133
[ANSWERED] What's going on with some person seemingly called "PirateSoftware" and the stop killing games campaign?
(lemmy.abnormalbeings.space)
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
133 points (100.0% liked)
Out of the loop
13042 readers
2 users here now
A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The EU already mandates minimal service life for things like security updates. I don't see why it won't make it past courts. Hell, under EU laws regarding warranty, games publishers are probably already forced to either run game servers for a minimum of two years (or offer alternatives such as full refunds). This concept is just extending the mandated warranty in a sense. As for the software itself, manufacturers are under tons of regulation when it comes to support and availability of replacement parts in various industries. Entitlement does play a role, but that may very well be in the fact that consumers are simply entitled to access to the goods and services they purchased.
Also, there's nothing stopping companies from releasing alternative servers when their main servers turn off. Games used to come with dedicated servers for free. Companies just decided not to do it anymore because they can make more money with their current strategy. While the games are being sold, these companies make hundreds of millions or even billions of profit. The cost of their servers remaining available is just part of their profit forecast.
None of this will fail because it would be impossible to make happen. The real question is probably if consumers have more power than the video games lobby. I doubt they do. The proposal goes against the financial incentives of video game publishers, so they'll try to convince lawmakers not to bother. If their attempts fail, there's a chance certain games won't make it into the EU if such a law passes, or that certain content won't be available, but it's not like nobody will make games anymore.
A more realistic scenario of a law like this will have game publishers state an expiration date on their software. They already have to when it comes to security updates, but they'll probably have to put a sticker on it like "this game/DLC will stop working after 2026" and let consumers decide whether to buy the product or not.
Aside from the fact it's proprietary stuff they own... you can't just mandate that a company must release stuff they own to the public. They own it, they can do whatever they want with it.
This is the far better parallel to draw imo, and has the best chance of meaning anything.
Except for the fact for most games the online play is an extra feature and not the core game. And thus all game devs have to do is argue that "the game still works in offline play" and this won't apply to those games anyways.
Oh god no, it's way more complicated than that.
Modern game servers for major games are simply just not designed to be run locally bare metal. They're often in the form of complex stacks of multiple moving parts, shit like entire k8s deployment stacks with like 12 distinct resources, many of which might be tightly coupled to implementation details.
Such that even if they release that part public, it still wouldn't work because it depends on other pieces that literally don't exist anymore.
A great example of this is simply any login process.
It's super likely they have an auth server they run that you login to.
They use that auth server for multiple things, not just this 1 game.
They release, say, v2.4 of their game server program in 2025, it's tightly coupled to the auth server v1.7 api.
It works for about 4 months before they update to fix some stuff on their auth server, now their auth server is v1.8 annnnnd...
Now that v2.4 copy of your game server stops working cuz it's not compatible with v1.8 of their auth system, so it's now just dead.
You can't mandate they keep updating their old code on a game they don't support anymore.
So... you're fucked anyways.
You can't mandate they release their auth server cuz it's still in active use and you really don't want to expose the inner workings of the auth system to hackers for them to inspect.
So yeah, it's just not happening, sorry.
Designing a server to be self hosted is a critical choice you make very very early on in development. If it wasn't designed that way from the start, its useless to ask for a copy of it for self hosting, it will stop working eventually when external upstream apis stop being compatible.
They wouldn't need to release the whole stack to satisfy the requirements. Release the dedicated server executable and patch the game to allow direct connections to servers.
For an MMO it would be more complicated, but the movement also isn't asking to be applied retroactively. Existing MMOs built for scale are free to keep their current architecture. The only requirement would be that future MMOs are designed with an EOL transition plan.
It's an API. Unless they hardcode the IP address it or use certificate pinning, it can just be reimplemented.
Thats literally what I just outlined as what would have to happen.
Oh yeah, just do that, as if that's a super duper easy task to do.
Sorry mate but for most games doing this would mean the game just doesnt even work anymore, because "direct connection" means no concept of an account anymore, and if everything is tied to your account, the whole damn game doesn't work now.
If the game in any way shape or form has any concept of a "login", you are already screwed without any easy solution.
Sure, that's valid, but thats one piece of one example
Now realize that a single game may have several of these APIs it depends on because thats how we build stuff nowadays, so you have potentially multiple things you need to re-implement from scratch. It's possible, sure, but by this point you've effectively remade a very large amount of the game from scratch so who cares now.
Quite often a "Game server" could be dozens of separate pieces, and maybe a couple of those could be released, but even then what if parts of that executable have still in use proprietary pieces that are used in other games they own?
You just can't apply these sorts of rules to software, they arent physical products and they don't work the same way.
It'd be sorta like if discontinued and you demanded they open license the entire car, even though maybe 60% of that car's parts are proprietary things that are also still used in
So if you tried to force them to open license you'd be also demanding they open license parts of
And you can see how that's not gonna be good for them.
The backend server stack hosts a set of tightly intertwined services that conform to an Application Programming Interface. You quite literally do not need to provide the entire stack designed for multi-hundred-thousand concurrent players just to satisfy that interface the game clients are expecting. It costs time and money, but they could damn well just create an implementation designed for simpler, small-scale hosting.
If you designed it for that eventuality, yeah, it's easy to do. Trying to retrofit that into an existing system designed solely to run at cloud scale is a bloody nightmare, and that's not at all what SKG is asking for.
Counterexample: private World of Warcraft servers. They implemented their own, and it's worked fine for them.
The account system is just another API. The client uses it to authenticate, and the dedicated server uses it to verify the client authentication. Fuck, even Minecraft and it's poorly-designed multiplayer can do that. As long as the client and server use the same auth provider, you can still have "accounts" without relying on Mojang's insanely censorship-happy official login system.
I've made this exact same argument you're giving here, and yeah, I know it's not easy. I sympathize with indie developers who are over-designing their server architecture and might not have the resources to do this, but a AAA game studio can afford to hire more developers for their next game instead of C-suite bonuses.
I also made this argument before, and it is valid criticism. It's worth pointing out that the valuable and reusable proprietary parts are the infrastructure and design, not the game logic.
I'm not an entitled twat. I understand that there are legal challenges and big, open-ended questions on how developers could actually pull this off. Making large, consumer-exploitative developers like Epic, Bungie, or Blizzard have to hire more developers isn't a good enough reason to make me discount an entire consumer-rights movement.
This just goes back to the other issue:
If your country demands the game devs contort and twist their architecture to suit that country's demands, they just wont release it in your country at all.
Sorry but thems the breaks.
You'll have to get way more than the entirety of the EU on board with this to make any change. Youd have to get China and the US on board at the same time
If you target only one of them, that country will decline because it would just argue "you'd fuck up our industry and everyone would leave to [other country] for sales"
And good luck getting the EU, US, and China to all simultaneously agree to this sort of thing, lol.
I mean, hey: it worked to make Apple finally drop their proprietary charging connector. As long as the cost of losing business in the EU is higher than designing an EOL transition for games and hiring developers to actually do it, it's in their best interests.
I hate to break it to you but the EU is not that strong of a market lol
People seriously underestimate the cost of this sort of thing, companies do NOT want to hand out copies of their proprietary software to the public.
The pretty much always have tonnes of important shit baked into it that still gets used in their newer software, so even if its old stuff, it still has bits and bobs in it that matter for their newer stuff they just put out.
But also just, in general, companies are not gonna be chill with people demanding they give them a copy of their backend software. It's just not gonna happen, and the EU is definitely the weaker of the 3 major markets. Companies are just gonna go "lol, now you don't get to play online I guess" instead.
Good thing they can just put an expiration date after which the game isn't guaranteed to be supported instead, then.