Some people fundamentally disagree with the concept of progress and a better future.
I call them regressives.
I’m going to borrow this and start calling all conservatives “regressives” instead.
I mean..
You know that's not a new thing right? Also reactionaries has been used.
I just prefer calling them wankers
They spit in the face of the value of the free knowledge, art, and society they've inherited tbh.
i prefer anti-intellectual personally.
Even Thor of PirateGames only had absolute shit opinions on the matter.
I watched too many of his shorts before realizing he had a lot of dogshit takes
Yes but his voice
Are people actually advocating for game publishers to have to keep the servers running forever? That would seem a bit of an unreasonable ask. I think a reasonable compromise would be that if they plan to shut down the servers, the publisher should have to release the server side software.
"IrateAnteater"? More like "IlliterateAnteater" or "AnteaterThatCantReadTheFirstParagraphOfTheFuckingPetition".
No “running the servers forever” is a bad faith argument against the initiative making it seem “unreasonable”
It's also subtly re-enforcing capital's position games need to operate on a centralised server model. I look back at many old multiplayer games where all I need to play with my friends is a local network. These days we get sold single player games that can't run under those conditions.
They aren't scared of being made to run servers forever. Quite the opposite, they are scared of us not needing them to.
I mean, it could be interpreted as such. Easiest way to deal with this interpretation is by providing clear and concise explanations what precisely is being fought for. Not for those of us who are keeping an eye on things, for those who hear about it suddenly or purposefully use bad faith arguments.
Gotta communicate STRONGLY nowadays.
They should open source the server if they are going to shut it down.
This is clearly the best option. Sometimes they can’t, though, because they have deals with 3rd party companies for libraries they depend on and they don’t have permission to release.
Personally I’d prefer they just rip out all the 3rd party code and release whatever they have left, leaving it up to the community to fill in the gaps with open source alternatives.
I think what they really want is to shut down the game and release the sequel so that everyone is forced to upgrade. I hate that. If they do that then they should forfeit their copyright.
Your idea is exactly what the movement is trying to achieve. But people keep repeating these bullshit arguments instead of listening for five seconds.
No. It’s a made up burden by publishers to avoid releasing control of games.
Everyone I have ever seen comment on this has basically suggested to just release the server code so that the community can run their own servers and continue gaming.
My ideas about the topic are a bit different, and might go a bit further:
-
If a company sells a license to an end customer (i.e. any private individual not posing as a business themselves) for any piece of software, games or otherwise, in exchange for something of value (like money, usually money), and they do not make abundantly clear both in the official advertising materials and during all steps of the sales process that the license is time-limited, the law should view that license as being in perpetuity and non-revocable, even if the fine print says otherwise.
-
Any company that sells software licenses should be required to make sure that none of the copy protection mechanisms it employs to protect it from software piracy will ever effectively keep any legitimate license holders from using the software, for as long as the license is valid. If the license is perpetual, that means forever. If the company decides to implement its copy protection by requiring the software to log on to some server on the internet before it will do its work, the company should have the choice between running that server and keeping it internet-reachable forever or providing all legitimate license holders a means to disable the licensing server requirement.
-
If a computer game requires a login into a server that cannot be provided by the license holder themselves or a third party of their choice before the core functionality of the game can be used, and this login requirement is not an unavoidable technical requirement from a software developer's side (i.e. if the game is not a pure multiplayer or MMO game at its core), then this login requirement should be seen as a copy protection mechanism for the purposes of the previous paragraph. Just like in the previous paragraph, software companies should have the choice between running those servers forever or disabling the requirement, with the additional option of allowing the license holder to run a suitable replacement server themselves. I'm thinking of games like Simcity (2013) or Flight Simulator 2024 here.
I do not believe these demands are radical. I believe the current situation, where publishers can sell a game to a large numbers of customers and then later just take away the right to use it on a whim is radical.
I also believe that computer games are an essential part of cultural life for large parts of the last three generations, and I believe that preserving these cultural artifacts is no less important than preserving books, movies, music, etc. from previous generations.
As an aside, the notion that running a simple licensing server for software you sold is too much to ask for is absolutely asinine. Unless you are being intentionally stupid about it, running a license server for a ten+ years old software, that presumably gets used as broadly and frequently as 10+ years old software gets used, is ridiculously cheap. Unless your software company is literally just a one-man operation, it shouldn't even amount to a rounding error on the balance sheet. Even if it is a one-man operation, this is definitely still doable without breaking the bank.
Or to put it more succinctly: If you make the license server requirement be forever, you must run the license server forever.
In point three, forget about MMOs or "unavoidable technical requirements". Either MMOs are temporary with a monthly license like many are. Or they are forever, but then on shutdown the server software has to be provided to at least license holders.
-
No, nobody is actually saying they'd have to run servers forever, it's a bad faith argument. All that is being said is if/when they do stop running servers they make the game playable without the servers and/or make available the code or tools needed for people to run their own servers.
Are people actually advocating for game publishers to have to keep the servers running forever?
if you have about 2iq, and just woke up, haven't drank coffee, and refuse to do any research at all.
Then yes that is what they want to do.
If you actually read into it, that's not even close to what they want.
also it's not "a bit unreasonable" it's entirely unreasonable.
I think a reasonable compromise would be that if they plan to shut down the servers, the publisher should have to release the server side software.
you just reiterated 95% of the entire campaign, great job.
Meanwhile, people reverse engineer and create their own server software for defunct games.
it should be socially acceptable to ruthlessly bully people who make statements this confidently, this incorrectly.
I'm convinced it's a type of rhetorical/literary terrorism.
Be sure to sign if you're in EU.
I bet that crow (? raven maybe?) works at McDonalds.
I've never actually seen a real argument for why the criticisms of SKG aren't valid, just rage bait memes and "stop parroting Thor!!!" The experts are telling you this initiative is shit, but gamers -being the most entitled and stupid people on the planet - don't want to hear that. There will be unknown splash damage in the industry if this movement is successful.
