this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
632 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
72262 readers
2541 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
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
Can someone explain to me why Pirate Software has such a big problem with it, I tried to look it up and I'm still struggling to understand.
Without diving tooo much into it, I'm pretty sure the main reason is he doesn't want government regulation around the games industry.
The most generous summary of his better points would be that it is not always feasible to leave a game in a playable state since server architecture might not allow for that. Semi fair since the games industry has gotten to a point where some of these games may be using code contracted from a third party making releasing the binaries difficult from a licensing perspective.
However he seems to have taken playable as 'designed for single player'. Using the hypothetical of MMOs needing to be rebalanced around a single player experience. He extended this to a game Meet Your Maker which is reliant on other real players for the experience and saying there is no way to leave that 'playable.
As a note, Stop Killing Games is NOT asking for any rebalancing to be done and this is an entirely fabricated complaint.
You have to remember that it's not retroactive so it should only affect future games. The games at that point wouldn't have that issue because they would know not to do anything to make it extremely difficult if not impossible to release a server or something. So even that point of his is pretty dumb.
He has multiple conflicts of interest and is taking the side of his wallet and not consumers.
He thinks the initiative's goal isn't clear and passing a law based on an unclear direction would effectively kill all live service games.
The problem is, reason behind making a law about it is clarifying how to approach this problem in the first place.
I don't think "killing all live servoce games" would even be bad at this point. When I ran dedicated servers back in the day that was much better.
PoE is pretty cool. Eve must be live service. Neither can be bought and hence would likely be unaffected. With regard to PoE you could make an argument for the contrary, to be fair.
Battlefield and CoD on the other hand...
and like, one of the options would be for live service games to say "we are planning to operate for {number} of years" and people would know to spend their money accordingly
it would be transparent and informative and people would be empowered to make their own decisions
I wish they dropped the server code for us all to see what metrics etc they've been digging for all these years...
Dunno if you've noticed - in today's world politicians and businessmen want the server side to be precious magic.
Having anything dedicated is opposed to that.
Which is certainly why it'd be a good thing to do
Yes, that's about hopes
Ahh it sort of makes sense if you don't think about it too long, gotcha.
Thanks very much!