7 ms·

As written, wouldn’t this result in fewer online games? Maybe dramatically fewer?

by TheTaytay 3mo ago

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
carra 3mo ago
And would that really be a bad thing?...
DexesTTP 3mo ago
It would result in fewer online games that stop working altogether when the publisher wants to stop it. All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this. It's really not that complicated. Not "free", of course, but it's not exactly expensive either if you plan to do that from the moment you write your first line of code.
- maccard 3mo ago
  Game developer here. If it were “just” that easy I’d love to support this. > All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this You’re making a huge assumption here both about the scope of the law, and about how straightforward this is to do. I’ve worked in games where we could drop a server binary over the fence an that would be fine. I’ve also worked on games that have required a bunch of different standalone services just for core logic - running it requires a combination of dynamodb, Kafka, a few microservices on lambda, and massive third party dependencies. Getting a “mini self hosted server application” out of this is a rewrite. > but it's not exactly expensive either if you plan to do that from the moment you write your first line of code. The vast majority of games use existing technologies. First line of code was 30 years ago for any unreal game, for example. This effectively bans any third party non redistributable libraries (of which there are many), using many open source licensed projects for the backend. What if I rely on steam, or epic for P2P and they shutter the service? What if playfab discontinue their offering, or AWS decide to remove a service that our “mini self hosted server” relies upon. Games aren’t some magical piece of technology, they’re just software like everything else.
  - skotobaza 3mo ago
    > games that have required a bunch of different standalone services just for core logic But you don't have to design the backend this way. Especially if you know that you will have to share the binaries when the support for the game ends. > This effectively bans any third party non redistributable libraries (of which there are many), using many open source licensed projects for the backend Some games that have been open sourced by the developers solved this issue by replacing such library calls with stubs. I think this is an acceptable compromise. >What if I rely on steam, or epic for P2P and they shutter the service? If you still support the game, you can replace those services to keep the game running. If you don't support it (or decided that you don't want to keep supporting it because of the service shutdown), then you just release it with those service calls, and the community will replace them (if they want to of course).
    - hobofan 3mo ago
      So now you have shifted to goal post from "providing a simple runnable binary" (not feasible due to baked in third-party licensing) to "open sourcing the game code, so people can rewrite the game to patch the missing parts". The few examples you point out as "open source released with stubs" are also usually games that are decades old and cultural landmarks, where there was economic incentive from the right holders (good PR) to release them (e.g. Quake). This isn't tennable for your typical game that has to shut down online services because it's financially unsustainable.
      - skotobaza 3mo ago
        That's just one of the options, albeit the most beneficial for gamers. > "open source released with stubs" are also usually games that are decades old and cultural landmarks Not necessarily. Edit: the goalpost is "the games should remain playable after the publisher stop supporting it". It hasn't moved an inch. So I'm not sure what you are talking about...
        maccard 3mo ago
        You've not just edit'ed and added to your comment, you removed a point about supporting open sourcing the games as a solution. > : the goalpost is "the games should remain playable after the publisher stop supporting it". It hasn't moved an inch. So I'm not sure what you are talking about... Many people (myself included) have absolutely no problem with that in principle. It's how do you do it that we have a problem with. Saying "just have every video game use the architecture that I have in my head that works, and isolate them from how all other software works" isn't practical.
sph 3mo ago
90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase. The multiplayer games usually ship with a server binary you can place on any machine you control. This only affects AAA game studios that produce micro transaction slop and live services. The exact same that are lobbying against any sort of regulation. The gaming industry will be fine.
- maccard 3mo ago
  > 90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase So those games are unaffected regardless of this law. > This only affects AAA game studios that produce micro transaction slop and live services. The exact same that are lobbying against any sort of regulation. F2P live service games are specifically excluded from this though, which presumably is what you mean by micro transaction slop. This affects every game, from a 1 man developer who uses steam for p2p all the way up to activision and call of duty. The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game, not Ubisoft (who are the reason for instigating this whole thing).
  - skotobaza 3mo ago
    > The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game How so? Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. That's mostly AAA publishers that do so (at least I can't remember the opposite from the top of my head).
    - hobofan 3mo ago
      > Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. Yes, they do. Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services to make their multiplayer games work to a playable standard acceptable to the users, as they can't afford to write them from scratch (and couldn't even afford to do the devops work that comes with a self-hosted alternative). Example: PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer. If you were to remove that component you might as well completely rewrite the game. [0]: https://www.photonengine.com https://www.photonengine.com
Farbklex 3mo ago
Less "unnecessary" online games. To give you one tame example: Age of Empires 2 released in 1999 and is fully playable offline either as a single or multiplayer game via LAN. It has received two re-releases as AoE 2 HD edition and AoE 2 Definitive Edition. The Definitive Edition does not work offline for multiplayer games anymore. It is still the same game with updated graphics and engine but it is still just Age of Empires 2. In order to play an actuall "Local Area Network" game, you first need to connect to the online Xbox Service. Only then will "Multiplayer" be available as an option and only then you can actually select "Local Area Network" as the "server region" for the match. All for an updated re-release of a game from 1999. I was at the AoE 2 DE launch LAN event at a Microsoft Store with big YouTubers and everything. They could not play LAN because right at launch, the online servers crashed due to the load. No one played a multiplayer game at this LAN...
schnitzelstoat 3mo ago
Why? I can go and fire up my own Unreal Tournament (1999) dedicated server right now, loads are still running. It means the customer needs the option to run their own servers.
thrance 3mo ago
Probably not, but that would be a good thing in my book anyway.

As written, wouldn’t this result in fewer online games? Maybe dramatically fewer?

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

carra 3mo ago

And would that really be a bad thing?...

DexesTTP 3mo ago

It would result in fewer online games that stop working altogether when the publisher wants to stop it. All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this. It's really not that complicated. Not "free", of course, but it's not exactly expensive either if you plan to do that from the moment you write your first line of code.

maccard 3mo ago
Game developer here. If it were “just” that easy I’d love to support this. > All the publisher would have to do is to create a "mini self-hosted server" application and provide it and they would follow the law on this You’re making a huge assumption here both about the scope of the law, and about how straightforward this is to do. I’ve worked in games where we could drop a server binary over the fence an that would be fine. I’ve also worked on games that have required a bunch of different standalone services just for core logic - running it requires a combination of dynamodb, Kafka, a few microservices on lambda, and massive third party dependencies. Getting a “mini self hosted server application” out of this is a rewrite. > but it's not exactly expensive either if you plan to do that from the moment you write your first line of code. The vast majority of games use existing technologies. First line of code was 30 years ago for any unreal game, for example. This effectively bans any third party non redistributable libraries (of which there are many), using many open source licensed projects for the backend. What if I rely on steam, or epic for P2P and they shutter the service? What if playfab discontinue their offering, or AWS decide to remove a service that our “mini self hosted server” relies upon. Games aren’t some magical piece of technology, they’re just software like everything else.
- skotobaza 3mo ago
  > games that have required a bunch of different standalone services just for core logic But you don't have to design the backend this way. Especially if you know that you will have to share the binaries when the support for the game ends. > This effectively bans any third party non redistributable libraries (of which there are many), using many open source licensed projects for the backend Some games that have been open sourced by the developers solved this issue by replacing such library calls with stubs. I think this is an acceptable compromise. >What if I rely on steam, or epic for P2P and they shutter the service? If you still support the game, you can replace those services to keep the game running. If you don't support it (or decided that you don't want to keep supporting it because of the service shutdown), then you just release it with those service calls, and the community will replace them (if they want to of course).
  - hobofan 3mo ago
    So now you have shifted to goal post from "providing a simple runnable binary" (not feasible due to baked in third-party licensing) to "open sourcing the game code, so people can rewrite the game to patch the missing parts". The few examples you point out as "open source released with stubs" are also usually games that are decades old and cultural landmarks, where there was economic incentive from the right holders (good PR) to release them (e.g. Quake). This isn't tennable for your typical game that has to shut down online services because it's financially unsustainable.
    - skotobaza 3mo ago
      That's just one of the options, albeit the most beneficial for gamers. > "open source released with stubs" are also usually games that are decades old and cultural landmarks Not necessarily. Edit: the goalpost is "the games should remain playable after the publisher stop supporting it". It hasn't moved an inch. So I'm not sure what you are talking about...
      - maccard 3mo ago
        You've not just edit'ed and added to your comment, you removed a point about supporting open sourcing the games as a solution. > : the goalpost is "the games should remain playable after the publisher stop supporting it". It hasn't moved an inch. So I'm not sure what you are talking about... Many people (myself included) have absolutely no problem with that in principle. It's how do you do it that we have a problem with. Saying "just have every video game use the architecture that I have in my head that works, and isolate them from how all other software works" isn't practical.

sph 3mo ago

90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase. The multiplayer games usually ship with a server binary you can place on any machine you control. This only affects AAA game studios that produce micro transaction slop and live services. The exact same that are lobbying against any sort of regulation. The gaming industry will be fine.

maccard 3mo ago
> 90% of games have no online conponent, and run in perpetuity after purchase So those games are unaffected regardless of this law. > This only affects AAA game studios that produce micro transaction slop and live services. The exact same that are lobbying against any sort of regulation. F2P live service games are specifically excluded from this though, which presumably is what you mean by micro transaction slop. This affects every game, from a 1 man developer who uses steam for p2p all the way up to activision and call of duty. The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game, not Ubisoft (who are the reason for instigating this whole thing).
- skotobaza 3mo ago
  > The groups hit hardest by this are going to be small-medium developers who are just trying to build a game How so? Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. That's mostly AAA publishers that do so (at least I can't remember the opposite from the top of my head).
  - hobofan 3mo ago
    > Smaller developers don't usually build games that require huge online components that will be hard to release to the public. Yes, they do. Small developers disproportionally have to rely on online services to make their multiplayer games work to a playable standard acceptable to the users, as they can't afford to write them from scratch (and couldn't even afford to do the devops work that comes with a self-hosted alternative). Example: PEAK, on of _the_ multiplayer hits of last year from a small studio is built on top of Photon[0] for their multiplayer. If you were to remove that component you might as well completely rewrite the game. [0]: https://www.photonengine.com https://www.photonengine.com

Farbklex 3mo ago

Less "unnecessary" online games. To give you one tame example: Age of Empires 2 released in 1999 and is fully playable offline either as a single or multiplayer game via LAN. It has received two re-releases as AoE 2 HD edition and AoE 2 Definitive Edition. The Definitive Edition does not work offline for multiplayer games anymore. It is still the same game with updated graphics and engine but it is still just Age of Empires 2. In order to play an actuall "Local Area Network" game, you first need to connect to the online Xbox Service. Only then will "Multiplayer" be available as an option and only then you can actually select "Local Area Network" as the "server region" for the match. All for an updated re-release of a game from 1999. I was at the AoE 2 DE launch LAN event at a Microsoft Store with big YouTubers and everything. They could not play LAN because right at launch, the online servers crashed due to the load. No one played a multiplayer game at this LAN...

schnitzelstoat 3mo ago

Why? I can go and fire up my own Unreal Tournament (1999) dedicated server right now, loads are still running. It means the customer needs the option to run their own servers.

thrance 3mo ago

Probably not, but that would be a good thing in my book anyway.