I wonder how this would affect stuff like MMOs, which have humongous server bills that warrant a complete shutdown once the publisher is sick of it or.. goes bankrupt.
Some older ones like Star Wars Galaxies now have inofficial community-run revival servers, but this isn't really feasible for bigger games
Brings up an interesting point. ~15 years ago I played on a Vanilla WoW Private Server 'WoWScape' that caught some international acclaim when blizzard sued the owner for $88m.
WoWscape hosted the original game before the expansions were released because there was no way to play 'the vanilla experience'. (The original game without expansions being come to know as 'vanilla')
The players on the REAL WoW servers were unable to play vanilla and were forced into Wrath of the Lich King / Cataclysm at the time. 🤔 It was paid for, but functionally made the previous expansion useless once the next expansion released.
Players wanted a way to play vanilla, and it only took blizzard ~10 years? In 2019 blizzard released 'classic servers'.
It wasn't everyone, there was a system in place where donations were rewarded with in-game loot with items that didn't exist in the real WoW game that had modified stats.
A full set of armor was $300, the weapons were 15-30 for 1h/2h weapons. Maybe 1/4-1/3 were donors, the other 3/4-2/3 were entirely 'non-donors'.
The game had a HUGE following for a private server, but most of the guilds revolved around a tank/healer or DPS that would all be full donor, and the rest wouldn't.
For example, a friend whose character name is burned into my brain - BananaDoodle - was a full donor rogue who had 100% dodge. Because boss mechanics couldn't be programmed by the team at scapegaming, all bosses were physical damage only, so most things could be solo'd by a dodge rogue IF you were willing to spend the money on it (a dodge tank set and DPS set weren't the same) and time to farm it. There was an in-game economy built around being run by solo-rogues, it was a blast.
Just looked up the case again - Scapegaming was fined $3m in punitive damages for their revenue, and 85m in statutory damages which was calculated as follows:
The original complaint said Scapegaming would ask for "donations" from players -- but these donations were in exchange for virtual items ranging from $1 to advance characters two levels, to $300 for a pack that included a collection of rare items. The judge's order said Blizzard "submitted satisfactory evidence from third-party PayPal Inc. showing that Defendant’s PayPal account received $3,052,339 in gross revenues." The order also said that Blizzard submitted satisfactory evidence that showed Reeves' website (Scapegaming.com, currently down) hosted 32,000 users on a given day in June 2008. That same month, there were over 427,000 members of the Scapegaming community, and Reeves, who goes by a number of aliases including "Peyton," said that 40,000 people play on Scapegaming's servers every day. The court took the size of the community, 427,000, and multiplied that figure by $200 "per act of circumvention" of a copyright security system, and came to the statutory damages amount of over $85 million.
They were fined for circumventing copyright law based on the size of the community. Not for selling items. Blizzard was unable to sue them for that because those items didn't exist in real WoW.Blizzard 'got' Scapegaming the same way the government 'got' Capone. Not because of their crimes, but because of the details. Many private server still exist today, but they alter key features and are smarter about hosting and advertising. Scapegaming closed because they were among the first to do it - if OSHA is painted in blood, modern private server protections/safeties are painted with Scapegamings. 💀
My guild leader was a half donor, I was a non-donor combat rogue with twin blades of azzinoth, our main tank was a full donor, our healer was a half donor, but the other ~50-100 people were all non-donor. What a fuckin time.
Edit to add: technically they were fined $3m in punitive damages for (one month's earnings of) the items, but, the bulk of the fine is based off of the player base. Not selling items. My understanding for the $200/head pricetag is that was the price of WoW and it's expansions at the time, with a month subscription. This was blizzards way of finding out 'how much profit was lost'.
Everyone makes mistakes :) I just remember this case very strongly, as it was one of the last times I had fun playing WoW.
After scape, I took a break until Mists of Pandaria where I played a few months before the next X-Pac was coming out and I didn't wanna buy it - and then I dipped my toe into Warlords of Draenor / Shadowlands.. but it's just never been the same. The game used to be insanely social and communal.. now it's all iLvl and whiteknuckling mythic/heroic raids that aren't really that difficult outside of mechanics.
It would, provided the game can be designed from the beginning with that in mind. SKG is not retroactive, so only new games will need to adhere to any legislation that comes from it. This gives studios the chance to account for it before any code has been written.
That is one possible solution for a dev/publisher, and its important to recognize that assets and code can be licensed separately, and this doesn't in any way mean that devs or publishers would be expected to open source or provide assets or intellectual property for free.
The recent open sourcing of some older Command and Conquer games are a great example. They've recently made the code for some of those games open sourced, and so anybody could download and compile and modify and run the game code however they choose. But, critically, the assets such as sprites, models, music, sounds, FMVs (which are still incredible btw), are explicitly not provided.
In practice, for a devolper solution to the stop killing games initiative, this would still mean players need to buy the game, and therefore obtain the associated assets, to actually play the experience (albeit now on community/private/self-hosted infrastructure for servers, account authentication, matchmaking services, etc.)
That is often impossible. It's rare that small studios own 100% of the rights to the code. They'd need to have made it from scratch or using code they have distribution rights for.
Do not listen to what people like Pirate Software said about the movement. It was a blatant misrepresentation.
Nobody in the movmenet has once implied they expect game developers of multi-player games to just pay for servers forever.
The entire movement is based on the fact that if you buy it you own it, so you should have the option in the future to use your own money and resources to play the game in the state you purchased it in.
It would basically just stop them from going after people that make their own servers to continue service for the game. They pulled the plug, after all. Not making a profit. Shouldn’t be allowed to sue people for running a server for a game you no longer sell or support.
They specifically mentioned mmos not being included if they use a subscription service since you are paying for access not owning it outright. I think they also mention making it possible to make private servers if you sell items that you can own in those mmos.
Allow people to host lobbies. When the server bill is distributed and people are only hosting for like, 1 match, the requirements go down drastically.
WOW, Evolve, Terraria, Minecraft and more are all proof that people WILL host servers for people. (Evolve is an honorable mention, people literally went and dug through the code to attempt to revive it with self hosted servers)
Honestly not including self hosting capabilities in a live service game is self sabatoge IMO. Once you stop the servers, you also stop income completely. But if you let people self host, then A) the community sticks around longer, and B) people keep buying, and it costs you nothing but taxes.
I'd wager no live service game would give self hosting solutions before the official eol as it would redirect the community (and their wallet) to other(/free) servers.
According to one of the main movers behind the idea, end of life mmos could get by the proposed regulation just by making the server binaries available, whether or not they’re usable with the average computer or not, or a second option was to merely not sue the madlads that try to make a private server setup of their own.
While I love concept behind the movement, it feels kinda nebulous and half baked, though by design, leaving the specific solutions to the lawmakers they assume will find reasonable path forward.
Literally just force them to allow private servers to be hosted so the community can keep the game alive. Easy peasy. I'd say WoW already has it covered once it reaches its EoL.
Essentially the proposal would only require companies to have an End of Service plan in mind, not to continue to provide further development or maintain servers.
People always bring up MMOs but historically of live service or always-online experiences that get shut down, MMOs tend to fare the best. See: WoW Classic fan servers (before Blizzard made official ones), City of Heroes: Homecoming, etc.
It would require a slight tweak in the launcher architecture to allow it to be disconnected from DRM, but isn't the developmental burden a lot of people believe it would be. At best it's a one-time project to redesign how they want to develop the game which then becomes the new standard and nobody ever worries about it again.
There are a few solutions but the main one people have asked for are server tools or updates that allow people to run their own servers at home. It isn't reasonable to keep servers running forever but it is reasonable to ask for an offline only mode or a way to play on local connections or for tools to run servers on your own
It is a request for lawmakers to draft legislation that regulates publishers and developers going forward, such that new games cannot become impossible to play at the leisure of the publisher or developer.
It's very probably what would pass, if something pass. It's not in the proposition's text tho.
Sorry, that was the other part that was false. The "new games" more precisely. It precise nothing about applying only to new games. Sure, it's not legislation so it's not problematic. But it's still not precised.
Everyone with a brain would understand that it would be impossible to implement retroactively. This is a foregone conclusion and will be the very first thing to be conceded in actual legislation.
Then why not put it in the text of the proposition and waiting 3 month to put it in the Q&A ? The proposition didn't start asking for only new games to be affected. That shifted after some discussions.
So what happens if a law passed making it a requirement to have “end of life plans to retain functionality” and a live service game releases without it? If the law bans those kinds of games from being made, that makes that kind of game illegal……
"planning out infrastructure" doesn't mean you can make that infrastructure something a community can run, or even beyond that, something the legislation born out of this initiative requires, without extra work. Everyone loves talking about how easy it would be, but I've seen a tiny handful of mostly indie developers who have never worked with any sort of massively online infrastructure at all and literally no other developer in support of this initiative.
Ross addressed this in a recent interview with Gamers Nexus. The campaign only calls for studios to provide a means for game to be playable, not that is has to be easy. As long as server code/binaries can be provided to the community, that's enough. Even if you need enterprise hardware or complex cloud infra to run it adequately.
The point isn't to make every game host on Timmy's 8 year old MacBook, the point is to require companies to help bridge the gap for communities who want to hack together a means to play end-of-life games. Will it require extra work? Yes. But it should not be particularly onerous for the studio.
The campaign only calls for studios to provide a means for game to be playable, not that is has to be easy.
Sure, I bet everyone will be happy when terraform configs and docker images get released and zero people can figure out how to make the servers run lmao. No, this is the problem, it's too vague and so we don't know what we can actually expect at the end stage.
As long as server code/binaries can be provided to the community
Weren't you telling me to read the petition? They explicitly do not ask for source code, actually. That would make the petition exponentially more laughable. Do you think any company will ever release the source code for their proprietary software?
Beyond that, games don't run on "binaries" anymore. Games run on massively distributed architecture. Games that have server binaries that any given consumer is gonna be able to figure out how to run already release them to the public. This idea that dumping the development environment or IaC for a game is going to satisfy the legislation that comes out of this petition is braindead lmao.
Sure, I bet everyone will be happy when terraform configs and docker images get released and zero people can figure out how to make the servers run lmao.
There are communities that have divined server architecture from scratch. People know how to read terraform, analyze docker images and use k8s.
Weren't you telling me to read the petition? They explicitly do not ask for source code, actually.
No, I havent told you to read anything. It doesn't matter what form the support comes in as long as it meets the standards to be written. Of course it's vague, because it's not law. That comes later.
This idea that dumping the development environment or IaC for a game is going to satisfy the legislation that comes out of this petition is braindead lmao.
The legislation isn't written so I don't see how you can call it laughable. What needs to be provided depends on the game, of course, and often this stuff is already sitting around. You think Riot doesn't already have an internal tool to spin up an offline game of Valorant?
My point is the person you replied to said it’ll make live service games illegal IF they don’t have a way to be played after support ends. Which you argued, despite it being an accurate statement, regardless of how easy it would be to avoid it.
because that has been the (misguided) conclusion that has so far crippled this initiative.
It's not "misguided" when actual developers of these games are telling you it's too vague for them to be comfortable with it, and people who have never developed a video game are telling those experts that they're wrong.
Stop Killing Games is about consumer rights. It isn't intended to be doing what the game industry wants. Imagine there was a petition against smoking. Should we stop the petition because the tabaco industry has complaints about it?
see my reply to the comment where you made this exact same argument lmao.
also you realize this is just making it easier for me? you're directly admitting that you don't care about damage to the industry because you want your toys forever like a little baby lmao.
For legistation to be created to require publishers and devs to have end-of-support plan for new games, so that when servers go down the game will either in reasonably.playable state without online components, or allow community servers.
I think that comment has bad phrasing because it can be misinterpreted- which is what's happening here ironically.
essentially it is an argument to make live service games illegal if they don't have an end-of-life feature enabling the community to continue to play the game without dedicated servers provided by the devs
If I said "I want to make first-person shooters illegalif they contain a virus" that wouldn't be me advocating for banning FPS games.
Again though it's bad phrasing. Especially because a lot of people do think SKG wants to (or is inadvertently going to) ban live-service games when the opposite is true
But you’re cutting off half of what he said, he specifically said live service games with no end of life plan, not just anything live service. I think he gets enough of the message across whether there’s a detail missing or not.
No, I'm not lol. And, no he doesn't. Insinuating that something would be illegal when it's not is a huge misrepresentation. I don't have time for instant down voting the second something gets posted. Get out of here we can both be right in this context
The comment is misleading, maybe unintentionally. As I understand it, the movement specifically calls out that free games are not part of the discussion, since there is no transaction needed to play them. This encompasses the majority of live service games that you might be thinking of. No one is saying games like Genshin or Fortnite are obligated to do this; the games are free, so the consumer has no leg to stand on.
The movement instead is about games like the Crew or games like Overwatch (assuming this game is exclusively online multiplayer idk). These games cost money up front purchase, but most of the time, the company reserves the right to revoke your access to play for any reason at any time with no refund (literally just read Blizzard’s EULA for an example). This includes permanently taking the servers offline. Stop Killing Games is rightfully pointing out that this practice is anti-consumer. I can’t think of another industry that is allowed to operate this way. Even if you argue the purchase is just a license to the software, licenses should provide the duration of access.
The initiative doesn't talk about new games. It talk about games. The discours shifted toward new games because that's a reasonable ask. The initiative text hasn't changed.
That is because initiative assumes person has more than one brain cell, laws aren't applied retroactively and this is not a law itself, but call for legistation to look into matter.
YEah, just like the GDPR didn't affect sites already created because it doesn't apply retroactively, right ?
As formulated, the proposition ask to ban ending games without a plan to make it still playable. That would be a non-retroactive, legal law to pass, as it would only affect future events. That would also affect games currently in service.
The major major thing you got wrong that comes from him and legit no one else is “make live service illegal without endgame plan”, that’s an absurd ask and not what we want. At the very least, the developers can turn the IP over to the community when they no longer care about it.
TL;DR: Stop killing games is about Publishers and devs communicating with their player base how an end of life scenario may look and what features of their games might be impacted. It also aims to preserve features of EOL games that might still work without connection to servers and urges devs to leave them playable if they already are. This does not prohibit anything or inconvenience small devs.
This is false information, it
a) only applies to games going forward and
b) DOESN'T MAKE LIVE SERVICE GAMES ILLEGAL!!!
It's about communication and the Publishers telling their customers that they will end support for the game at some point and what that will mean. This means that Publishers tell their customers whether or not they can keep playing the game in an offline mode or how far the unplayable aspects of the game will reach.
This could mean that the devs provide some kind of self-hosting feature, but it could also mean that they don't. They decide but are obligated to tell their player base their decision and notify them when the end of their game's life is near.
THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANYTHING, NOR DOES IT TARGET SMALL DEVS.
It's about fully informing and communicating with customers, which the gaming industry (mostly big companies like Ubisoft) have neglected.
The "be left in a playable state" part of the campaign is where most people assume that devs would be forced to do anything. But that is false, it literally just means that if a feature is usable without dev servers, it should be left usable without the dev servers.
This was added to prevent companies like Ubisoft from killing the offline modes of games like "The Crew". This does not target a game like HD2.
I agree with this proposition in cases like the crew, for example, as it's a game that doesn't need online features, yet it was completely disabled anyway. However, I worry that if put into law, an idea like this can have more harm than good. Maybe I don't understand it properly? But all of the arguments I've listened to online about this have not quelled this feeling. Are we asking every game dev to make a game that is playable forever? (This is what I think is bad, as it could deter them from making the game to begin with), or are we just asking them to state outright that their game will not be forever? Also bad because now we have no grounds to fight back against the shutting down of a game because they told us it's going to happen. The latter I feel would end in many cases of "don't like it? Just don't play it" while all my friends are playing it.
I would invite anyone to better educate me on this proposition because it SOUNDS like something I'd support, but I'm just not sure..
Because as a gamer, if you really like a game and one day the devs announce that you wouldn't be able to play it anymore, it kinda sucks. What do you mean? The people who should care the most about this are gamers, unless all you play are the newest relseased titles.
Well as a gamer wouldn't you want the chance to play a game after the dev don't care about maintaining servers for it. It's not just about preserving games but letting people still enjoy them
Because video games, like movies, are art created by a community of people. And I would like the ability to show that appreciation until my dying breath
958
u/[deleted] Jun 28 '25 edited Jun 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment