So what they are saying is “game companies are and should only be forced to do something if they promised the consumers the games would be playable forever”, am I right?
That, and also “there’s already regulations, kids, we ain’t changing shit”
The takeaway for me is that game companies are just gonna put something in their TOS that explicitly says the game will only remain playable until they decide to give up on it.
So they’ve really ignored the point of the petition huh
Interesting part there though is it’s UK courts that have already set precedent for ToSs to not be legally binding. I think these idiots genuinely think that the law is already protective enough, like they still don’t know that companies can now flick a switch and the digital product you bought goes bye bye.
No. It is a conservative government funded by businesses. They represent them. This was a political way of saying “no” while trying to look like they give a shit.
If that’s right, I really wish they wouldn’t. One of the goals of this whole thing is to outright know just how fucked we are. If governments are onboard with taking away consumer rights, I wish they’d stop being cowards and just tell us.
But then they couldn’t trick consumers into voting for them. There isn’t enough rich people to win so they have to trick people into thinking they are working in their interests.
When reaching out to politicians, a MUCH better angle might be devices that get the same treatment, and then just make sure video games and other software get included.
Example: Fitbit and other purpose-built devices. A TON of functionality goes down when they shutter their servers. To the point where some devices immediately become e-waste.
These companies are literally producing toxic garbage.
Gamers don’t need to be protected from bad games because gamers don’t need good games. Anything that’s a real good or service should obviously be more regulated.
Why does this response just feel like it’s a restatement of what people already have the right to without addressing if they’re taking any action or not? Their mobile phone example even remains usable, whereas a lot of these games do not.
It’s an online petition. If petitions actually had the power to change anything, they wouldn’t let you sign them. The response will always be some mealy-mouthed rubbish.
Frankly, this isn’t anything to do with the government anyway, nor should they be getting involved.
Frankly, this isn’t anything to do with the government anyway, nor should they be getting involved
It kinda does though. The only way you’re going to force companies to keep their old games available is through laws. Companies will only release source code when they take down their online games if legally compelled. They will only release source or keep on steam old off-line games they don’t want to keep up if they are legally compelled.
And honestly, it seems like the bare minimum to give the community the resources to keep playing a game when you’ve decided as a company it’s too old and you want to move on from it.
The campaign is not about getting source code. Though it’s sort of the ultimate way to preserve a game, it’s too high a bar to clear, and in most cases, it’s not even necessary.
Why is that too high of a bar to clear? I’m not saying every game should be open source from day one (and tbh I think the people who say all software should be free have their head up their ass. People worked on it, some people want to get paid for that work).
However, how does it hurt Ubisoft to wait 5 or so years after shutting down the crew, then releasing the source code? By then, anything relevant to a competitor looking to ape off them, or a bad actor looking to cheat or carry out an attack would be irrelevant, and it would at least give the community a chance at creating something from the leftovers (even a dummy server that doesn’t allow multiplayer, but just lets the game pass any “can I connect to the master server” checks, kind of like what the Single Player Tarkov mod does).
I mean, Doom is the prime example. Would people care anywhere near as much about Doom if it never went open source? It would be a great game, but it would probably no longer be relevant. I can’t see that as being a bad thing for most companies (although I’m perfectly aware that the suits of major game studios will never see it that way).
I don’t think they need to release the source code. They could pay some developers to edit the functions of code that contact the server to work offline, or more preferrably, just release compiled binaries for the server so that consumers can run their own private servers after the game officially hits EoS.
Some companies reuse code from previous games in their new games, in fact I’d say it would be stupid for them not to. Obviously if they released source code then they are making it that much easier for cheaters in their newer games.
The effect that open sourcing a game would have on cheaters is basically propaganda as far as I’m concerned. Cheating has not and will not be defeated by making a game closed source or even installing rootkits on players’ machines. However, open sourcing a game isn’t necessary to keep it alive after sunsetting it either.
The best way to stop cheaters is to program the game to be Server Authoritative with Client-side Prediction. If the server does all the math for checking damage, whether someone hit something, speed and position, etc, then the client cannot cheat those values no matter how hard they try. The server will tell everyone else the correct values and the cheater will keep getting reset to what the server says is true. The only kind of cheats you can use on a game like that would be aimbot or wallhacks. But both of those can often be detected using anti-cheat software which acts like a rootkit. So a combination is most often used.
Like I said, I don’t think open source is necessary. If the server binaries are released, then people can run their own private or join someone else’s by IP, just like online games used to work in the 90’s. That is plenty good enough for consumers to keep using what they paid for and takes zero effort on the part of the developer. Its just the reason they don’t is a combination of what I said before and the publisher wanting you to stop playing the old stuff and only buy the new stuff. Nintendo is notorious for this, and one of the reasons my strong dislike for them has been growing.
The only kind of cheats you can use on a game like that would be aimbot or wallhacks. But both of those can often be detected using anti-cheat software which acts like a rootkit. So a combination is most often used.
I’d hardly call that defeating cheating, and a rootkit anticheat, while overstepping boundaries in what is acceptable to be done on your own PC, still can’t detect those cheats powered by external hardware, including aimbots. The difference in results between a closed source game with this server authoritative design and an open source one is moot. It’s a bad excuse. It doesn’t mean I’m going to fight too hard for all games to go open source when there are way bigger fish to fry though.
You’d have to change how the laws for all of software work to make that a reality, not just video games. And all that’s technically needed to make games work after support ends is a distributed server binary and a change to a client config file to point to it. The engines that games are built on are often not open source, so you’d change the entire business model of the likes of Unity and Unreal (Unreal’s source is available to developers but not “open”). Sometimes source code can even get lost, because it’s not strictly required, just in the way that computers work, to come attached to a compiled executable. The world would be a better place if all video games were open source, and I don’t think open source games are at odds with making a healthy profit (as Doom illustrates), but I think you’d have an insurmountable task of making the entire industry agree to it, as well as a certain amount of the consumer base that drinks the PR kool aid about why games need to stay closed source.
That last statement seams a bit misguided. The without government regulation, cars wouldn’t have such long parts and repair support. Why shouldn’t video games and other products be treated the same?
Because cars are a useful tool made up of physical parts that can wear out, while games are an entertainment product made of ever-changing software. You need a car. You don't need video games.
Because that’s what it is. I think some of it might have to do with the limited content of the petition itself (a pretty short description about “customers being robbed” without any broader ideas suggested by the campaign) and some with the fact they get plenty of petitions so the first reaction is to stick with what’s already there. That’s my guess at least.
I hope that if this petition reached 100k signatures and went to a parliamentary hearing there could be a chance for a more nuanced presentation of the topic but who knows, maybe I’m just being naive.
I have an idea: if a game needs internet connection and the servers are shut down the developer has too release all the info on the protocol of the server. That way an open source version of the server can be created and the games can work again.
Yeah because in some ways it’s unrealistic. But we need a decision on what the “expected lifetime” of a video game is , I suppose. Much like how for rental flats there exists standards how long a kitchen, a bathroom, etc, last on average until they need refurbishment.
So if it comes down to say 10 years, then you cannot shut down your online services before those 10 years are up. As video games can be expected to last that long. Although I wonder whether this means they could shut it down after 5y if they refund everyone 50% of their sales price.
This basically boils down to “read the terms & conditions”, which isn’t unreasonable.
If a game states in its terms that access may be revoked at any time and you buy the game, then you have no reason to be surprised when access is eventually revoked.
Obviously when terms aren’t clear enough or intentionally obfuscated, that’s indeed an issue for legislation to act upon.
For digital copies, they could bury this into the EULA and make it a requirement that you agree to it before you make your purchase (IIRC some storefronts do this already).
However for physical copies I suppose there could be a case made if the duration of support was not disclosed at the time of purchase (or it was not printed somewhere on the outside of the packaging).
Exactly, because as we all know - all consumers are all experts in all the products that they use and so deserve no protection from scheming producers.
I didn’t say they deserve no protection at all. You are twisting my words because my opinion doesn’t align with yours.
I advocate for games having a clear indicator for any online dependencies. I do not advocate for outlawing said dependencies or mandating “offline patches”.
If you are clearly told that you’re buying an ephemeral product and you are still surprised when it shuts down, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Yeah it’d be tricky. I would rather see a law that requires companies to keep their games accessible for X years minimum from release, which also affects online services.
I’m not in the UK, but it’s incredibly hard for me to make an informed purchase as someone who cares about this stuff. My latest strategy is to use the PC Gaming Wiki, because I can’t even rely on store pages on GOG or Steam to paint a full or accurate picture of what I’m buying. Often times I need to hope the developer responds to particular Steam forum posts.
There’s one issuse: Not everybody has the capacity to interpret the lengthy legal document. While being reasonable, when was your last time sit down and have a good read of the EULA and other related documents? These documents are designed to be difficult to read, and often intertwined with legal concepts that most don’t understand. That’s why lawyers exist.
Then the next question is: should a product a consumer bought (not lease) be completely dysfunctional after a undefined period of time? Is the petition asking for the servers operate indefinitely regardless of revenue? No. The petition is asking to not make the game completely unusable after a server shut down because of an always online DRM or something alike. The online part can go away and we can all enjoy the offline campaign like 10 years down the road. I don’t think this is a request unreasonable to make.
Your interpretation of such action’s legality is valid, but legal is just the minimum bar of ethical, and seems like there is a need to raise the bar.
As if this comes as a surprise in any capacity. Governments are the biggest criminals out so why wouldn’t they back up other thieves so long as they’re also worth millions already.
That said, this reads as though they truly think the protections that are already in place are good enough. It’s the standard governing body problem of being at least a decade behind, they still live in a world where things can’t just be unplugged by someone not inside your house.
Stop buying games from studios that pull this kind of shit. I get that some industries are run by monopolies and need government regulations since nobody can choose to support the better companies (because there are none), but gaming isn’t one of them. There are hundreds of independent studios that make games as a passion. Stop buying $90 Aways Online, Loot box, Battle Pass, Day 1 DLC, popular IP games with $50 million dollar budgets funded by investors. If people stopped buying these they’d stop being made.
I don’t disagree but aside for The Crew (at a time before Ubi crafted a reputation as a bunch of scumlords) I haven’t bought one yet the market is still littered with them. I used to be one of those people who would preach from the gospel of Jim Fucking Sterling Son and just like the original, I’ve only watched things get predictably worse.
Unfortunately this as a suggestion doesn’t fix the problem of games that are being stolen now, only the ones you don’t buy in the future, assuming things don’t get even worse. It’ll only get worse before it gets better. Voting with your wallet is a fix for the future and only if people aren’t short-sighted morons (something you should absolutely never bank on) but we need a fix for the past.
It read to me that they do think that but also that it needs policing better and companies need to be more up front when selling the game to stay compliant and that ones that do not, need investigating
Should have waited until after the election later on in the year as, all being well, we’ll have a new government. This shower of shit we have in right now won’t do f’all for the average person that’s against business interests.
I thought about this too, but then I checked the end date of the petition. It’s in October, as petitions have to run for 6 months in order to give them enough time to get to the 100,000 signatures. So by the time this petition ends, and then rises to the top of the list of petitions to be debated, we’ll definitely have a new government. 😉
Is it possible to spoof the website into thinking you are in UK? I just signed using a Google searched UK Postcode and after an email verification it counted my signature. If this works people from everywhere should be on this!
A: An increasing number of videogames are designed to rely on a server the publisher controls in order for the game to function. This acts as a lifeline to the game. When the publisher decides to turn this off, it is essentially cutting off life support to the game, making it completely inoperable to all customers. Companies that do this often intentionally prevent people from ‘repairing’ the game also by withholding vital components. When this happens, the game is ‘destroyed’, as no one can ever operate it again.
No, it’s unreasonable to expect the servers to stay online forever. Instead, they should be required to hand the keys over to the community if they stop providing the online service.
Cool, that’s great, but that’s also kinda the point.
Live service games suck because you can’t depend on being able to play them. This is trying to fix that. So you (or anyone else) can play these games offline—eventually. Once they shut down the servers, customers should still be able to access their purchases. This campaign is trying to force companies to design around releasing a patch to strip out the online portion/online DRM or face significant financial consequences.
Moreso, I like to be able to have control of the game. If I play a game with my friends that I like, I don’t want the game to be changed into something else (live service) so I can’t come back and play the version we once did.
A requirement to leave a game in a “working state when support ends” doesn’t mean continuing support (ie, running the server). It means the game should still work when the server is gone, which means either fully offline play, or a means for players to run their own servers. That’s the whole point of this campaign, which is taking place across multiple countries.
“Release the source code” isn’t going to be considered a reasonable thing to ask a government to legislate on. “Make sure the game can still be played after support ends”, which in practice means patching it so it doesn’t require an internet connection to servers that no longer exist and/or allowing players to self-host their own servers, is far more likely to succeed. It’s a reasonable request that someone who has bought something should be able to continue using it for as long as they want, no matter what happens to the company that sold it to them.
It’s a request that stands a decent chance of success if a politician can be made to understand what the problem is, because it is an easy extension of existing consumer rights law. Requiring game studios to hand over their source code to gamers would be considered excessive and unreasonable, and is therefore much more likely to be denied outright.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. For the majority of gamers, the changes proposed would be more than sufficient, so that’s a good reason to push for it even if it isn’t what an open source idealist would want.
I wouldn’t require source code, no. I would just consider that one acceptable form of allowing the game to continue being playable. However, it requires intervention from the user, so it wouldn’t be accepted under this proposal.
Under the proposed rule, a company would not avoid penalty by releasing the source code.
Of course they wouldn’t, and they shouldn’t. Releasing the source code doesn’t absolve them of a responsibility to make sure the game is actually working when they end support. “We fucked over all our players, but here’s the source code so someone else can fix it for nothing” would be a really shitty thing to do and they shouldn’t avoid penalty for fucking over the majority of their players (and the unpaid people who will have to fix it for them).
On the other hand “we patched the game so it’ll continue to work for everyone who bought it” benefits most players, and “we patched the game so it’ll continue to work for everyone who bought it, AND here’s the source code so others can expand/modify it if they feel so inclined” would satisfy everybody. It just shouldn’t be a legal requirement.
Also keep in mind that in the UK system, if a petition reaches its 100,000 signature minimum in order to be considered for debate in parliament, that’s only the beginning of the process. It doesn’t just get put into law exactly as the petitioner words it. It goes through multiple debate stages, where the MPs consider all the options, and then the law gets written - and then it usually gets amended a few times. So I would expect that if this petition did lead to a change in the law, the resulting legislation would have considered multiple options for what “leaving the game in a working state” would look like. A surprisingly large amount of UK legislation on this kind of stuff sort of goes “this is what we want, but companies have freedom to choose how they will implement it”.
petition.parliament.uk
Hot