cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/34790413
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
604 points (95.1% liked)
memes
10680 readers
2629 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you want to make this a law, how would anyone handle this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jMKeg9S-s&t=73
This argument holds true for developers of all sizes and is somehow totally ignored by most here.
If a game has reached EoL then they're just being straight greedy worrying about someone else making a little money off it. Running a public server costs money too.
And again, nobody said they have to release a ready to go and fully functioning standalone binaries. Just the documentation on how it works as a bare minimum would go EXTREMELY far for the open source community and then the whole "ThEY DiDnt MaKE anY ConTrIBuTIOns" goes up in smoke
Stop killing games said that games need to be kept in a functioning state afaik. That means exactly that. I am very for modding games but modding a game does not entitle me to the original creators intellectual property, but merely the part j have added.
Also what documentation? :)
Not what was said, so what you know is wrong
They would have to make it for it to be available, obviously, that's part of the point of pushing for these laws
Wrong, see first bullet point https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci
Which is elaborated on elsewhere in their campaign to mean "repairable within reason for the normal person"
It does not mean that a developer has to do anything extreme at all
They just need to change everything about how they design and create the games to fit the new model.
No, they do not, way to out yourself as someone with 0 idea about the industry. This is covered by game devs who support STG, watch the videos or read a summary
Should be anywhere from a couple hours work for one person to a week or so of one team. MOST games will fall on the shorter end of that spectrum unless the developers are really bad at their jobs
Because every developer uses the exact same processes and holds themselves to the exact same standards right?
Way to out yourself as someone who's only read about the industry.
Nope, that's why there's a time range that's quite wide
That's the point of the law being discussed
Way to show you can't even read properly
Or maybe you are being dense, who knows.
Because it would almost certainly not happen in reality. The server being released means everyone could spin up one for free. You wouldn't be able to monetize it to any significant degree.
If you want to be generous toward Thor, he is a security expert trained to focus on any hypothetical risks, however unlikely. If you don't, he is a game developer with monetary interest in this not passing and vast experience conning people.
It may be true that it may not actually happen. However:
I am not against leaving games playable, but the fact that people like the game means that the devs did a good job and their fate needs to be accounted for. Devs who make good games are not an enemy
There is nothing wrong with making money off the games you make. But once you are done doing that, you shouldn't be allowed to just wipe the thing people paid you for.
idk https://pretendo.network/ seems to be doing pretty good. It would be nice to just host my own small server after the game is done for just me and some of my friends.
I am talking about the video hypothetical. Trying to destroy a game only to profit off the released server.
I really doubt it would happen.
One thing that would go against monetization of servers after hostility to get the original to go down would be that anyone could spin up a free one in competition. Once the server binaries are available to everyone, anyone can run a server. Why would someone pay for something they can get for free?
This still doesn't cover for the abuse of studios which is the main concern here, after all making games harder to kill off shouldn't come with making the production or maintenance more risky or significantly mor expensive. A malicious party trying to kill a game because they dont like it or part of the community is still a valid motive.
Regarding your Question, minecraft servers are a good example of this: there are many servers out there which monetise in game resources or grind shorteners for real world money. I dont think that it is a stretch to say that a non sandbox game could be adjusted to work in such fashion. Also the point is not that there are other options, but that someone may easily make money with stuff the dont own and have never contributed to in its making.
At the end of the day all of us still want new games to be made. Therefore we need to accept that the people making them need to be able to have a steady income doing their job. Monetising ones own creation is, and should be, well within your rights. Even if some of us dont like it providing a platform in form of a game, as a service / with ever fresh content can be a valid value proposition and there are many studios out there doing this successfully while being well respected, think of Deep rock galactic or path of exile.
You can abuse studios right now. This would not change that. It would not make maintenance risky or more expensive.
It provides an extremely theoretical motive for people to do the abuse, that is unlikely to materialize in reality.
And if you want to be theoretical, it removes ideological reasons for abuse. Right now, if you dislike an online game, and got the studio shut down, the game would be gone. With this initiative, it would survive removing the motivation to try in the first place.
Yeah, this whole argument seems like a theoretical spurious hypothetical.
The dude in the video is acting like this is completely legal too, when all of the abuse is already illegal and the authorities just cannot prevent it because of the scale and size of the Internet combined with their own ineptitude.
If I'm in the business generally of blowing up and attacking company servers, why would I suddenly want to pivot to hosting monetized game servers? That's an entirely different business. The whole thing strikes me as "OH NOES SOMEBODY MIGHT MAKE SOME MONEY OFF OF MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES!!!".
Centralized, proprietary servers for games other than subscription MMO games are complete and utter bullshit. Either make the game a subscription and keep all of it server-side, or allow people to host the servers and stop acting like assholes.
I prepared for this argument very long time ago.
And now I will add new assumption I missed:
EDIT: forgot most important assumption, that was in another message:
You dont need bots to ruin a game, ddos is sufficient and cheap enough to come by, probably even easier in the future. Argument 2 already covered in other comment below
Your reply basically was "even if they will not profit from it, they still can abuse company by doing it". It does not address critique of implicit assumptions such takes.
Such position is fundamentally anti-social and similar to making shopping center contaminate enviroment with radiation when company, that owns it, goes bankrupt, because "it would open ways for abuse". Except it's even more nonsensical(see 2, 3 and 4).
If anything, this is not an argument against SKG, this is argument against capitalism as a whole.