Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative (stopkillinggames.com)
329 points by edd25 67 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 154 comments



This is a great excuse to also ensure the legality of third party reverse-engineering as a legitimate and reasonable reaction to the unavailability of official support. I believe EU law already to a certain degree supports this.

Just look at the situation Fisker Ocean Car owners are in at the moment - the company has gone bankrupt, and their fate is in the hands of whoever buys the assets. eSIMs may not be paid for, and there is no guarantee there will be an online service for the cars to phone home to in the future. Some features - like the sunroof - won't work without it.


Ha, be glad its just a car. I know a true story about the first woman in my country to go through the process of getting a bionic eye. Long story short, she got it. Forward a few years, and the company that built it goes bust, leaving her without support for a technical implant that was experimental at best, meaning, had a lot of issues. Yes, a articular Lem short story comes to mind, although just tangentially related. We're entering a truely scary time.


Sounds like the plot of Deus Ex Human Revolution. I hope we don't go into that future.


The sunroof needs to phone home to work?



But… what happens if you drive out of coverage? Someone must have said that at some point during the development?


Probably was admonished for asking inconvenient questions.


Luckily it doesn't really matter. At that size, it's at most a 400 W panel, so the energy it produces is rather negligible.

It was always a "just because we can" feature.


Unless I'm mistaken, "sunroof" in this context doesn't mean solar panels, it's means that big sliding hatch in the roof of the car.


Oh what the... I hesitate to use the word "sense" here, but it does make sense if operating the "dog windows" requires a cloud connection, as stated. So all of "California Mode"?

How even in the whole what...


"Good enough for the MVP"


Welcome to 2024, I guess. Let's hope it won't start raining while it's open and there is no coverage, lol.

Next year the brakes might require a round trip to the data center too, so I guess we should start to account for network latency when braking. /s


Sounds like a good idea that can end the problem with discontinuation of official support


It's not like people should expect or be entitled to people spending their free time providing a community replacement. But it often happens anyways, so why not protect the people who do it?


For extra context, you can watch Ross Scott's videos about his campaign to stop games being killed.

Original video with all the different avenues he's trying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE

The one specifically about this initiative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI

He's done smaller update videos on how it's been progressing on his channel if you want additional info.


I've signed this, and, as an aside, I was extremely impressed that the Europa.eu site localized the CAPTCHA to the Greek alphabet. That's some commitment to accessibility by the general public.


I'm also impressed. I used the "eID" functionality, and it just worked flawlessly. I signed it in under a minute.


I'm not as impressed, tried to use my Spanish digital certificate and got "the submitted certificate is not an electronic DNI".


Is it this thing: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f14... (scroll down to Spain)?


No, it is not. In Spain, national and regional administrations support different methods for digital identification by their citizens. One is the certificate embedded into the chip in the national id card, arguably in everybody’s pocket, but, effectively so cumbersome to extract that virtually no one makes use of. That's the one this website claims to supports. Others methods are certificates issued by The Ministry of Treasury among others, downloadable after in-person identification, so used by far more people than the former, but, then again, complicated to use on mobile devices, and lastly specialized official TOTP apps which issue temporary codes for an authentication service that government web pages plug into. The latter, not supported by this webpage, is, I assume, by far the one used most commonly.


Mhm, that's interesting. And quite unfortunate. :\


True, never seen a CAPTCHA with Greek letters before! I refreshed it to make sure, I was so confused!

Good job!


Indeed that’s pretty cool.


Who is the captcha provider?


I assume they implemented it themselves. It seems to be a very basic letter captcha, not some reCaptcha style "smart" risk-based thing.


As I understand it copyright on a videogame is 50 years but the vast majority of games- or all entertainment really- stops making money after a few years. It gets worse if your game has licensed music in it!

I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive. Publishers just aren't going to spend a dime if it doesn't make a buck.


> I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive.

The problem is that piracy doesn't help for always online "games as a service" games where the game is killed after the server has shut down. You can't pirate the server because it was never available, and outside of being lucky enough that a few hackers dedicate a lot of spare time to reverse engineering it, that game is gone forever.

The point of this initiative is to ensure that game companies have a legal obligation that at the point of shutting down game servers they must either release the server software, patch the game to work offline, or do whatever else to ensure that the game continues to function.

It's worth noting that this would only count for games sold as goods i.e you paid a fixed fee at the time of sale with the expectation of owning a product indefinitely. Games with explicit subscriptions such as MMO's would not be subject to this since there was never an expectation of access to the product continuing after the subscription expired.


There is a historical and cultural loss involved when online only games are shutdown. This isn't simply a problem of "oh there was never an expectation of eternal access". It's a problem of us losing historical artifacts because of financial incentives.


> oh there was never an expectation of eternal access

I would argue there kind of is such an expectation. Unless obviously stated in the game description before payment I would expect it to function similar to other games I purchased. And I can still play the offline games from early 2000s without any issues.

I'm saying that because if an online game would be sold with a banner like "we plan to support this game for next 3 years but it might shutdown any time after that" this would absolutely affect my decision to purchase it or to purchase microtransactions inside the game.


>It's a problem of us losing historical artifacts because of financial incentives.

If I may be frank, most history isn't worth remembering. There will always be a dozen fans of some niche MMO that lasted a year in the 00's, but people just move on eventually. It's entertainment at the end of the day.


Not only that, it's capital destruction too. It shrinks your economy. Not to be confused with creative destruction.


If you look on the thing you sign when getting a steam account, you don't actually own any of the games. Just like the MMO's, you cant play them when steam or producer decides to shut them down.


>If you look on the thing you sign

ToSes aren't legally binding when they require you to waive your rights. This has been tested in courts repeatedly.


> you cant play them when steam or producer decides to shut them down.

Doesn't Steam actually let people keep a game in their Steam library even if the publisher takes down the store page for the game?


That only gives you the client component though, which isn't very useful when the game servers shut down.

Most games these days don't have a self-hostable dedicated server.

In case of Steam/Valve specifically it happened a while ago with Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Valve replaced it with Counter-Strike 2, and while GO's client is still usable, some of its online components are not.


I believe csgo on the Xbox still works online.


It's only works because Valve probably have contractual obligations to not break online services for the game until console EOL. This can very well be the case if it was ever possible to actually buy it on Xbox.


It does. Not sure if publisher can opt-out though.

Another point is that Steam DRM is a) optional b) unlike always online GaaS trivial to circumvent


That's how publishers want thingns to work. But if the store interface gives one impression and the smallprint annother thne it's not clear that the contract is what courts will uphold.

It is worth noticing though that Steam has stopped using the word "Buy" and instead use terms "Add to Cart" and "Continue to payment" which are perhaps more ambiguous but still not much so IMO. They did however use "Buy" in the past and changing the store interface now should not excempt them from fulfilling the expectations they have set in the past.


50 year copyright on video games is insane. A really good ten year old game could be considered a “classic”, certainly a twenty year old one. SNES games are like 28–33 years or something.

Now consider how many of the modern classic PC games are kept playable/relevant (a problem with some older games are things like terrible playing mechanics; graphics less so) by an enthusiast modding community.


> but the vast majority of games- or all entertainment really- stops making money after a few years

I don't think that's universally true. Paradox Interactive are a studio with grand strategy games, and even decades-old games still get new sales of the base game and the DLCs, with a strong user base.


Which decades-old games are Paradox getting lots of money from? HoI4 released in 2016, are people really buying the original HoI (from 2002)?


Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis IV are still seeing high amounts of players, with EUIV in particular getting recent DLCs that sell well. Released in 2013, it's a decade+, and it will be at least a year or two before EUV comes out.


it becomes less true by the year. almost half the playtime of 2023 came from games 6+ years old: https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-mostly-played-older-game...

this is not just a GaaS thing (though GaaS is the biggest in the list), even evergreen indie titles can choose to just add more content to a single player game for years instead of making a new title. titles like Terraria and Binding of Isaac more than passed a decade at this point.


Paradox already often sell the base game for peanuts though and mostly make money through new DLCs.


Piracy undermines the creators' rights still. And I think that a legal framework should do its job


Creators were never supposed to have indefinite rights. Copyright has an expiration date to balance fhe rights of the public and author.


In the US the author's rights don't even come into the motivation. They don't exist a priori as free speech would let you share any "IP" you want. The temporary monopoly is ONLY granted to encourage more creation, not as a recognition of author rights.

In the EU it's a bit more complicated but I still don't see authors rights as a primary motivator for copyright specifically.


sure, and we can adjust that without abolishing copyright, nor justifying what is basically theft to go around it. I don't know why every-time this conversation comes up peopel instantly go to "abolish copyright". Is no one else here a creator of some kind?


I think people might miss how rules like this can be nice if you are a game developer.

As someone who writes software, I'm honestly happy when someone is requiring that the source be open, that my results be reproducible, that my changes are reviewed, etc. Without that my boss is just asking why I waste my time on things with no profit margin but which are quite satisfying if you take any pride in your work.

In a lot of cases, just requiring that something work without phoning home will cost developers almost nothing and insulate them from silly cost shaving from the higher ups.


Releasing source code or protocol specs for the server side software after the live service is put down would be a good PR bonus for any game corporation. Of course there might be third party IP involved but just publishing a document stating what the server should do is probably good enough to get some good guy points.

Besides it might keep the game alive and even generate some residual revenue even though you aren't spending a dime with server infrastructure.


Please sign if you are an EU citizen. Please share with your EU citizen friends.


Or rather, take a look at this page: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/find-initiative_en?CAT... and consider signing all initiatives that you identify with. I know that preventing their favorite game(s) from being killed off is very important to some people, but in the grand scheme of things, there may be more important causes to support...


There can always be more important issues but I would not frame this as being just about silly games either. It's not like other tools have been moving to being more and more dependent on online services and even if the initial change this petition achieves (if it does succeed, which is a slim chance) apply to just games this still provides a precedent for widening the legislation to other software in the future.


I would have but Brexit put paid to that. :-(


Imo... even if they win this, they still lose.

Requiring companies to do things they don't want to do... has limits. It's hard to prevent them from doing a crap job.

The actual "solution" is radically reducing copyright duration. Most revenue is generated during the first N years.


We should do both - reduce copyright duration to the absolute minimum required for it's goal (to encourage creation of useful science and art, and yes zero might be the optimal term here) while also making sure that benefiting from copyright means the author/company has to ensure that the creation is available to the public after the copyright period. Both things are needed for the copyright deal to be fair to the greater public.


How is shorter copyright going to help with games being built with remote kill-switches? The server-side component isn't a thing you even posses. AIUI, reverse engineering or releasing patches to fix such games is already legal in the EU.


I agree, but nit:

>Most revenue is generated during the first N years.

With the shift to GaaS models this is becoming less true. once you get a hit, you will easily have a steady income stream for 5,10+ years. WOW is well over 20 at this point.


>Requiring companies to do things they don't want to do... has limits. It's hard to prevent them from doing a crap job.

Not sure about that. It seems like Apple is having a pretty hard time skirting around the gatekeeper legislation right now, and I've asked for a copy of my data to a dozen different companies and all of them complied very closely to what gdpr is requiring.


Signed. I think this is an important initiative and could either get publishers to support the games longer or release the server-side parts, so that fans can keep them going. Just look at Freelancer, still going strong after 21 years thanks to fans.


Would it be challenging for small developers financially to design their games to meet these requirements? And for multiplayer online games to live without publisher support... Yet the proposal is a strong step towards protecting!


> Would it be challenging for small developers financially to design their games to meet these requirements?

I would doubt it. Already the smaller developers are less likely to be part of the current problem, most of those games at least work offline if they aren't already entirely DRM free.

And the ones that require online access, when the game is designed to be self-hostable this is 0 problem. I'd almost wager it is more difficult and time consuming ensuring they are the only ones that the game can connect to if they'd publish the server binary.

And regarding licensing of server software: you'd need to take into account that you need to publish it down the line when sourcing your dependencies, so I wouldn't count licensing complications a valid excuse, as it's already done with the game software itself.


A source code dump would likely be 'reasonable' and not cost anything.


It's not really as simple as that, though. What if your server code uses paid, 3rd party libraries?


Aren't these usually source/blob available but require a license to include in a product?


it doesn't matter as long as you dump the code or patch the games


Too bad, should have thought of that before taking on the dependency?


That's not how indies work. By using an engine like Unreal or Unity, you take on dozens of third party dependencies on top of whatever Epic's licenses are.


And Epic would have to sort that out unless they want to see their sales drop to 0 overnight…?


Another (beside DRM policy) reason, to buy games exclusively on GoG. I would never pay for game that need third party launcher for running it and keep updated.

For same reason I'm unable to play (and pay for) online games because I don't have control over saved progression and future development of the game.


You probably already know this but GOG does sell games with online components, including ones tied to a license key (=DRM). So simply only buying from GOG is not enough to escape this madness.


Which are not necessary to use for running single player game. I firewall all games and they run just fine, even for LAN coop.


So do I.

I simply boycott those that need an online server for multiplayer, unless an opensource version exists. LAN or nobuy.

Sadely, it seems that simple LAN multiplayer is not fashionable anymore...

Yet, I recently restarted some LAN parties and was amazing, even for youngs, when they experience the screams of other players...


Yes, occasionally we do LAN parties as well. We try to beat a Titan Quest, because they add new datadiscs here and there so we did not finish it yet.

Whats your choice for LAN games?


Mostly RTS oldies that I try to show the youngs.

New ones aren't very LAN friendly.

Some couch multiplayer also. But console based...


Why does this only apply to video games? Why doesn't this apply to apps in general?

I don't want to suggest that I'm in favour of sunsetting every game once a publisher or developer is done with it, but there's got to be a middle ground between "you must ensure that your game can have all online components replaced" and what we have right now. And I think the sheer amount of work involved in the former for every game combined with perverse incentives from a very small subset of users that cause a disproportionate amount of hassle makes this not a good idea. It's a great example of a change that greatly favours existing companies who could meet the legislation, and will negatively effect smaller games and studios.


> perverse incentives from a very small subset of users

This is to the benefit of everybody now and in the future. It doesn't matter if only an insignificant fraction of people recognize the importance.


I'm not so optimistic. These are just games at the end of the day, and much bigger issues have had friction even if it's for the benefit of everyone.

>It doesn't matter if only an insignificant fraction of people recognize the importance.

that's literally how petitions work. If not enough people care, it doesn't even get looked at by Parliment. The first pass of this didn't look too hot.


I have no idea how you misinterpreted my comment so badly.


The perverse incentives are people who cheat in multiplayer games. Like it or not, multiplayer games live and breathe on how well they handle this problem. A single cheater in a BR game can ruin the game for 100 people.


Cheating is a social signaling problem disguised as a technical problem.


The problem is that the desired outcome of the cheater in a multiplayer game is to ruin the experience for others. It's a game of cat and mouse, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean that because it's technically impossible to stop all cheating that no efforts should be made. Distilling everything down to "open good closed bad" doesn't help anything, as the reality is it's far more nuanced than that.


Lately successful anti cheating programs have separate matchmaking for cheaters instead of using technical measures to try to stop cheating which will always be bypassed.


By your own measure that's a technical measure that can be bypassed. It also doesn't work, to the best of my knowledge. Here's [0] a thread from a game that tried this, and ultimately went back to using anticheat.

> instead of using technical measures to try to stop cheating which will always be bypassed.

The word "stop" implies that it can be completely eliminated - it can't. But the impact of the cheaters on the rest of the game can be reduced. If you have client side hit detection and no server validation, your game will be unplayable pretty much immediately. If you only offer your game over streaming services, people will use external input devices to give them an advantage. But, the number of people who are willing to buy a Cronus Zen is significantly smaller than the number of people who are willing to download a dll and put it in the folder next to their game.

[0] https://x.com/FallGuysGame/status/1305486783858302976


release the source and people will maintain it for you for free. you can't say it's not profitable anymore to keep maintaining something that people paid for and at the same time say it'd hurt your profit if you release it.


Again, why is this just for games? Why are Figma allowed to do this, but EA aren't?


This is intentionally kept to only games as expanding the scope would include software by a lot of big name businesses which would then try everything in their power to stop this from passing.

If it's only limited to games it has less companies trying to shut this down and would set a precidence that this can be expanded or just straight up applied to other types of software.


Curious, is there an option to buy and download Figma's software? AFAIK it's only an online server you connect to, right?


Unsure. So if a company only offered game streaming they would be exempt from this?


Xbox yes, stadia no. Depends whether the expiration date is communicated at time of transaction.


While I disagree with your criteria, I agree with you in principal - it's not black and white, and we could do better as an industry (speaking as an online game developer) to set clearer expectations around what will happen and when it will happen.

I would happily and whole-heartedly support a bill that requires some sort of SLA/minimum guaranteed availability for licensed content to be presented along with the payment terms in plain english. Something like "By making this purchase, XCORP agrees to provide you with an ongoing and updated YGAME until at least DD-MMM-YYYY and after that point makes no guarantee for availability. This date may change but may not be moved earlier without your agreement".

Which is pretty much what we as developers negotiate with cloud providers, third party technology, etc. Note I'm not a lawyer, so please don't critique my wording here.


I think such disclaimer pop-ups would be the worst kind of GDPR banner style 'solution' to the problem. Copyright having an expiration was supposed to be a balance of the public interest and author rights. Copyright extension and DRM has absolutely smashed the scales. Once something leaves commercial relevance it should enter the public domain. In the case of software this pretty much requires source code.


you got to start somewhere. plus I don't actually use any proprietary software outside of Nvidia' drivers and cuda (and binary blobs in my phone and raspberry pi, and the minix in my cpus and a bunch of stuff I can't remember), so I don't know much about that.


Yes, but apart from the Nvidia drivers, cuda, binary blobs in your phone and raspberry pi, and the minix in your cpus, and the stuff you can't remember, what have the Romans ever done for us?


If you don't use any proprietary software at all then surely you don't play any closed source online games?


> release the source and people will maintain it for you for free

What about cases where just having the source code isn't enough. Things that use paid third party libraries are a good example.


it's up to the ppl. Without server code you can do nothing, with it & third parties it's up to you/volunteers to decide if it's worth it or not to keep alive


If this does miraculously pass, I think people will be severely disappointed by how much goodwill there is to spread. Lots of games and not a lot of reverse engineers.


I believe the source files for the game, without specific branding and stuff, should be released so another company can essentially make the game if they want to. As for forcing companies to lose money with unprofitable games or renew expensive licensing deals, it doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Also, perhaps based on the time spent in the game, players should receive some kind of compensation such as credits for their next purchase.


> Require video games sold

Wouldn't this just incentivise companies to move to a F2P and/or subscription model?

There's no expectation that, just because I've downloaded the client, I should be able to use a VPN service after the servers are discontinued. Or use AutoCAD after my licence has expired.

You don't need to leave the gaming realm to imagine the unintended consequences of this petition - just look at the hellscape that is mobile gaming.


Possibly, but it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly. People approach free-to-play games and subscription based games with different attitudes than purchased games. A purchase carries a reasonable expectation of durability.

On the other hand, if you sell cosmetic items in your subscription based or free-to-play game, then you have sold something with a reasonable expectation of durability which is somewhat already enshrined in the digital goods laws. If you rent those items for a limited time then the relationship is again honest.

If it is reasonable to expect a limited time frame of usage from the software then it is reasonable for the company to state what guarantees they are willing to make for that time frame in a subscription contract. The presumption of durability should carry the weight of law (up to consumables and wear and tear).


> it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly.

Yeah, good luck with that. these companies have wasted that goodwill for almost a decade now. The real unfortunate part is that most consumers don't care, so companies can keep doing it.


Well, I have personally had luck with this. It took a very long time after the initial laws on digital content for refunds to become widely available but it happened. I am doing my part, I do not share your cynicism here. To me it appears to be working effectively.

The saying is, the wheels of justice turn slowly but they grind finely.

Directive 2019/770 is still young and game companies haven't had much opportunity to interact with irate customers demanding remedy under this directive and its national transpositions yet. They still use the old terminology to clarify their sale as a "service" despite the new act defining what a service is and making that definition inalienable. As more and more people assert their rights, new norms will develop. More and more companies may be forced to register as gatekeepers under the digital markets act as well.


As I understand, this would also apply to e.g. micro-transactions/cosmetics which would be categorized as 'possessions' if I follow the wording in this proposal. So this would include F2P games, requiring them to provide a way to enjoy those cosmetics.

As for subscription-based games, Ross Scott put them in a separate category in a previous video of his [1], as you willingly pay for access to a service which has a known end date (end of the month). Although with the micro-transactions angle in mind, I'm not sure how this changes things.

[1]: "Games as a service" is fraud, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw


If some companies explicitly switched to subscription model that would also be an improvement. With proper subscriptions the company at least needs to clearly specify how long they will provide their service in exchange for your money, and there are laws for dealing with situations when they take money for x months but fail to deliver it.

With many games you are currently paying money for unknown period of time. Maybe you will get 5 year, maybe 1 year, maybe 1 month or even just 3 days. It's not that much of exaggeration, there have been examples of companies continuing to sell a game without any warning that they will kill the servers making the product useless in a few months.

Any fair trade whether it's a purchase, subscription or rental needs to clearly state what exactly and how much of it each party will get from the deal.


I don't think this is a good argument - that is, to not hold companies accountable because doing so might get them to do other undesirable things. It's not like the mobile F2P dumpster fire doesn't exist already without the proposed changes and even PC games have moved significantly towards F2P, especially for online titles which are the main concern of the petition.

Also while this may not be the current public opinion, F2P generally still involves income via sales - not of the whole game but of tiny portions of it dangled in front of you. Any worthwile rule change would also require those to continue to be available to you when the company decides to shut the servers.


well, we can ban subscription models too ;-)


I have a resident permit in an EU country, I can't vote because I'm not a national. Damn it.


Okay? That is generally the difference between a resident and a citizen in a democracy - a citizen gets to have a say in how the country is run, a mere resident does not.


> Not interfere with any business practices while a game is still being supported.

Needs better explanation.


They just mean the companies can still do whatever they want while the game is being supported. It's an extremely poor way of writing that they are only interested in modifying the rules for end-of-life of games instead of regulate existing playable games. The whole thing is poorly written, but the idea is reasonable.


Define "supported"...

This seems like a good goal but I'm not sure they've fully thought it through.


For DRM protected games that "phone home" for verification its when they are unable to reach "home" anymore (not just temporary outage). For online game its when the official servers are shut down.

Are there any other cases where this initiative would apply that I didn't mention?

https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/20...

> This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.

> Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.


> Are there any other cases where this initiative would apply that I didn't mention?

Music and video sales? How many times people who bought music on one of the Microsoft services had to buy it again, because Microsoft turned off authorisation servers?

But in reality this would apply to a lot of software today.


This is explicitly limited to video games, to keep the scale and scope as achievable as possible.


Then read the petition itself or the FAQ?


Related from yesterday:

Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121570


Games aren't really things you can keep forever anymore. They're events, like concerts. Or like movies were before that piracy device, the VCR, was ruled legal in American courts -- something industry moguls still fulminate about (Jack Valenti saw it as the Boston Strangler for his industry until he died).

Get used to this new reality. Enjoy your gaming experiences when you have them.


> Get used to this new reality. Enjoy your gaming experiences when you have them.

Such a bizarre take, when most games I play are from a decade ago or more.

I have very little interest in current gaming trends.


Games are as much like concerts as books are like a person reading it out live


This is a great initiative from Ross, fingers crossed it picks up momentum.


I know this is a little unrelated, but I was really disappointed to find that I couldn't use my Danish national digital ID (mitID) to sign this.


It is because mitID is not a notified eID scheme in the EU. See https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f14...


Signed as well.


sad english noises


[flagged]


I thought it was about squid game.


this would be so much easier in German


It would probably be much easier in a bunch of other languages (Romanian below):

Opriți distrugerea jocurilor.

versus, if you want to use the most similar words, for maximum confusion:

Opriți jocurile distructive.

as you see, they're still super visually distinct, despite using the most similar words possible.


People want to be hooked up on subscription because schools and parents do not preach long-term values (well, maybe only orthodox religious minorities do).

We are in this situation because of a shrinking time horizon for the modern society (aka "high time preference"). People want instant gratification, buy-now-pay-later, pay attention to the packaging, not content. Most citizens are conditioned to live here and now. Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical right now, otherwise the world's gonna end tomorrow.


> Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical right now, otherwise the world's gonna end tomorrow.

This looks more like a consequence of the issue you described previously, than part of the issue itself. If everyone is concerned only with the next 5 minutes (and even if they are with the next 5 years), how would you possibly get them to care about the next 50 or 500 years? So you frame it in terms that align with the modern approach of "only here and now exist".


It's normal and expected that people won't care much what happens in 50 or 500 years. You will possibly be dead and it's too far away to reliably predict the consequence of event in that time span.


“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” — Greek Proverb

Despite the tagline in various points of history, we seem to have in fact not grown great, especially not great again.


Customers generally do not want to be hooked on subscriptions, that's a choice that's forced on them by the "you will own nothing and be happy" rentier faction.

> Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical

No need for "hysterical" in there. But the more and sooner action is taken the better the outcome.


I disagree. Netflix is successful because you get a never ending stream of entertainment for a predictable cost. No need to make consumer decisions on each and every piece of fun.

It takes extra effort to avoid this trap. I and my wife had to make a conscious decision to abstain from watching any TV shows because of their addictive structure - same goes for the algorithm feed of reels. If we need to watch a movie in the evening, it must be a complete thing in itself, not a beginning of a 5-season saga.


>Customers generally do not want to be hooked on subscriptions,

Gamepass seems to disagree. You are free to buy any game so far that has been on gamepass but people would rather buy a rental Smörgåsbord than keep some sense of ownership of the game. I don't think the choice is force; it just aligns with most people's real feelings on the media they consume.


interesting seeing these terms here. I came from reading The Bitcoin Standard book


The best part about this book is the first half, about the history of currency, economy and indeed, the concept of time preference. How inflationary or deflationary economies affect human psychology and spending patterns.

I recommend it even if one is not really interested in cryptocurrencies. Or watch the author's (Saifedean Ammous) interview on Lex Friedman if you prefer.


Good read but Saifedean is very opinionated and will be probably off putting to the average orange Redditor. I for one can't stand him for more than a few minutes. You always know he will start blabbering about carnivore diets within 5 minutes.


I never heard him talk about carnivore, but then again I'm pro carnivore so you might conclude my opinion is worthless as well.

The average orange Redditor likes an echo chamber, so one should not be concerned about their opinion. The pro-Bitcoin will adore him, the anti-Bitcoin will hate him, a priori and nothing will change their mind.


You don't have to put cranks in your informational diet.


I rarely think the market is the answer to anything. But this is one of the times were letting the market solve the problem it the actual fix. In the end nothing of value is lost when the Nth ubisoft project is taken offline. And if people keep buying them it is what it is. Triple A slob are not competing actual good games out of the market.


When you stop thinking about games as just entertainment but also as an art form you realize that a lot of art has already been lost to time. It's shit to regret down the line when you could have just prevented the loss of art at an earlier point in time.

As much as I don't play a lot of AAA games due to how they either play or monetize, it is important to me to preserve them for future times considering I still play a lot of older games and even some games from before I was born.


Not all art needs to be preserved. Everything will be lost eventually, and efforts should be withheld for the worthwhile. People that don't work with preservation usually have a kneejerk feeling that we have to save everything for all time, but it is not feasable nor is it commendable.


> Everything will be lost eventually, and efforts should be withheld for the worthwhile

If art was preserved solely on the basis of whether its contemporaries thought it was worthwhile, we'd be in real trouble.


If all art, everywhere was kept forever, we're be in real trouble


Why, what trouble would we be in?

And since we're apparently only dealing in absolutes - would we be in bigger trouble than we'd be in if no art, nowhere was kept for any amount of time?


physical art's problem is space. We literally can't hold everything. Go to any museum and see how there's probably another museum's worth of artifacts in the back, covered up, for various reasons.

Digital art's problem is saturation. You try to preserve everything withotu curation and you just get a huge mush to wade through. Ever try to sort out a game folder without relying on Steam? Imagine that 10,000 fold. You can have valuable art and spend a career as a digital archeaologist trying to derive the "best games" out of petabytes of crap.

>And since we're apparently only dealing in absolutes - would we be in bigger trouble than we'd be in if no art, nowhere was kept for any amount of time?

It's an interesting question. We'd be in a different situation, but I'm not sure if it'd be objectively better or worse. Without any circuses, the populace would turn to addressing the bread in their hands. This can cause sociatal reform or societal collapse.


> physical art's problem is space. We literally can't hold everything

And it gets more interesting when you consider that "everything" is a lot closer to literal than one would expect. What is "art" is extremely subjective. I could go to a store that sells old things from houses and find a vintage toilet or door and call it art; because I think it's cool looking. Someone else could find a dozen houses in my town and call them art because they're historic in some way. Everything drawn by someone's child is art. You can't keep "all art" because we literally _can't_ keep all art. There's too much of it


been in trouble for millenia, in that case.


If I buy something I should have the choice whether I want to preserve it or not.

There are people that collect bread tabs, I toss them but I was still enriched learning from those that do.


well you don't buy a server, you basically buy a key to accessing the server. It's no so different from a website in that regard and websites also shut down with no notice.

it's just that web pages are easier to backup than game servers.


>When you stop thinking about games as just entertainment but also as an art form you realize that a lot of art has already been lost to time.

I do think games are art. I don't think most of society thinks of games or even most media as art. So that's already one social hurdle to jump.

There will be a few big artifacts, but most people won't care about preserving every single piece of media in existence.

>it is important to me to preserve them for future times considering I still play a lot of older games and even some games from before I was born.

No point in preserving servers with no on it. I still have PS1 discs in my room, but those are all single player experiences that don't depend on others to derive enjoyment from.


The game mechanics implemented on a server binary are an art in themselves, you know.

In the future if we allow it, people will roam from old game to old game on private servers to experience each one. This can easily be planned out so that there is enough players in each event to give the game life.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: