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

#indiedev #gamedev

@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 @Perroboc

Nitpicking and 'concerns' is one way to make sure no progress is ever made in a political system. In this case, perfect truly is the enemy of good. Effectively you're doing the work of AAA lobbyists for free.

@q3k @Perroboc Hey now, it's not my fault I'm in the splash damage of this. And I refuse to shoot myself in the foot "for the team".

@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?

@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.

@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.

@sos @q3k @Perroboc You're already involved when you perform "remote disabling", and what the petition wishes to be regulated is for you to not be able to perform that action without ensuring fair outcome for your customers. What it describes is pretty much basic decency, lol.

@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?