It’s amazing what a difference a little bit of time can make: Two years after kicking off what looked to be a long-shot campaign to push back on the practice of shutting down server-dependent videogames once they’re no longer profitable, Stop Killing Games founder Ross Scott and organizer Moritz Katzner appeared in front of the European Parliament to present their case—and it seemed to go very well.
Digital Fairness Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14622-Digital-Fairness-Act/F33096034_en
Games should be required to have reproducible source for all components (client and server) sent to whatever the European equivalent of the Library of Congress is, to be made available in the Public Domain whenever the publisher stops publishing them.
I like it. If the publisher no longer sells/supports the full game as purchased, then they no longer to get to complain about people pirating it.
I don’t like instantly throwing it public domain, that’s the wrong license to use. I think Creative Common CC BY-NC-SA would be more appropriate. (Credit the original, no commercial use, and any modified/redistributed version must follow same license).
This will prevent xbox from taking all the old PlayStation games, stealing an emulator, and selling them under game pass to people that don’t know those games are freely available.
I’d also add the game must be available as an individual 1-time purchase. If it’s only available as a bundle or subscription service (like game pass), that doesn’t count.
The Public Domain isn’t a “license.” It’s simply the default state of a work when copyright is no longer being enforced for it. I’m saying that copyright should immediately expire for any published work that is no longer being made available by some entity with the right to do so (phrased carefully so as not to break copyleft licenses, BTW) and that anyone should be able to get it directly from a government archive of all Public Domain works.
As for selling Public Domain works, that’s always been allowed and I don’t see any particular reason to change it, provided that regulatory capture doesn’t result in the public archive being the digital equivalent of hidden away in a disused lavatory in a locked basement with a sign saying “beware of the leopard.” If the free option is prominent and well-known but you want to pay money for some reason anyway (in theory, because the person selling it added value in some way), that’s your business.
I’m going to hard disagree on NC.
If the original publisher decided to dump their IP, and someone else has a good enough idea to make money off of it, they absolutely should.
BY-SA gets you the same vibe and encourages the new IP to keep making new content and allows others to do the same.
I agree, if an IP is abandoned then someone else should be allowed to do something with it.
For this post I was talking about the game that was already made and distributed, not just the idea or characters.
I’ll use Mario Kart 1 for example, if Nintendo doesn’t sell that game anymore, then the game is made publicly available.
If the IP is still in use that A) doesn’t exclude Mario Kart 1 form becoming available, B) doesn’t allow competitors to sell modern Mario Kart games (trademark) and C) prevents someone from taking a 30 year old game and just reselling it on their store.
IPs are much more messy to handle, as it’s less a final product and more of a concept. Creative rights should stay with the creative people not a publisher.
If Nintendo decides to drop Mario, but the actual creator of Mario still wants to work with a different publisher, they should be able to do that before the IP becomes freely available for anyone to take over.
This is one of the points that a French MEP brought up during the meeting. If this is pursued it could as a side effect open up space for digital “orphaned works” which would be fantastic.
It’s not even an issue of “orphaned works.” Every work becomes Public Domain eventually; that’s the point of it.
In fact (according to originalist American sensibilities, at least) the entire point of copyright law is “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts” (i.e., to enrich the Public Domain) to begin with! Allowing works to be copyrighted (essentially, borrowed back from the Public Domain temporarily so the creator can profit, thus incentivizing the creation of works) is merely a means to that end, not some sort of moral entitlement.
Copyright and patent are a compromise.
Society is iterative. Every work of art or technology is significantly based on prior work. So if you go to the extremes, where “I intented it, it is mine forever and passed to my children” society stalls as technoligarchs never license their patents. If you go full blyatski and outlaw personal ownership, you get Soviet Russia, a nation whose contribution to global culture has been a few ballets, some long depressing books and precisely one video game, because nobody is given incentive or even opportunity to create anything, so they don’t.
Give us a full copy of your work, enough information to make a full copy of it. This will be held in trust by the government. We will give you full, exclusive right to monetize your invention for a couple decades, and the copy stored with the government is the stake in your claim, the proof you need to win your lawsuit. After those couple decades are over, the idea becomes public property. Our inventors get to make a living, society gets to progress.
Copyright has gone cancerous, with terms lengthened far beyond a human lifetime to benefit major corporations and not individual creators. We need to fix that.
To be fair, Soviet Russia probably has a bunch more stuff than that; we just don’t know about it because it didn’t get translated and distributed to the West. The “Dr. Livesey Walk” meme is from a Soviet cartoon, for example.
I can only assume artists got funded by government grants or something, IDK. It probably did result in a lot less of it being created than in the West, though.
(Also, I think the ballets and books you’re alluding to might’ve been pre-Soviet?)
Anyway, I completely agree that copyright and patents are a compromise, and that the pendulum has swung way too far to the side of rights-holders at the moment.
(I was thinking of the likes of Shostakovich, born 1906 died 1975, but he did symphonies, not ballets? I think of Soviet performance art and I smell orchestra pit.)
Not sure about public domain. Perhaps a non-commercial license would be best - this way fans can carry on the work, but others wouldn’t be tempted to profit off of the IP.
The original duration of copyright was 14 years. Why should we legally stop anyone else from making a knockoff?
Yeah! Um… what is that again?
¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
If no such thing exists, they should create it.
If a studio is using the same base architecture for online services as a game that is currently active, you want developers to share their current live architecture and code?
Yes.
If they don’t like it, they can keep supporting their older stuff. Or better yet, rethink their decision to impose a “live service” business model now that they’d actually be held accountable for it, and consider going back to giving users the means to run their own servers.
(Also, by the way, “security by obscurity” is bullshit. If disclosing their server-side code leads to exploits, that just means they’re fucking incompetent. I have no sympathy at all.)
Set the launch arguments of any Unreal game to “-log” and get back to me on how many lines of log types LogEOS* it spits out before the main menu loads. That usually interfaces SteamOSS, so if there are a low amount of EOS logs they will show up as LogSteamOSS. That is the best hint I can give.
It sounds like you’re trying to “hint” at the idea that a bunch of games are using Epic Online Services and/or the Online Subsystem Steam API associated with it, but beyond that I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
If you’re trying to obliquely cite that as some kind of counterexample where it’s reasonable for a game’s source code to remain secret just because part of it is that library, then no, it fucking isn’t. I can’t tell whether EOS has the source code available along with the rest of the Unreal engine or not, but if not, it ought to be and IDGAF about any excuses Epic might have for not making it so.
If you are so hell bent on being right or knowing the answer. You could sign all of the Steam, Epic, and SDK NDAs to get access to all of the documentation.
LOL, what? You’re the one trying to make a point here, not me. Spit it out. I’m not gonna do your fucking work for you!
This would be the only type creative work that would be burdened like this.
I find it paradoxical that we’re trying to save the gaming industry by burdening (mostly) small developers. Larger studio will no longer be able to abuse the system, but complying will be easy for them.
For indies and small to medium studios though? They struggle enough as it is. Adding the burden of compliance on top is not a great idea.
If we could legally categorize studios in a meaningful way, and therefore target the big ones and leave indies alone, I would support such an idea.
It’s the only type of creative work that needs to be burdened like this, as all other types of works have always been “self-contained” (for lack of a better term) with no continued reliance on the publisher after the purchase.
Ditto with older games, BTW: you’ll notice that this “Stop Killing Games” movement didn’t start until the game industry started using tactics like DRM and “live service” architectures to forcibly wrest control away from the gamers. Before that, people could just keep playing their cartridges and CDs and even digital downloads, and hosting multiplayer themselves using the dedicated server program included with the game, in perpetuity and everything was just fine.
The industry got fucking greedy and control-freakish, and this is the inevitable and just attempt for society to hold it accountable.
I find it weird that you’re making what seems to me to be a strawman argument about “burdening (mostly) small developers,” as I’d say they are mostly not the ones trying to do this bullshit where they try to retroactively destroy art and culture because it stops being profitable enough. Indie studios typically don’t design their games to use publisher-operated servers with ongoing costs attached in the first place, let alone to self-destruct when they shut off!
Releasing source code isn’t without extra work. My point is, unless you make sure to specifically target the companies abusing gamers, you’re going to mainly hurt the part of the industry that is not the problem.
There’s no need to release any source code if your game doesn’t require an internet connection to your server to run in the first place.
Do you think only big studios make games that need an internet connection? Or why is this comment relevant?
The important part is “to your server”.
Mostly big studios/publishers put “always online” requirements in single player games for a start. And even if it’s not only big studios, those requirements can be omitted without effort (if anything it reduces effort to not put them in).
Multiplayer games are a different beast, but I’d argue that yes, small studios rarely make games that exclusively rely on the developer’s own servers for multiplayer. That is because they are smaller studios and server architecture for a multiplayer game is a big investment for them. Even if I’m wrong there, future games can be designed with the legislation in mind (this would not affect existing games retroactively) and don’t have to keep using centralized server architecture for everything.
Again, I never disagreed with the issue: (90%) solo games requiring an internet connection disappearing suddenly is a major issue in the gaming industry
I disagree with the solutions people want for it, which I find shortsighted.
And yes, such a legislation would force to rethink some designs, and force using one over the other not because it fits the final product better, but because it does not have the additional pressure of compliance. And that, I think, makes it a poor solution.
What I’d like to see is something similar to minimal warranty in the EU. So, a game has to provide X years of playability, clearly shown on the product page/box. They can guarantee longer if they wish. They then have a legal obligation to keep it online. Add to it a mandatory warning X years before shutdown.
Then the consumer is no longer deceived, and the studio has less pressure to comply with EoL requirements.
And why not make releasing the source code a viable way to comply with these requirements, and have a special label for “forever playable” games, either fully singleplayer or through code release.
Just don’t force every studio to release their codebase.
It’s not “extra” if it’s a legal requirement.
More to the point, I’m not saying it has to be licensed as Free Software or that it has to be made immediately public. I’m saying that a copy needs to be sent to a government archive, regardless of how messy it is, so that the government can make it public later when the company doesn’t care anymore.
This shows me you don’t work anywhere near software. It is not as easy as you think it is.
Don’t try being reasonable, the SKG people don’t understand reason.
Removed by mod
Why are you lying about what I wrote? I never claimed the publisher should be forced to maintain it forever.
What part of sending the source to the government archive did you not understand?
And then what? Why are we storing these old games. Move on with your lives. Art doesnt last forever, its not supposed to. But you want publishers to put in extra effort to preserve them, and then have governments put in effort to preserve them, apparently forever.
Its funny how its the people playing the games who want them preserved forever rather than the people making the games, isn’t it. The people making them have pointed out multiple problems with this idea, but who cards about them right?
The people who make the games dont give a fuck about you. Why the fuck do you think we would care about what they want?
Presumably because you want what they can provide you. Its not rocket science my guy.
Oh I see, you’re just a troll who keeps lying and spreading FUD. Reported.