Gamedev

If you're a hobbyist you're very unlikely to release something that would be affected by SKG. If you make games without any online components (or some other kind of fuckery that renders the game inoperable) then your games already align with the spirit of the initiative.

Even if you make online games as long as you allow consumers set up their own servers you're good as far as SKG is concerned. The initiative impacts primarily bigger studios with the resources to set up and run their own services that they can (and will) shut down which then renders the game unplayable. The only thing SKG cares about is keeping games in a playable state.

Politicians would have to completely fuck up the legislation for it to impact you.

How often is s hobbyist releasing online only fames where only they own the servers

The thing is the industry is forcing this. They changed the game and now everyone is getting pissed off.

For example I purchased overwatch they deleted it from my account swapping it out for a free to play game ow2

Contrast thT with ut goty. I got that something in the ball park of 30 yrs ago and can still fire up a game today

The methods have existed for decades.

Regarding the arguments the it co will be held responsible for a desipported game security vulnerability. Does any other software industry have that expectation. Fuck no they say we dont care as of x. You keep using that's on you

Don't get me started on single player games with crowbarred online stuff thT when gone breaks single player too

But it's a concern i can't easily shake as a hobbyist who eventually wants to release something.

There's good reason to be concerned. Games made by solo devs and small teams are incredibly popular nowadays. It's easier than ever to release a game. Government rules could easily change that.

There's the concept of barriers to entry which looks at how difficult it is for someone to create a new business in a particular industry. Governments can increase the barrier to entry in an industry, effectively lowering competition, by creating regulations. Indie devs could find meeting legal requirements difficult while major corporations would have no issues since they already have large legal teams.

There's also the idea of regulatory capture where the government body overseeing regulations of an industry becomes filled with industry loyalist who serve industry interests instead of the interests of the general public. An example is the FTC in the US currently bullying any media company critical of Trump while ignoring those that aren't. Regulators could end up bullying small studios while ignoring big players.

I don't mind governments regulating what goes into food, but governments regulating what goes into video games is definitely concerning. If there were no regulations on food, people could die if they bought from the wrong company. If there are no regulations on video games, people could lose the ability to play them years after purchase if they brought from the wrong company. The issues with barriers to entry and regulatory capture are less concerning when the lack of regulations could mean death. When the worst outcome of no regulations is effectively the loss of $80, I'm not sure regulations are worth the risk.

Personally, I think you can't lose a game you never bought. If a game has anti-consumer features in it, then not buying it means you can never lose it. Being selective in which games you buy, and where you buy them, is the best way to keeping your library in tact.