10 ms·

I don't understand your argument. SKG specifically excludes: - Existing games (they only aim to have regulation for newer game, as existing games may be locked

I don't understand your argument. SKG specifically excludes: - Existing games (they only aim to have regulation for newer game, as existing games may be locked into technical choices like a cloud based multiplayer backend that can't be replaced) - Non live-service games (ergo games where you have a monthly subscription of some kind, which makes it obvious you're "renting" the game for a limited time). Within these confines, it seems _very obvious_ to me that you can design just about any multiplayer game in a way that's compatible with SKG's desired regulations. In the vast majority of multiplayer games, you can: - Provide a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that. Too many examples to cite.) - Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers (Many survival games, or games with a persistent world, can do that. See v-rising for a recent example.) - Provide a local multiplayer mode (split screen/couch coop style) And if you don't want to go through any of that for [insert reason here], you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment like WoW and you're no longer subject to the regulation! Now, please give me an example of a game that doesn't fit within that framework if you want to continue this argument.

hobofan 3mo ago
> a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. > Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). > Now, please give me an example of a game that doesn't fit within that framework if you want to continue this argument. Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". [0]: https://www.photonengine.com https://www.photonengine.com
- throw1093874 3mo ago
  > There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.
  - hobofan 3mo ago
    > > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment > > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but often barely viable.
    - roblabla 3mo ago
      WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape. That's a lot of outlier I can cite off the top of my head.
      - hobofan 3mo ago
        > WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape There are in total ~15-30mil paying subscriber that pay subscription fees to a single game. That's 1% of all gamers globally. But sure, let's slap a $5/month subscription fee on all upcoming games that would have the chance to be the next Among Us / PEAK, and let's see how well that works out for indie developers.
        sensanaty 3mo ago
        Or, as SKG has been saying, make games like Among Us or PEAK have some way for players to self-host the games. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if the devs behind PEAK decided to one day say "Y'know what, we're shutting down PEAK and you can no longer play it" when nothing about the game needs to be tied to a persistent internet connection at all. Besides, PEAK has offline mode already built in, so no subscriptions needed.

hobofan 3mo ago

> a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. > Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). > Now, please give me an example of a game that doesn't fit within that framework if you want to continue this argument. Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". [0]: https://www.photonengine.com https://www.photonengine.com

throw1093874 3mo ago
> There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.
- hobofan 3mo ago
  > > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment > > Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but often barely viable.
  - roblabla 3mo ago
    WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape. That's a lot of outlier I can cite off the top of my head.
    - hobofan 3mo ago
      > WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape There are in total ~15-30mil paying subscriber that pay subscription fees to a single game. That's 1% of all gamers globally. But sure, let's slap a $5/month subscription fee on all upcoming games that would have the chance to be the next Among Us / PEAK, and let's see how well that works out for indie developers.
      - sensanaty 3mo ago
        Or, as SKG has been saying, make games like Among Us or PEAK have some way for players to self-host the games. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if the devs behind PEAK decided to one day say "Y'know what, we're shutting down PEAK and you can no longer play it" when nothing about the game needs to be tied to a persistent internet connection at all. Besides, PEAK has offline mode already built in, so no subscriptions needed.