It has to apply to current games. If we give an out to “current” games, it creates a loophole. Blizzard could avoid needing to comply by just “updating” Overwatch forever.
When did the current Overwatch launch? Was it when it became Overwatch 2? Or was it all the way back when OW1 first came out?
What about Destiny? Each expansion is essentially a whole sequel title to the last one, but does Bungie get to treat them as mere updates, unbeholden to preservation?
What about WOW? Would something like Classic count as a new game? Or could Blizzard spin off new MMOs to skirt regulation?
Could old games be entirely re-mastered and re-launched, and still not count?
Obviously there should be some kind of phase-in. But there can be NO exceptions once it is in effect.
All those games are not exceptions, nor the main target of SKG.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about what is currently a vague proposal, and an eventual phase-in will most likely be discussed by the initiative’s representatives; Ross discussed this in some of his update videos, at some point he even gave examples and Helldivers 2 was one of them (tbf he is not officially a part of SKG but whatever).
All those games are not exceptions, nor the main target of SKG.
What? I’m not saying they are.
Ross has made it pretty clear that the target is ALL games.
Potential regulation does not need to be retroactive, in order to apply to current products.
The only thing the initiative definitely doesn’t look to do, is make publishers go back and spend resources on titles they haven’t touched in years. Unlike what your initial comment suggests, currently live games do not fall into that category.
Isn’t it impractical, if not impossible, to make online-only multiplayer games work without company servers?
Not at all. […] If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. […] it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.
Isn’t what you’re asking for impossible due to existing license agreements publishers have with other companies?
For existing video games, it’s possible that some being sold cannot have an “end of life” plan as they were created with necessary software that the publisher doesn’t have permission to redistribute. […] For the European Citizens’ Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with “end of life” plans and stop this trend.
… we are talking about the EU initiative in particular, right? I assumed so, mb if that wasn’t the case but given Ross’ “I just want this to happen” attitude I still believe they’re not going for retroactive legislation.
I still believe they’re not going for retroactive legislation.
Did I say otherwise?
Let me put some emphasis on what I have been saying.
Potential regulation does not need to be retroactive, in order to apply to current products.
Perhaps you are confusing “current” with “today”, rather than with what is intended. That being the future point in time at which any such regulation comes into effect.
No, I got it, but if Helldivers 2 is an existing game today it is also an existing game at the time of potential regulation, dead or alive.
The Helldivers 2 backend has been planned before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
-> Arrowhead designed the Helldivers 2 backend before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
-> the EU can’t (or shouldn’t) mandate Arrowhead or Sony to design the Helldivers 2 backend in a way to accomodate compliant end-of-life plans.
To emphasize my point: judging by how things have been going, a significant part of the game is spaghetti code, which doesn’t bode well for said EOL plans.
It has to apply to current games. If we give an out to “current” games, it creates a loophole. Blizzard could avoid needing to comply by just “updating” Overwatch forever.
When did the current Overwatch launch? Was it when it became Overwatch 2? Or was it all the way back when OW1 first came out?
What about Destiny? Each expansion is essentially a whole sequel title to the last one, but does Bungie get to treat them as mere updates, unbeholden to preservation?
What about WOW? Would something like Classic count as a new game? Or could Blizzard spin off new MMOs to skirt regulation?
Could old games be entirely re-mastered and re-launched, and still not count?
Obviously there should be some kind of phase-in. But there can be NO exceptions once it is in effect.
All those games are not exceptions, nor the main target of SKG.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about what is currently a vague proposal, and an eventual phase-in will most likely be discussed by the initiative’s representatives; Ross discussed this in some of his update videos, at some point he even gave examples and Helldivers 2 was one of them (tbf he is not officially a part of SKG but whatever).
What? I’m not saying they are.
Ross has made it pretty clear that the target is ALL games.
Potential regulation does not need to be retroactive, in order to apply to current products.
The only thing the initiative definitely doesn’t look to do, is make publishers go back and spend resources on titles they haven’t touched in years. Unlike what your initial comment suggests, currently live games do not fall into that category.
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
… we are talking about the EU initiative in particular, right? I assumed so, mb if that wasn’t the case but given Ross’ “I just want this to happen” attitude I still believe they’re not going for retroactive legislation.
Did I say otherwise?
Let me put some emphasis on what I have been saying.
Perhaps you are confusing “current” with “today”, rather than with what is intended. That being the future point in time at which any such regulation comes into effect.
No, I got it, but if Helldivers 2 is an existing game today it is also an existing game at the time of potential regulation, dead or alive.
The Helldivers 2 backend has been planned before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
-> Arrowhead designed the Helldivers 2 backend before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
-> the EU can’t (or shouldn’t) mandate Arrowhead or Sony to design the Helldivers 2 backend in a way to accomodate compliant end-of-life plans.
To emphasize my point: judging by how things have been going, a significant part of the game is spaghetti code, which doesn’t bode well for said EOL plans.
And my point is that allowing further updates without having to abide by preservation is a giant loophole publishers absolutely WILL use.
There would simply never be a new FIFA game again. Only “updates”.
Do you see what I mean?
I’ll just sleep on it, maybe I will