Support NeoGAF

[Roni]

‘Digital ownership must be respected’: UK parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign, but government doesn’t budge | VGC

Politicians debate recent examples of games being “destroyed”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

This apparently happened on Monday, searched for a thread briefly but couldn't find one.

In a take that's basically written by corporate lawyers, the act of ripping open a cartridge's packaging is likened to hitting 'Accept' on a current ToS. It basically reads like: chill, it's always been this way.

Lobbyists seem to have done their job on this one.

Releasing dedicated server binaries/code to the community at end-of-life deemed 'too expensive'.

 

[Guilty_AI]

There was never any expectation from the UK, which is why no one really talked about it beyond a footnote

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

lol

Cliff Bleszinski's 2017 shooter LawBreakers, "a game that I imagine would have been popular with certain Members of the previous Parliament"

 

[pudel]

Releasing dedicated server binaries/code to the community at end-of-life deemed 'too expensive'.

 

[sodstall]

In a take that's basically written by corporate lawyers, the act of ripping open a cartridge's packaging is likened to hitting 'Accept' on a current ToS. It basically reads like: chill, it's always been this way.

Lobbyists seem to have done their job on this one.

Releasing dedicated server binaries/code to the community at end-of-life deemed 'too expensive'.

Just gross, thanks for the post at least...

 

[BennyBlanco]

lol

Damn that was fucking good. Wonder how long this guy was sitting on that line for.

 

[Durin]

Never really expected much from the UK, but we're only going to see more complaints in future as more people buy digital goods, and get annoyed at their loss of rights or access.

It's not even about the extra work to setup server binaries for communities to keep multiplayer going...but even just games with single-player modes that require online check-in to function where servers will eventually be shut off.

 

[KenaiPhoenix]

This can backfired to the gamers so much that I hope they never do anything with it.

I know this initiative is full of goodwill, but it is naive as fuck.

You want companies to stop killing games? Then stop buying always online digital licenses (yes, this includes steam), but ofc this is not as popular as "please politician, fix the problem for me"

 

[Fake]

Reminds me the stupid 'Jogo Justo' project here in Brazil.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

All this shit to get The Crew back.

 

[bitbydeath]

This can backfired to the gamers so much that I hope they never do anything with it.

I know this initiative is full of goodwill, but it is naive as fuck.

You want companies to stop killing games? Then stop buying always online digital licenses (yes, this includes steam), but ofc this is not as popular as "please politician, fix the problem for me"

Online games don't deserve to keep living if nobody's playing them. This is a stupid request.

 

[PlayStaytion]

This can backfired to the gamers so much that I hope they never do anything with it.

I know this initiative is full of goodwill, but it is naive as fuck.

You want companies to stop killing games? Then stop buying always online digital licenses (yes, this includes steam), but ofc this is not as popular as "please politician, fix the problem for me"

Then you need gamers politicians who play games related to politics like Topher cause he's able to communicate on that matter.

 

[Aenima]

All this shit to get The Crew back.

Is not just to take the Crew back. Right now pretty much all multiplayer games, especially GAAS, have an expiration date. Once the devs officially stop supporting them, all the time and money you invested in that game is gone even if you wished to keep playing it offline. ShiftUP had the good sense to make an offline version of they previous gacha game so the players could keep playing it even when the game reached the end of service. If ShiftUp can do it, so everyone else.

 

[KenaiPhoenix]

Then you need gamers politicians who play games related to politics like Topher cause he's able to communicate on that matter.

No you don't need politicians at all in video games

People don understand that politicians number 1 priority is to be reelected, if today making companies keep their games online is what does it, so be it. And if tomorrow the tides says that regulating the scripts and needing the approval of an special committee will get them votes because "video games bad', they will do it in an instant, after all, they already regulated once.

And that's not speaking of the regulations it self

Lets say the law mandates that "all software released must offer a way to self host the server services in case of a cease in the oficial ones", this can easily be interpreted as "just release all tools needed to host your own servers. Seems harmless, right? But what if part of the components of libraries that are third party. The company can't release the software with these tools. Yes, they could just release what they can and let the community develop the rest, but that is against the law because people can't host a server without those tools, so someone can sue them.

So they either:

- have to create their own tools, which is expensive and will leave small/medium studios
- keep server up until bankruptcy
- just cut the online features

 

[StreetsofBeige]

In a take that's basically written by corporate lawyers, the act of ripping open a cartridge's packaging is likened to hitting 'Accept' on a current ToS. It basically reads like: chill, it's always been this way.

The dumb thing about the view is that how are gamers supposed to know what the TOS even are if they dont open the game box? And if someone disagrees with the TOS on the back pages of the manual it's not like they can get a refund anyway.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Lets say the law mandates that "all software released must offer a way to self host the server services in case of a cease in the oficial ones", this can easily be interpreted as "just release all tools needed to host your own servers. Seems harmless, right? But what if part of the components of libraries that are third party. The company can't release the software with these tools. Yes, they could just release what they can and let the community develop the rest, but that is against the law because people can't host a server without those tools, so someone can sue them.

So they either:

- have to create their own tools, which is expensive and will leave small/medium studios
- keep server up until bankruptcy
- just cut the online features

I understand your primary concerns, but this example you gave isn't a very good one. Like, it's against the law to host a server without whatever hypothetical tools are those? What?

Not to mention people behind this did their research, and after consulting game devs who worked with mp games they confirmed these third party tools are rarely critical and much less expensive to replace or develop in-house. So, again, not a good example.

 

[KenaiPhoenix]

I understand your primary concerns, but this example you gave isn't a very good one. Like, it's against the law to host a server without whatever hypothetical tools are those? What?

Libraries mainly, i say it. Do you think all companies just dev all their stuff?

But what if part of the components of libraries that are third party.

Not to mention people behind this did their research, and after consulting game devs who worked with mp games they confirmed these third party tools are rarely critical and much less expensive to replace or develop in-house. So, again, not a good example.

This "Stop killing games" has not being researched at all, and even less look it with some critical though in mind besides "I hate that they pulled the plug on my favorite game" (which sucks). Putting politicians in charge is just the worse thing you can do, and these "easy to develop" is not that much or everyone would have they own network systems, VOIP or anti cheat integrations (between many stuff, like some Havok physics)

Im sorry, but it is not realistic, and give politicians just retarded it will back fire terrible. It is just ridiculous

Again, want them to "stop killing games"? STOP BUYING THEM, you will see how the industry quickly stop making always online software. This way the "online pass" to take money from used games, was defeated: people didnt buy their games.

 

[Clear]

Hard truths:

It isn't bringing anything back because there's zero chance any legislation is going to work retrospectively.

So, the only thing that's going to be affected are titles published after any legislation is passed, allowing suppliers to work around any such law. Not that in the case of a publisher/supplier folding any legislation will have any teeth because you can't force a defunct company to do work.

Basically pointless in short. Just another feel-good consumerist movement that isn't actually going to amount to anything.

Although no doubt the cost of enforcement and regulation WILL be passed on to consumers in some way shape or form... That you CAN take to the bank!

 

[Guilty_AI]

Libraries mainly, i say it. Do you think all companies just dev all their stuff?

You very clearly pre-estabilished they'd remove any third party tools tho.

This "Stop killing games" has not being researched at all, and even less look it with some critical though in mind besides "I hate that they pulled the plug on my favorite game" (which sucks). Putting politicians in charge is just the worse thing you can do, and these "easy to develop" is not that much or everyone would have they own network systems, VOIP or anti cheat integrations (between many stuff, like some Havok physics)

Im sorry, but it is not realistic, and give politicians just retarded it will back fire terrible. It is just ridiculous

Again, want them to "stop killing games"? STOP BUYING THEM, you will see how the industry quickly stop making always online software. This way the "online pass" to take money from used games, was defeated: people didnt buy their games.

Yes, it has. I've followed it closely and you can find it all documented in hours of video spanning a year and a half
(starts from video number 39, with even some before tackling the subject)

But again, i understand the reluctance of involving politicians, however i can say for certain they were very careful throughout this campaign not to cause the issues you're afraid of.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

UK you say?

People forget that the UK from the end of WW2 till late 1960s was a poor country by European standards.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Libraries mainly, i say it. Do you think all companies just dev all their stuff?









This "Stop killing games" has not being researched at all, and even less look it with some critical though in mind besides "I hate that they pulled the plug on my favorite game" (which sucks). Putting politicians in charge is just the worse thing you can do, and these "easy to develop" is not that much or everyone would have they own network systems, VOIP or anti cheat integrations (between many stuff, like some Havok physics)

Im sorry, but it is not realistic, and give politicians just retarded it will back fire terrible. It is just ridiculous

Again, want them to "stop killing games"? STOP BUYING THEM, you will see how the industry quickly stop making always online software. This way the "online pass" to take money from used games, was defeated: people didnt buy their games.

Have an end of life plan for your product. That's it. It's not hard. The "is it practical" excuse is nonsense. There are countless numbers of multiplayer games from big and small devs in which you can self-host. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

If you're against it because of politicians then fair enough. Just stick with that.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Everyone knows the one, single thing the powers that be respond to. Deny them it to make them listen, or continue to do as they wish. The choice is yours.

 

[PaintTinJr]

No you don't need politicians at all in video games

People don understand that politicians number 1 priority is to be reelected, if today making companies keep their games online is what does it, so be it. And if tomorrow the tides says that regulating the scripts and needing the approval of an special committee will get them votes because "video games bad', they will do it in an instant, after all, they already regulated once.

And that's not speaking of the regulations it self

Lets say the law mandates that "all software released must offer a way to self host the server services in case of a cease in the oficial ones", this can easily be interpreted as "just release all tools needed to host your own servers. Seems harmless, right? But what if part of the components of libraries that are third party. The company can't release the software with these tools. Yes, they could just release what they can and let the community develop the rest, but that is against the law because people can't host a server without those tools, so someone can sue them.

So they either:

- have to create their own tools, which is expensive and will leave small/medium studios
- keep server up until bankruptcy
- just cut the online features

This is so disingenuous. The server element of games is boiler plate database and protocols stuff in 99.9% of cases, none of it is unique ground breaking stuff even if someone throws in advance features like rollback or prediction. Carmack was setting the gold standard back in the day in his original MP efforts that were immediately taken on by the internet to provide infinite multiplayer support, so suggesting third party tools is going to be an issue is a strawman IMO.

The developers merely need to publish the client/server game protocol specs and any other documentation/info required to reimplement a LAN server for the game, and it is job done.

 

[Banjo64]

‘Digital ownership must be respected’: UK parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign, but government doesn’t budge | VGC

Politicians debate recent examples of games being “destroyed”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

This apparently happened on Monday, searched for a thread briefly but couldn't find one.

In a take that's basically written by corporate lawyers, the act of ripping open a cartridge's packaging is likened to hitting 'Accept' on a current ToS. It basically reads like: chill, it's always been this way.

Lobbyists seem to have done their job on this one.

Releasing dedicated server binaries/code to the community at end-of-life deemed 'too expensive'.

Our deputy Prime Minister thinks a man can grow a cervix, and there's not many MPs currently sitting that are brighter than him. We may as well be lobbying for this to be discussed in school nurseries.

 

[P:axMagellanic]

‘Digital ownership must be respected’: UK parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign, but government doesn’t budge | VGC

Politicians debate recent examples of games being “destroyed”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

This apparently happened on Monday, searched for a thread briefly but couldn't find one.

In a take that's basically written by corporate lawyers, the act of ripping open a cartridge's packaging is likened to hitting 'Accept' on a current ToS. It basically reads like: chill, it's always been this way.

Lobbyists seem to have done their job on this one.

Releasing dedicated server binaries/code to the community at end-of-life deemed 'too expensive'.

They discussed more than I was ever expecting. There's obviously people who care about it.

 

[Ozzie666]

Won't be long until the UK goverment tries to tax cloud streaming per minute. Don't give them any idea, keep them out of video games. It always ends up terribly. Enough ploitics and agends already

 

[PaintTinJr]

They discussed more than I was ever expecting. There's obviously people who care about it.

The more positive aspect is that it seems it has now been passed onto the CMA (competition and Markets Authority ) to continue to monitor and report back in case legislation is required.

Fundamentally the (UK) Government's view is misplaced IMO, because nasty CEOs that operate in the games industry will continue to push things to the limit as they always do to a point where it starts to damage the financials of the industry because without legislated protection gamers' perception of the product offering will decline. It isn't much to ask that games have the same cultural protection as music, film and books, and if a "sale" is made, it equates to a "purchase" regardless of it being a license, much like music and film, rather than a rental like the Government tried to imply.

 

[Fake]

People are really falling into UK trap here...

They really love gamers.

 

[CuNi]

So they either:

- have to create their own tools, which is expensive and will leave small/medium studios
- keep server up until bankruptcy
- just cut the online features

People want to be able to continue playing the games they paid for even after servers are shut-down, where applicable.
The perfect example is the game that sparked this all, "The Crew".
Nobody wants the Studio to release the online components so that players can host their own server.
People want the studio to develop a patch once they want to cut ties with the game that carves out all online components like leaderboards etc. but lets them play the game solo.
This is 100% doable without violating any third-party tool license agreements, as you won't have to release any files.