this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
30 points (91.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33091 readers
1994 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been wodnering how regulations about not killing games deals with compaines running multi-player servers?

For single player games or games with single player modes it seems easier to implement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

From the initiative:

This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.

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.

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.

This is all that the initiative states on the matter. How it would actually work in practice is anyone's guess because the wording is so vague. Supporters seem to be under the impression that companies have a "server.exe" file they purposefully don't provide players because they're evil and hate you. They could also be contracting out matchmaking services to a third party and don't actually do it in-house. Software development is complex and building something that will be used by 100,000 people simultaneously isn't easy.

There's a reason comedic videos like Microservices, where an engineer explains why it's impossible to show the user it is their birthday based on an overly complex network of microservices, and Fireship's overengineering a website exist. Big software is known to be difficult to maintain and update. Huge multiplayer games aren't any different. It's likely there isn't actually a "reasonable" way for them to continue to work. Supporters are hopeful this initiative would cause the industry to change how game software is developed, but that hope gets real close to outright naivety.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Supporters seem to be under the impression that companies have a "sever.exe" file they purposefully don't provide players because they're evil and hate you.

There is some truth to this

They could also be contracting out matchmaking services to a third party and don't actually do it in-house. Software development is complex and building something that will be used by 100,000 people simultaneously isn't easy.

There is some truth to this too.

Making an MMO maintainable by the userbase might be complicated. But way more common are games that could easily have LAN based multiplayer but the company decides not to add it, or even singleplayer games that require an internet connection, just so the company can put limits on how and when the game is played.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

I absolutely hate always online DRM in single player games, so I get it. Personally, I'll avoid games that use it. I was a huge fan of the Hitman series but haven't played any of the new ones because of always online, live service, season pass, model they decided to go with. It's a deal breaker for me, but I understand it isn't for everyone else. I told my friends I wouldn't be playing Helldivers 2 with them because of its use of kernel level anti-cheat and they just gave me a weird look.

I'll choose to support games that are developed in consumer friendly ways, but I also accept that not everyone sees it as a big deal. If a company decides they need kernel level anti-cheat, then that's on them. They won't get my money, but I'm not about to start a petition to legally ban the use of kernel level anti-cheat and call anyone who won't sign it an industry shill and bootlicker.

Want to stop games you buy from being killed? Don't buy games that can be. Does this mean you'll be sitting out while all your friends have fun playing the latest hit game? Probably. Does it mean 10 years later when the game no longer works you can smugly tell them "heh, looks like you guys got scammed." Also yes. Just don't be surprised that they think you're weird.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Games and multiplayer have existed before any of this mess, so it is evidently not necessary. If a publisher thinks otherwise, they can't continue to make multiplayer games. Sucks to be them I guess, I'm sure others will pick up the ball

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 points 4 days ago

Yeah, it most likely isn't an exe but a Linux binary! Other than that, you can probably run the server on your computer pretty easily. You probably won't be able to host anywhere close to the number of players the official servers do, but that's just a matter of stronger hardware.

So yeah, they don't provide the server because they're "evil".

They could also do the bare minimum of patching the game so it allows any server and avoid stuff like certificate pinning etc. and then provide an OpenAPI specification for the server and let the community create their own server if they want.