13 ms·

Stop Killing Games

236 points by amcclure 4mo ago

tosti 4mo ago
Yes, please. Also ask yourself why that old tumble dryer, fridge, amplifier, vacuum cleaner and water cooker from 40+ years ago refuse to die while modern units die about the same week the warranty expires. They make you buy new or else the manufacturers fear going out of business. It's just sad that this has extended to practically everything.
- truelson 4mo ago
  Not always planned obsolescence. Good ol' "only the cheapest survive" plays a role, too.
  - paulryanrogers 4mo ago
    Never heard that phrase. I think their point is the most cheaply made units aren't surviving into the future. They're just getting replaced often. Unless perhaps it means only companies selling the cheapest are surviving. Which also doesn't seem broady true. Maybe we can say "whoever sells the cheapest acceptable units survives".
    - krupan 4mo ago
      Amazing nitpicking of the phrase, well done
  - triyambakam 4mo ago
    A variation of Hanlon's Razor
- econ 4mo ago
  I have a vision for an art exposition where common tools and household items are enriched with remote shut down technology. Devices that have no business being smart like a hamer, a tire iron, a lug Wrench and perhaps shoes. The entrance will feature the obvious candidates that normally use electricity then gradually transition into things like a manual powered citrus juicer for which the battery is only for contract enforcement and planned obsolescence
- wilg 4mo ago
  Is there evidence this is actually true? When I’ve looked I’ve found the historical reliability is overstated and also ignores cost, availability, and environmental impact of manufacturing and using newer appliances and devices. Lots of older things were heavy, resource intensive, and overbuilt. Quality items are still available today for all of this stuff, probably cheaper than in the past in most cases.
- everyone 4mo ago
  Apparently one reason cars from the 90's last longer than new ones (which almost always fail in some way immediately after warranty expires) is the advancement and increased usage of computer modelling / simulation. In the 90's they had pretty much mastered car manufacturing and made parts which they were certain would outlast the warranty, erring on the side of caution they mostly ended up making parts that lasted much longer than the warranty. Now, with computer modelling and simulations, they can accurately design a part to be as cheap as possible to make while being just durable enough to last for the duration of the warranty. D4A did a good video on it.. https://youtu.be/SeMZGICNSMg?si=sideQIwNBr9s9QW6 https://youtu.be/SeMZGICNSMg?si=sideQIwNBr9s9QW6
triyambakam 4mo ago
Every time I read this I think it means to "stop games that promote killing"
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
HelloUsername 4mo ago
Related: "The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'" 29-may-2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48328365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48328365 277 comments
nerdjon 4mo ago
This is basically advocating for open source games which is a completely different story than what stop killing games is trying to do. There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them. I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say: > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. That... basically kills the entire gaming industry. Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.
- felipellrocha 4mo ago
  To be fair, the legislation also kills any sort of multiplayer games, so it's in the same spirit. It just takes the idea to its logical conclusion. As a game developer, if this thing passes, I would just not build multiplayer ever anymore.
  - dijit 4mo ago
    as a game dev myself, agreed. I’m guessing nobody here has ever actually tried to make games, let alone multiplayer ones. It’s not “oh just make it better” we’re usually already stretching the limits of what’s possible financially and time wise to get a working (fun) product. You can add burdens all you want, but that means the games get simpler.. because they can’t be made cheaper (price sensitive customers) and time is finite in that context. something has to give.
    - F3nd0 4mo ago
      As not a game dev myself, may I ask for clarification? How does ‘Stop Killing Games’ legislation kill any sort of multiplayer games specifically? Aren’t there already games which don’t have the problem the movement is trying to solve? Wouldn’t it only require action from you if you were trying to kill multiplayer in the first place? I feel like I may have misunderstood your point or am just lacking a lot of important insight.
      - dijit 4mo ago
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
> What gamers are actually experiencing is the inherent injustice of proprietary software. The inherent injustice of developers being able to eat? The entire reason we're in this mess of a field is because of this ideological purity crusade. We could have a world where independent developers make a modest living producing good software that people pay a reasonable amouunt for, but because everyone expects everything for free, the majority of developers are forced into working for soulless corporations, who make the money that pays their salaries with the most predatory software imaginable, spamming ads, tracking, and microtransactions all over "free" software. You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. The article mentions DRM, which is almost always bypassed, and private servers, which people do host -- so where's the lack of control, exactly? You just feel entitled to be given everything on a silver platter, you can't even be bothered to put effort into taking free stuff. Give me a break. To be clear, I am fully in support of Stop Killing Games. Especially given the annoying copyright regime around hosting private servers, legislation to mandate some kind of fallback for termination is helpful. But trying to pin this cause to this horrible movement that has done 100x more harm than good? No thanks.
- F3nd0 4mo ago
  > You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. It’s never been about what’s possible in theory, but what’s feasible in practice. By the same kind of logic you apply here, every country in the world is as good as democratic because you can work your way to free elections eventually, even if it takes a while.
  - applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
    The literal next sentence after your quote was addressing the feasibility, of which it is clearly feasible because people actually are reverse engineering games at scale.
    - F3nd0 4mo ago
roywiggins 4mo ago
Pangram flags this as 100% LLM output fwiw
- wilg 4mo ago
  WIW: nothing
- brendanfinan 4mo ago
  I am beyond tired of reading "This isn't X. It's Y" that happens at the end of nearly every paragraph here
2001zhaozhao 4mo ago
> If you're a gamer who has watched a $70 purchase turn into a useless desktop icon overnight, you're entirely justified in your outrage. If you're a gamer whose game became unplayable from cheaters running hacked clients because the game's developer decided to share their source code online, you're entirely justified in your outrage.
wilg 4mo ago
It should be legal to make and sell proprietary software with whatever server entanglements you want as long as they are clearly disclosed. If customers and care about open source and free software games, they will support them. There is no need to dictate the funding model people want to use for art or software products. This is an industry with an unbelievable amount of competition.
wegwerper 4mo ago
Wonder why this author felt the need to destroy his article with LLM content / proofreading? Submissions on HN with interesting titles keep ending up being revealed as AI slop halfway down towards them making their point. Authors: you don't need this. Don't disrespect your reader's time with LLM slophancement.
ryandrake 4mo ago
If I subscribe to a service for $M/mo, I expect that service to work as long as I pay for it. If the maintainer of that service decides to turn it off and no longer charge me money, then so be it. I subscribed with eyes open about the lifetime that $M got me. If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools over 50 years old. I would never expect Craftsman to sneak into my garage one day and destroy them because "they're old and unsupported and I should just buy new ones." I don't expect Toyota to repossess my car because it's hard to supply parts for old cars and they really just need me to buy another one. So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for? EDIT: I realize I am arguing for subscription pricing for software, which I am generally against. But for a game that requires a server operating in order to function, perhaps subscription pricing is more appropriate at least for that kind of game. It's still not appropriate for games or tools that run natively and don't have a significant reason for their logic to reside in a server.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- delichon 4mo ago
  Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly. See also 'Juicero'.
  - ryandrake 4mo ago
    If a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.
    - dijit 4mo ago
      Yeah, but gamers in particular are against subscriptions and micro-transactions. Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.
mohamedkoubaa 4mo ago
I'm confused, does the author (or prompter, it would seem) of this article really feel entitled to game servers running indefinitely?
- Gamemaster1379 4mo ago
  > or if it is illegal to modify the game client to point to a fan-run server This would suggest entitlement to be able to allow the game to function in any capacity. They aren't expecting the developer to host it, but the legal right of someone to host it and the capacity for anyone to direct their client to it.
- krupan 4mo ago
  No. Didn't you read the whole thing?
- mrguyorama 4mo ago
  I can still play Quake without Id spending any of their own money running servers. That's literally all anyone wants Community run servers were killed because there's a possibility the community run servers would let you play with content you (gasp!) didn't pay for, as happened with TF2, so they can't possibly let you have that option! If they don't get $6 for a texture file, the world will end! And don't give me bullshit about "But they would have to put extra effort into building that", as if nearly every game server application provided to players has ever been anything other than a random exe file with no documentation and critical flaws that require third party hacks to fix. Pretty much anything built on Unreal or the Source game engine had a ready to go server by default, or with a checkbox. Hell, even nothing more than a carveout in the DMCA to allow people to legally reimplement servers after shutdown would buy a lot of goodwill. This carveout is only needed because the DMCA dramatically limited your legal rights in respect to software products just a couple decades ago.
- stefan_ 4mo ago
  The author doesn't give a fuck about games, which is why this article is pure slop. If you decide the LLM should write your "passion blog post", it gives off immediate "soulless Linked grifter" vibes.
krupan 4mo ago
The discussion here is amazing! Takes me right back to the early days of Linux and discovering Free Software. How will developers eat?? Who would write software for free?? These people clearly didn't think this through!! Amazing to hear it all again, lol! Let's think about it. Free software just applies to the source code. Artwork, logos, even trademarked names are not Free. Support, services, and documentation can also be non Free. This is the Red Hat business model and they make a ton of money. Right now several very popular games are free or almost free to install and play. The game studios make money off of in game purchases. There's no reason that couldn't continue. Games could be Free but connecting to the server for multiplayer would of course cost money. What about anti cheating? I think motivated software engineers working together around the world could come up with solutions to this. Or (and?), good social engineers could come up with incentives/punishments that heavily encourage fair play. I worry about this one the least. Here's one idea that my son just made me aware of this morning. Some game he was playing allowed him FPV of his teammates after he was eliminated from the round. He saw his teammate could see through walls. This angered my son and he called the teammate out. The cheating was defeated.
- captn3m0 4mo ago
  The discussion is so bad because the article is. There’s so many nuances around assets, trademarks, copyright, monetisation, cheatware(?), multi-player etc but the article ignores all of it and goes for the straight freedom angle. How do you even have in-game purchases when you can’t control client code? Do we even have a single example of FOSS and mainstream game that made money and was multiplayer? Terrible slop and I am flagging it.
- usef- 4mo ago
  Have there been commercially successful free software games? If the code was Free Software, how would you sell in-game purchases? Note that if it were just 3d models for your character, others could sell them too, likely cheaper without the overheads of developing the base game. Note that the article is advocating for multiplayer code to be open too. I love free software, but I don't see how it was works in practice with games unless you're talking about open sourcing years later. Games seem different in usage and development than operating systems.
willmadden 4mo ago
Idiots putting their noses where they don't belong. We do not need legislation for this. It would kill the gaming industry.
- dombiscoff 4mo ago
  It just wouldn't
  - willmadden 3mo ago
    Did you read the article? >The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. >The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. It's forcing all games to be open-source. If you develop a big video game with an eight or nine figure budget and your customers are free to distribute and modify your product you will lose everything.
    - djaro 3mo ago
      All of these freedoms would only kick in after the developer shuts down official servers, after which the product is discontinued and not generating income anyway. It wouldn't affect game developers at all, the only change would be that they have to upload the server file's code when they decide to stop supporting the game, so that players can continue it themselves.
      - willmadden 3mo ago
        That's not clear from the article. Even if that's the case, it still gives away the studio's IP the moment they discontinue the game. Counter strike wouldn't exist if these "freedoms" were in effect when half-life ended support.
        skotobaza 3mo ago
        >it still gives away the studio's IP the moment they discontinue the game No. You don't receive any rights to use the IP when you buy the game, so you don't get them when the publisher decided to discontinue it.
CobrastanJorji 4mo ago
For a multiplayer game, especially for something like an MMO where there's lots and lots of content that exists only on the server, there's an interesting question. How do you keep the game going? Do you force the company to release a full working server with all of its content? I'm not opposed to that, but it's a much taller ask than "allow the end users to keep using their clients." But then who's allowed to run servers? Can I modify the servers and mod them and republish my changes? Does killing the game also need to cancel any copyright on any server-side assets? But then we need to get into licensing. What if Fortnite goes offline and they publish their server assets? Does that give me the right to use Naruto and Family Guy avatars on my homebrew server?
itvision 4mo ago
I love it but how do people tolerate the Steam launcher? Why is it a requirement to launch ages old games that lost support aens ago and do not even support Windows 10/11 and the best way to launch them is under emulation or virtualization, e.g. in Windows XP, but modern Steam is not compatible with XP, so ... you're screwed? Valve could have made `steam.dll` optional for really old games but DRM is DRM and it's here to stay.
- Telaneo 4mo ago
  > Valve could have made `steam.dll` optional for really old games but DRM is DRM and it's here to stay. It mostly is if you digging a bit. Yes, it should work out of the box, but at least it's possible to make it work. When the battle of getting games to not permanently break is still being fought (not to mention that there's (somehow?!) significant sentiment that games permanently breaking isn't an actual problem), there's little wonder why the battle of inconvenient DRM isn't really happening.
qweqwe14 4mo ago
It's not pee-pee — it's poo-poo.
enmerk4r 4mo ago
Free games aren't as crazy an idea as one might think, the same way open-source projects like Blender are able to make quite a bit of money. If any of you are fans of space simulator games, I'd check out Kitten Space Agency by RocketWerkz. Their intention is to make this game not only free but DRM-free, so that users can legally put it on a thumb drive and share it with each other. You can also play it entirely offline. Because it's an educational game that's a spiritual successor to a beloved Kerbal Space Program with a significant cult following, they are hoping to continue the project via donations and by partnering with educational institutions. We'll see if this works out for them, seems a little ambitious, but I really hope they set a precedent.
mattbis 4mo ago
Stop playing games ; Can't see how an independent developer would ever be able to do this. We need more independent things not less... this would be my concern. Better legislation would be to force developers to at least allow people to run their own servers.
- throwaway85825 4mo ago
  That's more or less what this is.
stuaxo 4mo ago
I think they are taking a limited[1] but pragmatic approach. [1] This is still way more than the industry would want. If the are successful we will see quite a bit more open source.
Altern4tiveAcc 4mo ago
PSA for anyone considering reading it: this article is full of LLMisms and was probably generated from a prompt. That being said, I agree with the premise. Most of those cultural preservation issues wouldn't be a problem if users had control over their computing. The problems caused by game servers going offline aren't necessarily specific to games, and the cultural preservation aspect can be applied to other programs as well. This essay explain what those problems are in a very accessible manner: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
- croisillon 4mo ago
  > a $70 purchase turn into a useless desktop icon and so it begins...
- andai 4mo ago
  > If a certain activity is essentially your own, then maintaining your full control over it requires that you do it using your copies of free programs, running them on computers you control. Doing it in any other way is SaaSS because it denies you the control you deserve. The word deserve is interesting here. There's a social sense (based on the just world fallacy, see also Karma), and a natural sense (by natural law, you deserve whatever you are able to get). In the natural sense, which is the only real one, a person deserves computing freedom if they are able and willing to obtain it. If they care, and if they're willing to work for it. It's the same way with freedom in other contexts. If you don't care, at least not enough to defend it... well, we can see the results of that. I think Stallman is using the word deserve here in the sense that computing freedom should be some kind of human right. That's an admirable position, but I don't think I see it catching on. (Heck, regular freedom is still pretty niche, especially globally, and computing freedom is a strict subset.)
- metabagel 4mo ago
  > PSA for anyone considering reading it: this article is full of LLMisms and was probably generated from a prompt. Possibly, but it doesn't appear that way to me.
eckesicle 4mo ago
My father was a printer his entire life. I went with him to work one day when I was around 12 years old. He loaded up a box of, what seemed to me a random selection of flyers, booklets and other printed goods in his car, and together we drove to the National Archives (in Sweden). He explained to me that every media artifact of cultural significance would be stored there in three (I believe) copies for future generations to enjoy, or researchers, or historians. I was given a tour by an archivist there and this became a core memory of mine. I was always at unease growing up, wondering what would happen to video games when they no longer became popular. Would I be able to enjoy them when I got older? Would my children ever be able to play the games that shaped my teenage years? The discussion around the matter of Stop Killing Games always devolves to one around free labour or around infringing the rights of the creator, but at some point, when a game, or a film, or a book is no longer monetised, makers of cultural works should be obliged to archive and ensure that our shared cultural heritage and identity is preserved for the future. Film makers, authors, printers, ad agencies, music producers, and many others are already obliged to do this in many countries. Why should video game producers be exempt? It's just better for all of us, and our children, if these works of art are preserved, and that at an insignificant effort and cost, compared to the cost of developing it.
- Telaneo 4mo ago
  > I was always at unease growing up, wondering what would happen to video games when they no longer became popular. Would I be able to enjoy them when I got older? Would my children ever be able to play the games that shaped my teenage years? The worst thing, at least to me, is that the worst case scenario, as long as the devs don't go out of their way to kill a game permanently, is still not all that bad. There's emulation, there's virtual machines, there's dicking about with config files, and there's just buying the old hardware outright. Even old, obscure and fiddly games can be played if you put in the effort. Even the old and obscure will very often be out there on the web, and even if it isn't, you can eventually get hold of a physical copy (and then make a good example and make it available yourself!). But the moment there's a clown server dependency involved, that's it. You've lost before you've even begun. Sometimes a miracle happens, or someone dedicates their entire life to restoring that one game, and we thank them, for they are doing capital G God's work. But preservation can't depend on miracles.
mortsnort 4mo ago
Stop killing games before they even get made by putting unnecessary burdens on developers.
- HDBaseT 4mo ago
  PirateSoftware alt account.
zzo38computer 4mo ago
They are right that Free software is important, not only games but other stuff as well; I agree with the ideas they mention in this article. Freedom 1 is also important for understanding the rules of the game in case it is not documented very well; changing which server it connects to is not the only issue (and a well-designed FOSS program would have an option to configure which server it connects to without needing to recompile it). (In some cases, other people figure out the rules of the game independently and might write independent FOSS implementations (in one case, I have done this for a single-player game; other people have also done for other games). In this case, it may be less of a problem (if the FOSS implementation is actually correct and complete (and might even have less bugs than the original and/or other improvements)), and both official and unofficial implementations can continue to be used.)
phendrenad2 4mo ago
Proprietary software itself is regressive. We need to get to a place where all consumer-focused apps and games include full source code, including any server necessary to play multiplayer or store cloud files. In this I see Stop Killing Games as a half-measure that the industry supports to avoid us waking up and realizing what we should have.
lowbloodsugar 4mo ago
Oh fuck off. [1] To elaborate, if I make a creative experience, that requires a server, and sell it to you for $70, and you play it for a year, that's your $70 of value right there. That's the moral argument. Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that they'll sell two versions: one that is $0, but doesnt work until you sign up for the $70 per month subscription. That's the legal argument. What this comes down to is "I have the right to decide what my $70 actually paid for". No you don't. What you paid for is what you paid for. Now piss off. [1] https://tenor.com/view/oh-fuck-off-alice-kristen-bell-the-people-we-hate-at-the-wedding-go-to-hell-gif-27167779 https://tenor.com/view/oh-fuck-off-alice-kristen-bell-the-pe...
- skotobaza 3mo ago
  No, the moral argument is "I want to be able to (re)play the experience ten years from now". If the servers aren't available in any form (so I can't event self-host), then it's an issue. That is the moral part, not the financial one.
  - lowbloodsugar 3mo ago
    “What you want” isn’t a moral issue. It’s an entitlement issue. I want a Ferrari. $70 doesn’t buy a Ferrari just like it doesn’t buy unlimited expense running a server or the intellectual property of that server. Fascinating to me that, on the one hand, so many people up in arms about AI stealing work from poor devs but then here you are demanding free use of their work because you made a one time payment ten years ago. "Well, just make it open source, so anyone can run it". Ok, and someone sets up a server and modifies it to be "Nazi world" still using my recognizable assets. Do I have any rights there, to stop my IP from bieng used for that purpose? Is "IP" a dirty word? Isn't IP what we're up in arms about AI stealing? You haven't thought it through.
    - skotobaza 3mo ago
      When I buy a game, I do not expect the developer or the publisher to keep the servers open for unlimited time. But since I paid for the game, I expect to be able to play it. Like it always has been. You see it as entitlement, I see it as a normal thing. If you buy a Ferrari and it stops working just because some servers got closed, I expect you to be "entitled" as well. It's absolutely normal to expect things that you paid for to keep working. And knowingly disable the servers rendering a game (or a car) unplayable is immoral. It already happened multiple times. And it will happen again. Regarding the argument about modification of the assets - I don't see the issue. Nobody will hold the publisher responsible for what other people do. You can already do that with e.g. Counter Strike - host your own server, take an official Valve map and replace some textures with something inappropriate. No one will blame Valve for this, since they do not host those servers. So I have thought it through. Also, AI has nothing to do with this, not sure why you bring it up...
M95D 3mo ago
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. There are so many old games on GOG to play for 10 lifetimes. On a 1GB RPi.
- Telaneo 3mo ago
  There are many old books in the Library, and yet I still choose to buy new ones.
  - M95D 3mo ago
    The way I see it, new books = new information; new games = worse gameplay, worse story, with new graphics => money spent updating GPU/CPU/memory getting very little in return
    - Telaneo 3mo ago
      I could say the same thing about books. It obviously doesn't apply to all books, just as it doesn't apply to all games.

236 points by amcclure 4mo ago

tosti 4mo ago

Yes, please. Also ask yourself why that old tumble dryer, fridge, amplifier, vacuum cleaner and water cooker from 40+ years ago refuse to die while modern units die about the same week the warranty expires. They make you buy new or else the manufacturers fear going out of business. It's just sad that this has extended to practically everything.

truelson 4mo ago
Not always planned obsolescence. Good ol' "only the cheapest survive" plays a role, too.
- paulryanrogers 4mo ago
  Never heard that phrase. I think their point is the most cheaply made units aren't surviving into the future. They're just getting replaced often. Unless perhaps it means only companies selling the cheapest are surviving. Which also doesn't seem broady true. Maybe we can say "whoever sells the cheapest acceptable units survives".
  - krupan 4mo ago
    Amazing nitpicking of the phrase, well done
- triyambakam 4mo ago
  A variation of Hanlon's Razor
econ 4mo ago
I have a vision for an art exposition where common tools and household items are enriched with remote shut down technology. Devices that have no business being smart like a hamer, a tire iron, a lug Wrench and perhaps shoes. The entrance will feature the obvious candidates that normally use electricity then gradually transition into things like a manual powered citrus juicer for which the battery is only for contract enforcement and planned obsolescence
wilg 4mo ago
Is there evidence this is actually true? When I’ve looked I’ve found the historical reliability is overstated and also ignores cost, availability, and environmental impact of manufacturing and using newer appliances and devices. Lots of older things were heavy, resource intensive, and overbuilt. Quality items are still available today for all of this stuff, probably cheaper than in the past in most cases.
everyone 4mo ago
Apparently one reason cars from the 90's last longer than new ones (which almost always fail in some way immediately after warranty expires) is the advancement and increased usage of computer modelling / simulation. In the 90's they had pretty much mastered car manufacturing and made parts which they were certain would outlast the warranty, erring on the side of caution they mostly ended up making parts that lasted much longer than the warranty. Now, with computer modelling and simulations, they can accurately design a part to be as cheap as possible to make while being just durable enough to last for the duration of the warranty. D4A did a good video on it.. https://youtu.be/SeMZGICNSMg?si=sideQIwNBr9s9QW6 https://youtu.be/SeMZGICNSMg?si=sideQIwNBr9s9QW6

triyambakam 4mo ago

Every time I read this I think it means to "stop games that promote killing"

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

HelloUsername 4mo ago

Related: "The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'" 29-may-2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48328365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48328365 277 comments

nerdjon 4mo ago

This is basically advocating for open source games which is a completely different story than what stop killing games is trying to do. There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them. I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say: > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. That... basically kills the entire gaming industry. Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.

felipellrocha 4mo ago
To be fair, the legislation also kills any sort of multiplayer games, so it's in the same spirit. It just takes the idea to its logical conclusion. As a game developer, if this thing passes, I would just not build multiplayer ever anymore.
- dijit 4mo ago
  as a game dev myself, agreed. I’m guessing nobody here has ever actually tried to make games, let alone multiplayer ones. It’s not “oh just make it better” we’re usually already stretching the limits of what’s possible financially and time wise to get a working (fun) product. You can add burdens all you want, but that means the games get simpler.. because they can’t be made cheaper (price sensitive customers) and time is finite in that context. something has to give.
  - F3nd0 4mo ago
    As not a game dev myself, may I ask for clarification? How does ‘Stop Killing Games’ legislation kill any sort of multiplayer games specifically? Aren’t there already games which don’t have the problem the movement is trying to solve? Wouldn’t it only require action from you if you were trying to kill multiplayer in the first place? I feel like I may have misunderstood your point or am just lacking a lot of important insight.
    - dijit 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

applfanboysbgon 4mo ago

> What gamers are actually experiencing is the inherent injustice of proprietary software. The inherent injustice of developers being able to eat? The entire reason we're in this mess of a field is because of this ideological purity crusade. We could have a world where independent developers make a modest living producing good software that people pay a reasonable amouunt for, but because everyone expects everything for free, the majority of developers are forced into working for soulless corporations, who make the money that pays their salaries with the most predatory software imaginable, spamming ads, tracking, and microtransactions all over "free" software. You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. The article mentions DRM, which is almost always bypassed, and private servers, which people do host -- so where's the lack of control, exactly? You just feel entitled to be given everything on a silver platter, you can't even be bothered to put effort into taking free stuff. Give me a break. To be clear, I am fully in support of Stop Killing Games. Especially given the annoying copyright regime around hosting private servers, legislation to mandate some kind of fallback for termination is helpful. But trying to pin this cause to this horrible movement that has done 100x more harm than good? No thanks.

F3nd0 4mo ago
> You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. It’s never been about what’s possible in theory, but what’s feasible in practice. By the same kind of logic you apply here, every country in the world is as good as democratic because you can work your way to free elections eventually, even if it takes a while.
- applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
  The literal next sentence after your quote was addressing the feasibility, of which it is clearly feasible because people actually are reverse engineering games at scale.
  - F3nd0 4mo ago

roywiggins 4mo ago

Pangram flags this as 100% LLM output fwiw

wilg 4mo ago
WIW: nothing
brendanfinan 4mo ago
I am beyond tired of reading "This isn't X. It's Y" that happens at the end of nearly every paragraph here

2001zhaozhao 4mo ago

> If you're a gamer who has watched a $70 purchase turn into a useless desktop icon overnight, you're entirely justified in your outrage. If you're a gamer whose game became unplayable from cheaters running hacked clients because the game's developer decided to share their source code online, you're entirely justified in your outrage.

wilg 4mo ago

It should be legal to make and sell proprietary software with whatever server entanglements you want as long as they are clearly disclosed. If customers and care about open source and free software games, they will support them. There is no need to dictate the funding model people want to use for art or software products. This is an industry with an unbelievable amount of competition.

wegwerper 4mo ago

Wonder why this author felt the need to destroy his article with LLM content / proofreading? Submissions on HN with interesting titles keep ending up being revealed as AI slop halfway down towards them making their point. Authors: you don't need this. Don't disrespect your reader's time with LLM slophancement.

ryandrake 4mo ago

If I subscribe to a service for $M/mo, I expect that service to work as long as I pay for it. If the maintainer of that service decides to turn it off and no longer charge me money, then so be it. I subscribed with eyes open about the lifetime that $M got me. If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools over 50 years old. I would never expect Craftsman to sneak into my garage one day and destroy them because "they're old and unsupported and I should just buy new ones." I don't expect Toyota to repossess my car because it's hard to supply parts for old cars and they really just need me to buy another one. So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for? EDIT: I realize I am arguing for subscription pricing for software, which I am generally against. But for a game that requires a server operating in order to function, perhaps subscription pricing is more appropriate at least for that kind of game. It's still not appropriate for games or tools that run natively and don't have a significant reason for their logic to reside in a server.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
delichon 4mo ago
Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly. See also 'Juicero'.
- ryandrake 4mo ago
  If a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.
  - dijit 4mo ago
    Yeah, but gamers in particular are against subscriptions and micro-transactions. Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.

mohamedkoubaa 4mo ago

I'm confused, does the author (or prompter, it would seem) of this article really feel entitled to game servers running indefinitely?

Gamemaster1379 4mo ago
> or if it is illegal to modify the game client to point to a fan-run server This would suggest entitlement to be able to allow the game to function in any capacity. They aren't expecting the developer to host it, but the legal right of someone to host it and the capacity for anyone to direct their client to it.
krupan 4mo ago
No. Didn't you read the whole thing?
mrguyorama 4mo ago
I can still play Quake without Id spending any of their own money running servers. That's literally all anyone wants Community run servers were killed because there's a possibility the community run servers would let you play with content you (gasp!) didn't pay for, as happened with TF2, so they can't possibly let you have that option! If they don't get $6 for a texture file, the world will end! And don't give me bullshit about "But they would have to put extra effort into building that", as if nearly every game server application provided to players has ever been anything other than a random exe file with no documentation and critical flaws that require third party hacks to fix. Pretty much anything built on Unreal or the Source game engine had a ready to go server by default, or with a checkbox. Hell, even nothing more than a carveout in the DMCA to allow people to legally reimplement servers after shutdown would buy a lot of goodwill. This carveout is only needed because the DMCA dramatically limited your legal rights in respect to software products just a couple decades ago.
stefan_ 4mo ago
The author doesn't give a fuck about games, which is why this article is pure slop. If you decide the LLM should write your "passion blog post", it gives off immediate "soulless Linked grifter" vibes.

krupan 4mo ago

The discussion here is amazing! Takes me right back to the early days of Linux and discovering Free Software. How will developers eat?? Who would write software for free?? These people clearly didn't think this through!! Amazing to hear it all again, lol! Let's think about it. Free software just applies to the source code. Artwork, logos, even trademarked names are not Free. Support, services, and documentation can also be non Free. This is the Red Hat business model and they make a ton of money. Right now several very popular games are free or almost free to install and play. The game studios make money off of in game purchases. There's no reason that couldn't continue. Games could be Free but connecting to the server for multiplayer would of course cost money. What about anti cheating? I think motivated software engineers working together around the world could come up with solutions to this. Or (and?), good social engineers could come up with incentives/punishments that heavily encourage fair play. I worry about this one the least. Here's one idea that my son just made me aware of this morning. Some game he was playing allowed him FPV of his teammates after he was eliminated from the round. He saw his teammate could see through walls. This angered my son and he called the teammate out. The cheating was defeated.

captn3m0 4mo ago
The discussion is so bad because the article is. There’s so many nuances around assets, trademarks, copyright, monetisation, cheatware(?), multi-player etc but the article ignores all of it and goes for the straight freedom angle. How do you even have in-game purchases when you can’t control client code? Do we even have a single example of FOSS and mainstream game that made money and was multiplayer? Terrible slop and I am flagging it.
usef- 4mo ago
Have there been commercially successful free software games? If the code was Free Software, how would you sell in-game purchases? Note that if it were just 3d models for your character, others could sell them too, likely cheaper without the overheads of developing the base game. Note that the article is advocating for multiplayer code to be open too. I love free software, but I don't see how it was works in practice with games unless you're talking about open sourcing years later. Games seem different in usage and development than operating systems.

willmadden 4mo ago

Idiots putting their noses where they don't belong. We do not need legislation for this. It would kill the gaming industry.

dombiscoff 4mo ago
It just wouldn't
- willmadden 3mo ago
  Did you read the article? >The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. >The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. It's forcing all games to be open-source. If you develop a big video game with an eight or nine figure budget and your customers are free to distribute and modify your product you will lose everything.
  - djaro 3mo ago
    All of these freedoms would only kick in after the developer shuts down official servers, after which the product is discontinued and not generating income anyway. It wouldn't affect game developers at all, the only change would be that they have to upload the server file's code when they decide to stop supporting the game, so that players can continue it themselves.
    - willmadden 3mo ago
      That's not clear from the article. Even if that's the case, it still gives away the studio's IP the moment they discontinue the game. Counter strike wouldn't exist if these "freedoms" were in effect when half-life ended support.
      - skotobaza 3mo ago
        >it still gives away the studio's IP the moment they discontinue the game No. You don't receive any rights to use the IP when you buy the game, so you don't get them when the publisher decided to discontinue it.

CobrastanJorji 4mo ago

For a multiplayer game, especially for something like an MMO where there's lots and lots of content that exists only on the server, there's an interesting question. How do you keep the game going? Do you force the company to release a full working server with all of its content? I'm not opposed to that, but it's a much taller ask than "allow the end users to keep using their clients." But then who's allowed to run servers? Can I modify the servers and mod them and republish my changes? Does killing the game also need to cancel any copyright on any server-side assets? But then we need to get into licensing. What if Fortnite goes offline and they publish their server assets? Does that give me the right to use Naruto and Family Guy avatars on my homebrew server?

itvision 4mo ago

I love it but how do people tolerate the Steam launcher? Why is it a requirement to launch ages old games that lost support aens ago and do not even support Windows 10/11 and the best way to launch them is under emulation or virtualization, e.g. in Windows XP, but modern Steam is not compatible with XP, so ... you're screwed? Valve could have made `steam.dll` optional for really old games but DRM is DRM and it's here to stay.

Telaneo 4mo ago
> Valve could have made `steam.dll` optional for really old games but DRM is DRM and it's here to stay. It mostly is if you digging a bit. Yes, it should work out of the box, but at least it's possible to make it work. When the battle of getting games to not permanently break is still being fought (not to mention that there's (somehow?!) significant sentiment that games permanently breaking isn't an actual problem), there's little wonder why the battle of inconvenient DRM isn't really happening.

qweqwe14 4mo ago

It's not pee-pee — it's poo-poo.

enmerk4r 4mo ago

Free games aren't as crazy an idea as one might think, the same way open-source projects like Blender are able to make quite a bit of money. If any of you are fans of space simulator games, I'd check out Kitten Space Agency by RocketWerkz. Their intention is to make this game not only free but DRM-free, so that users can legally put it on a thumb drive and share it with each other. You can also play it entirely offline. Because it's an educational game that's a spiritual successor to a beloved Kerbal Space Program with a significant cult following, they are hoping to continue the project via donations and by partnering with educational institutions. We'll see if this works out for them, seems a little ambitious, but I really hope they set a precedent.

mattbis 4mo ago

Stop playing games ; Can't see how an independent developer would ever be able to do this. We need more independent things not less... this would be my concern. Better legislation would be to force developers to at least allow people to run their own servers.

throwaway85825 4mo ago
That's more or less what this is.

stuaxo 4mo ago

I think they are taking a limited[1] but pragmatic approach. [1] This is still way more than the industry would want. If the are successful we will see quite a bit more open source.

Altern4tiveAcc 4mo ago

PSA for anyone considering reading it: this article is full of LLMisms and was probably generated from a prompt. That being said, I agree with the premise. Most of those cultural preservation issues wouldn't be a problem if users had control over their computing. The problems caused by game servers going offline aren't necessarily specific to games, and the cultural preservation aspect can be applied to other programs as well. This essay explain what those problems are in a very accessible manner: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

croisillon 4mo ago
> a $70 purchase turn into a useless desktop icon and so it begins...
andai 4mo ago
> If a certain activity is essentially your own, then maintaining your full control over it requires that you do it using your copies of free programs, running them on computers you control. Doing it in any other way is SaaSS because it denies you the control you deserve. The word deserve is interesting here. There's a social sense (based on the just world fallacy, see also Karma), and a natural sense (by natural law, you deserve whatever you are able to get). In the natural sense, which is the only real one, a person deserves computing freedom if they are able and willing to obtain it. If they care, and if they're willing to work for it. It's the same way with freedom in other contexts. If you don't care, at least not enough to defend it... well, we can see the results of that. I think Stallman is using the word deserve here in the sense that computing freedom should be some kind of human right. That's an admirable position, but I don't think I see it catching on. (Heck, regular freedom is still pretty niche, especially globally, and computing freedom is a strict subset.)
metabagel 4mo ago
> PSA for anyone considering reading it: this article is full of LLMisms and was probably generated from a prompt. Possibly, but it doesn't appear that way to me.

eckesicle 4mo ago

My father was a printer his entire life. I went with him to work one day when I was around 12 years old. He loaded up a box of, what seemed to me a random selection of flyers, booklets and other printed goods in his car, and together we drove to the National Archives (in Sweden). He explained to me that every media artifact of cultural significance would be stored there in three (I believe) copies for future generations to enjoy, or researchers, or historians. I was given a tour by an archivist there and this became a core memory of mine. I was always at unease growing up, wondering what would happen to video games when they no longer became popular. Would I be able to enjoy them when I got older? Would my children ever be able to play the games that shaped my teenage years? The discussion around the matter of Stop Killing Games always devolves to one around free labour or around infringing the rights of the creator, but at some point, when a game, or a film, or a book is no longer monetised, makers of cultural works should be obliged to archive and ensure that our shared cultural heritage and identity is preserved for the future. Film makers, authors, printers, ad agencies, music producers, and many others are already obliged to do this in many countries. Why should video game producers be exempt? It's just better for all of us, and our children, if these works of art are preserved, and that at an insignificant effort and cost, compared to the cost of developing it.

Telaneo 4mo ago
> I was always at unease growing up, wondering what would happen to video games when they no longer became popular. Would I be able to enjoy them when I got older? Would my children ever be able to play the games that shaped my teenage years? The worst thing, at least to me, is that the worst case scenario, as long as the devs don't go out of their way to kill a game permanently, is still not all that bad. There's emulation, there's virtual machines, there's dicking about with config files, and there's just buying the old hardware outright. Even old, obscure and fiddly games can be played if you put in the effort. Even the old and obscure will very often be out there on the web, and even if it isn't, you can eventually get hold of a physical copy (and then make a good example and make it available yourself!). But the moment there's a clown server dependency involved, that's it. You've lost before you've even begun. Sometimes a miracle happens, or someone dedicates their entire life to restoring that one game, and we thank them, for they are doing capital G God's work. But preservation can't depend on miracles.

mortsnort 4mo ago

Stop killing games before they even get made by putting unnecessary burdens on developers.

HDBaseT 4mo ago
PirateSoftware alt account.

zzo38computer 4mo ago

They are right that Free software is important, not only games but other stuff as well; I agree with the ideas they mention in this article. Freedom 1 is also important for understanding the rules of the game in case it is not documented very well; changing which server it connects to is not the only issue (and a well-designed FOSS program would have an option to configure which server it connects to without needing to recompile it). (In some cases, other people figure out the rules of the game independently and might write independent FOSS implementations (in one case, I have done this for a single-player game; other people have also done for other games). In this case, it may be less of a problem (if the FOSS implementation is actually correct and complete (and might even have less bugs than the original and/or other improvements)), and both official and unofficial implementations can continue to be used.)

phendrenad2 4mo ago

Proprietary software itself is regressive. We need to get to a place where all consumer-focused apps and games include full source code, including any server necessary to play multiplayer or store cloud files. In this I see Stop Killing Games as a half-measure that the industry supports to avoid us waking up and realizing what we should have.

lowbloodsugar 4mo ago

Oh fuck off. [1] To elaborate, if I make a creative experience, that requires a server, and sell it to you for $70, and you play it for a year, that's your $70 of value right there. That's the moral argument. Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that they'll sell two versions: one that is $0, but doesnt work until you sign up for the $70 per month subscription. That's the legal argument. What this comes down to is "I have the right to decide what my $70 actually paid for". No you don't. What you paid for is what you paid for. Now piss off. [1] https://tenor.com/view/oh-fuck-off-alice-kristen-bell-the-people-we-hate-at-the-wedding-go-to-hell-gif-27167779 https://tenor.com/view/oh-fuck-off-alice-kristen-bell-the-pe...

skotobaza 3mo ago
No, the moral argument is "I want to be able to (re)play the experience ten years from now". If the servers aren't available in any form (so I can't event self-host), then it's an issue. That is the moral part, not the financial one.
- lowbloodsugar 3mo ago
  “What you want” isn’t a moral issue. It’s an entitlement issue. I want a Ferrari. $70 doesn’t buy a Ferrari just like it doesn’t buy unlimited expense running a server or the intellectual property of that server. Fascinating to me that, on the one hand, so many people up in arms about AI stealing work from poor devs but then here you are demanding free use of their work because you made a one time payment ten years ago. "Well, just make it open source, so anyone can run it". Ok, and someone sets up a server and modifies it to be "Nazi world" still using my recognizable assets. Do I have any rights there, to stop my IP from bieng used for that purpose? Is "IP" a dirty word? Isn't IP what we're up in arms about AI stealing? You haven't thought it through.
  - skotobaza 3mo ago
    When I buy a game, I do not expect the developer or the publisher to keep the servers open for unlimited time. But since I paid for the game, I expect to be able to play it. Like it always has been. You see it as entitlement, I see it as a normal thing. If you buy a Ferrari and it stops working just because some servers got closed, I expect you to be "entitled" as well. It's absolutely normal to expect things that you paid for to keep working. And knowingly disable the servers rendering a game (or a car) unplayable is immoral. It already happened multiple times. And it will happen again. Regarding the argument about modification of the assets - I don't see the issue. Nobody will hold the publisher responsible for what other people do. You can already do that with e.g. Counter Strike - host your own server, take an official Valve map and replace some textures with something inappropriate. No one will blame Valve for this, since they do not host those servers. So I have thought it through. Also, AI has nothing to do with this, not sure why you bring it up...

M95D 3mo ago

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. There are so many old games on GOG to play for 10 lifetimes. On a 1GB RPi.

Telaneo 3mo ago
There are many old books in the Library, and yet I still choose to buy new ones.
- M95D 3mo ago
  The way I see it, new books = new information; new games = worse gameplay, worse story, with new graphics => money spent updating GPU/CPU/memory getting very little in return
  - Telaneo 3mo ago
    I could say the same thing about books. It obviously doesn't apply to all books, just as it doesn't apply to all games.