    ·
    7 days ago

    “curtail developer choice” is such a weak argument because you could equally apply it to literally every piece of regulation ever passed. Of course it curtails choice, that’s almost the dictionary definition of an industry regulation.

  • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    6 days ago

    Anti-murder laws are cuttailing my choice! What if I someday would like to make a choice to murder someone?

  • qarbone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    7 days ago

    Why are publishers speaking for devs about how much choice devs would have? Why not get devs to speak?

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Because most devs are just codemonkeys implementing what they’re told to. This is pure manipulative propaganda from the suits who are already robbing wages from good devs.

  • Rose@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    This initiative sure would make things more complicated for the game publishers, yes.

    Because they’re currently not doing the bare minimum.

    If they weren’t so accustomed to not doing the bare minimum, maybe they would have different opinions! Just saying.

    Edit: Just signed the petition. Didn’t think this was necessary before because, as soon as I heard of it, Finland was already top of the list percentage wise. But I did sign it, just for the hell yeah of it.

    • Klear@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s not just for the hell of it!

      Invalid votes will be removed when it’s time for the final tally, so the initiative needs a solid buffer to still he over a million after.

      There’s been a talk of some people using bots to inflate the numbers in a misguided attempt to help the initiative, so every vote is still very welcome.

      Also, I kinda want to see just how high Finland can go above the threshold.

      Tell your friends!

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        I wouldn’t be surprised if the game industry isn’t also using bots to inflate the numbers to make people procrastinating not feel the need to contribute and make the petition look less valid.

        • Klear@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Eh, doubtful. The initiative got a shitton of extra coverage as it was nearing/reached the goal. They would have preferred if it went a lot slower.

  • AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    7 days ago

    Whenever a large games company talks about “developer choice” you know they’re referring to one of a few things:

    1. Think of the shareholders!
    2. Think of the rich CEO who adds zero value to the company!
    3. The people don’t know what they want and therefore we need to tell them exactly what they want and need!
  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    The original article completely misrepresents the initiative:

    We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.

    Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

    Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:

    • provide alternatives to any online-only content
    • make the game P2P if it requires multiplayer (no server needed, each client is a server)
    • gracefully degrading the client experience when there’s no server

    Of course, releasing server code is an option.

    The expectation is:

    • if it’s a subscription game, I get access for whatever period I pay for
    • if it’s F2P, go nuts and break it whenever you want; there is the issue of I shame purchases, so that depends on how it’s advertised
    • if it’s a purchased game, it should still work after support ends

    That didn’t restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they’re expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they’re done).

    I argue Stop Killing Games doesn’t go far enough, and if it’s pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.

    • Natanael@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      And “would leave rights holders liable” is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 days ago

        Exactly, and that also includes online games like Minecraft. Nobody is going to sue Microsoft because of what someone said or did in a private Minecraft server, though they might if it’s a Microsoft hosted one.

      • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        The argument there is if a game is left online with no studio to care for it then they believe they would be liable for community content.

        I don’t think it applies to offline games at all.

        • Bravo@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          If server code is released such that people can run private servers after the official servers are shut down, then legally the people running the servers should be the ones liable for illegal activity that happens on them.

          I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them. Maybe a subscription service that provides access to servers for several different online service games.

          Of course, it would be more likely that it would be just a player who hosts a server for themselves and their friends and doesn’t attempt to be profitable. That would be fine too.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I could imagine third-party companies springing up whose entire business model is JUST providing unofficial servers for discontinued games and moderating them

            That kind of already exists, you can buy hosting for Minecraft and other games. AFAIK, moderation isn’t a part of it, but many private groups exist that run public servers and manage their own moderation. It exists already, and that should absolutely be brought up as a bill is being considered.

            • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              We have had that exact model for decades. Hosting companies use to and probably still offer rack space for arena shooters. The main company managed the master server, which was just a listing of IP addresses, but there were only ever a few official game servers with defaults loaded.

            • psud@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              Minecraft has private servers (at least on Minecraft java) as well as their own server platform “Realms”, also every client is also a server. Though the authentication system is a Microsoft account so that’s likely to still be online well into the future

        • Natanael@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Only applicable if they run the servers themselves, not if they let others run their own servers.

      • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        I understood that from a IP and trademark stand point. It could be hard to retain your copyright or trademark if you are no longer controlling a product

        • Natanael@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 days ago

          No, copyright isn’t relinquished from any of that (not even any effect on damages if you still require players to have bought the game to use the private servers), and trademarks wouldn’t be affected at all if you simply require that 3rd party servers are marked as unofficial

    • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      Another part of it is that if they discontinue support, they can’t stop the community from creating their own server software.

      There are so many ways to approach this. The point is ensuring consumers retain the right to keep using what they purchased, even if they have to support it themselves.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 days ago

        Sort of. They need to have the tools as well. So I suppose they could release the APIs for their servers before shutting down their servers so community servers can be created, that would probably be sufficient. But they need to do something beyond just saying, “we won’t sue you if you reverse engineer it.”

    • Railcar8095@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers

      I don’t think this is what they mean. They say that of they provide the tools for users to deploy the servers, bad things can happen. So I think they understood SKG, they just lie about the consequences for gamers

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 days ago

        If that’s their argument, then the counterargument is simple: preserve the game another way. If hosting servers is dangerous, put the server code into the client and allow multiplayer w/ P2P tech, as had been done since the 90s (e.g. StarCraft).

        What they seem to be doing is reframing the problem as requiring users to host servers, and arguing the various legal issues related to that. SKG just needs to clarify that there are multiple options here, and since devs know about the law at the start (SKG isn’t retroactive), studios can plan ahead.

        It’s just a disingenuous argument trying to reframe the problem into cyber security and IP contexts, while neither has been an issue for other games in the past.

        • Railcar8095@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, I agree. We have been hosting servers at friend houses with consumer (mostly our own gaming PCs) forever.

          The risk involved exists, but it’s far from the threat they make it be.

    • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah… The abstract (sorry, will read article a bit later) is bunch of nonsense to me (in respect to what is written, no offense to you):

      • online experience commercially viable? The fuck they are talking about? Yeah, I know what is meant, but they would get fucking F in school for expressing thoughts in such a nonsensical way

      • protections against illegal content would not exist on private servers? Really? Like only your company’s servers can run that? What, you write them in machine code directly? Or is it all done manually? Anyhow, just release source code and it will be up to community to find a way to make it run

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    “… curtail developer choice” - This from a bunch of people for whom the term ‘executive meddling’ was created.

    • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Sounds like they just put together a bunch of meaningful sounding words. I know what they want to say though: "Noooo! But mah freedumbs! NOOOO 😭 "

  • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Developer choice, ha-ha, very funny. I am not familiar with the industry and still feel safe to bet most of them (edit: actual software developers making games) just want to get enough money for doing what they can do without too much stress/disgust and also most of them don’t have a desire to see their work die just because some manager decided it is time to make some other games instead

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I bet they’re really pissed off with ubisoft right now. They basically started this whole movement by being so egregious with The Crew. Less than a month before they shut the servers down the game was still on sale for the full price that it had launched with.

      Granted it was shut down because it was the most mediocre game ever made but that still isn’t an excuse.

      • Nikls94@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        Tbh when I read of it, being an open world driving game where you can just drive around a very large area, I kind of wanted it. Not as a game, but simply for driving around. MarioKart is too happy for that. I just want to get lost in thoughts while driving.

  • kemsat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    7 days ago

    If it means developers won’t make “live-service”/trash games anymore, we should hasten the SKG movement.

      • groet@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        Most likely, if they are forced to allow public servers after they shut down the official ones, they will pull some other bullshit. Like claim the game is still available, but the 300$ cosmetics you bought are not allowed on public servers because they are separate from the game.

        • Goodeye8@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          7 days ago

          Honestly I’d even prefer that because it diminishes the value of in game purchases and would be a step towards getting rid of them as well.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          They should be compelled to either make those cosmetics available for everyone or have some technical means to prove ownership (e.g. blockchain or cryptographically signed file). You can’t lose stuff you bought just because the publisher shut down the servers.

          • groet@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            You can’t lose stuff you bought just because the publisher shut down the servers.

            I mean that’s exactly how it works right now. And depending on the exact wording of any laws passed as a result of this petition only the game itself or some or all micro transactions will have to be made available after official support ends.

            Public servers will either sell micro transactions themselves to finance servers or make all in game content available to everyone for free. I can see publishers having a problem with that.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              that’s exactly how it works right now

              Right, I’m explaining how Stop Killing Games would change things if adopted.

              Public servers will either sell micro transactions themselves

              That can certainly be restricted, since they’re profiting off someone else’s IP. Selling hosting is one thing, reselling assets in the game is another thing entirely and AFAIK would be a violation of copyright’s fair use provisions.

              If they’re no longer profiting from a game, surely releasing access to gated content isn’t an issue any more? It’s not like they are losing anything. So I think unlocking cosmetics for everyone would be fine, but it’s up to them. If they want to preserve the restriction, they can find a way that doesn’t reauire ongoing costs, such as the ones I mentioned.

    • lordnikon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah just the choices that fucks over paying customers. They are saying they would like to keep doing that and this laws would curtail that.

      Will someone think of the poor shareholders? /s

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    7 days ago

    Giant corporations have proven no amount of profit is too much. There needs to be some guardrails. And some form of preservation of the games your loyal customers have enriched your company to access.