I WILL NOT SIGN the "Stop Killing Videogames" petition and if you're a game developer with half a braincell left in you, you should not as well.
It is a poorly written attempt at a petition by someone who seems to have no idea that games exist outside of AAA/online-only ones.
And it's a shame because I am 100% behind video game preservation, but this petition is so poorly written, I will actually fight against it.
I explained why it's bad on B: https://bsky.app/profile/sosowski.bsky.social/post/3l3df3pudge26
@sos I think you might be missing a key part of the petition: It asks for games to be playable after losing support.
You CAN play single player games, and games on “dead” platforms, and still hook up your old console and game to a tv and play them.
But there are lots of games that require an online activation to be played (even offline ones), to servers that might not be online anymore, making your purchase useless years after purchase.
So yeah, this is not about multiplayer games only.
@Perroboc Yeah, but it puts the burden of ensuring that on me. "Jsut leave the game alone" would be fine but it asks me to "provide means" to keep the game running.
@sos if by “me” you mean the developer, well, yeah! You developed a game that didn’t break but stopped supporting, and that’s ok as long as the game behaves the same as before support was taken away.
But if taking away support means the game is purposefully disabled, then that’s a problem because you’ve just disabled the product I bought.
If any other thing you bought suddenly stopped working after warranty expired, or official support disappeared, you would be pretty pissed off, right?
@Perroboc What if an OS update breaks the game? Am I liable? The petition text does not address this.
@sos @q3k @Perroboc Honestly, I'm reading your concerns and questions and I'm baffled. I just read the whole text of the petition in both PL and EN and I simply can't fathom how possibly could you come up with such malicious interpretation of it? Have you skimmed it too fast perhaps?
The petition is quite reasonably worded and I'm fairly certain that what's proposed is not going to negatively affect me as a game developer in any way, so I just signed it and encourage everyone else to do so too.
@dos @q3k @Perroboc I don't think it's malicious, I just think it's too vague for what it's trying to be.
The wording is absolutely unreasonable, tho. The paer that says that it is the developer who has to "provide reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames" at EoL is a dealbreaker. I'm not planning to killswitch my games but this is bollocks.
@sos @q3k @Perroboc If I sell something that's understood to be a working product, then it's my friggin duty to not "remote disable" it "before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of [it] without the involvement from [me]". Anything else should be outright illegal, and that's not limited to video games. How is this wording even slightly controversial?
Imagine this. There's this new gaming deice caled "SNORB", so I put my game on SNORBSTORE and sell it. Few yearl later, SNORB LLC folds, and during that they intentionally brick all the devices because the software they use to run it requires a perpetual licence.
My game stops working forever. And per this proposal as it's worded, it is my responsibility now.
@hauleth @sos @q3k @Perroboc It feels like you've seen some different petition than what I've read. What "solutions" are you talking about? There are none in the petition and they're not supposed to be there, so how can we even discuss their wording? It's a problem statement pointing to some existing laws to justify the need to work on solution. This whole thread is ridiculous to me, really - am I missing something?
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en
@sos @dos @q3k the analogy would be that it would be the responsibility of SNORB LLC to set all SNORBs to not brick before they fold.
Regarding the washing machine example you said, it would be required for the manufacturer to not brick the machine when they stop giving support, NOT to support it 10 years later!
If they ask me for the game to be playable after support, that means forever?! no: it “Requires no connections to the publisher after support ends.”
@sos @q3k @Perroboc What analogy? I only quoted the petition verbatim, haven't made any analogies. It specifically asks for "no involvement" from the developer, so what liability are you talking about? It's not even applicable to "thing breaks" scenario at all. Did you want to reply to someone else?
@dos @q3k @Perroboc It asks for involvement in the same sentence it says "no involvement".
"Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher." - "providing reasonable means" is the culprit here. Makes me liable to be required to PROVIDE something.
@dos @sos @q3k @Perroboc what if "remote disabling" happens because of things that are out of your control? Like you are using external service for providing X, and that external service will shut down and that will render game unusable? You, as a publisher, are expected to resolve that issue somehow? Even if that is not your fault?
Yes. Take for example Gamespy.
https://www.pcgamer.com/reddit-compiles-terrifying-list-of-games-affected-by-gamespy-shutdown/
If a game in that moment was without support, you would expect them to not be updated, and you would be shit out of luck when trying to play multiplayer.
If the publisher was instead forced to not use external providers and deliver standalone multiplayer servers WHEN DECIDING TO STOP SUPPORT, the games would still be playable by the community.
@hauleth @sos @q3k @Perroboc Of course? I mean, if you didn't take that possibility into account when designing your product before putting it on the market, then you clearly didn't do your job right.
Anyway, discussing such edge cases in context of the petition is utterly pointless. I'm sure you'll be able to sound your concerns like that when (and if!) a relevant law gets proposed during its public consultation. Hard to discuss law's wording when it doesn't exist yet.
@hauleth @sos @q3k @Perroboc As an example, Mozilla Location Services have been recently shut down, breaking some stuff I've worked on in the past. Would I have to do anything about it? Nope! There's enough docs available for anyone to implement their own replacement, and users are easily able to point the software to that instead of MLS. And guess what - that's exactly what's happening right now.
Things get shut down all the time, you can either be conscious or ignorant about that possibility.
@sos @hauleth @q3k @Perroboc May take a while 😫
I'm confused, really. What "execution" are you talking about? The petition says "hey, disabling sold games with no way to make them playable again shouldn't be legal, pls do something about it", and that's it - it doesn't execute anything, nor does it provide any solutions; it's not supposed to, it's a petition. Are you talking about some auxiliary stuff? I'm commenting on the petition itself, which sounds as reasonable as a petition can be to me.
@dos @q3k @Perroboc If you are making this analogy, then take into account that if you buy a washing machine, it's not the manufacturer's liability if it breaks 10 yeyars from now.
Of course there's no outright reason for games to break. But the proposal asking me to put effort to ensure it keeps working is bollocks. There are multiple reasons that are beyond my influence than can make a piece of software non-functional.