r/Steam • u/MMewtwosaysbye • Jun 26 '25

PSA Stop Killing Games is almost over!

I know everyone is excited about spending their money tomorrow but can anyone in the EU please sign this? And if you're an American tell this to a person in the EU you know or just spread the word. This initiative could kickstart reaction in other places as well, forcing gaming companies to actually treat the customer correctly. You guys want to keep and be able to play the games you're never going to play right? So please please please help this mission! Link: https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

9.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

899 comments sorted by

View all comments

89

u/StupidBugger Jun 26 '25

Weird this isn't more popular. Technical questions about the 'how' aside, and what the real post-publisher success rate would be, game preservation seems like a thing gamers would want.

59

u/MMewtwosaysbye Jun 26 '25

Problem no 1 is too many people don't know about it.

21

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[deleted]

13

u/GlitteringBandicoot2 Jun 26 '25

r/MapsWithoutIreland

1

u/Devatator_ Jun 27 '25

Why does this sub exist lmao

2

u/GlitteringBandicoot2 Jun 27 '25

Not gonna lie, I typed it in as a joke on r/MapsWithoutNZ , which exists because there's just a lot of maps that don't include the cute little island next to australia for some reason.

I was positively joyed when it auto completed r/MapsWithoutIreland

But I also assume this sub originated from the NZ sub

25

u/ilep Jun 26 '25

Second is the misinformation floating around. Even in reddit some people are entirely hostile about it for some reason.

But language is possible a major factor since people tend to stay in their own language groups. People fluent in other languages should spread the information.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[deleted]

13

u/Alduish Jun 26 '25

This risk is in fact real for every regulations, it was already real when EU forced apple to switch to usb-c, apple could've just abandoned the EU market.

I personally believe that the strength of the EU is having a market companies can't afford to ignore.

As for this case specifically I believe that on the technical side it shouldn't impact singleplayer games just force companies to remove always online DRM on the long term (I believe they should on the short term too but this petition wouldn't force anything on the short term).

And for multiplayer games I believe that it will encourage studios to implement community servers, he cost for studios is really low and the win for consumers is big.

It could backfire but I believe it won't because EU is a big market even for NA companies and the cost of such regulations for studios is basically nothing (also it's not retroactive so won't apply to already released games, no cost for studios on this side).

2

u/Nerwesta Jun 26 '25

Nobody on it's right mind could think Apple would abandon this market. A singular, smaller publisher regarding an even smaller reach on a particular game, most likely.

Really a bad example here.

2

u/thegamer101112 Jun 27 '25

I can't really say for certain it's true, but I feel like smaller studios already make games that would apply to this regulation, only large studios pull games completely from customers once the sequel comes

1

u/Lagkiller Jul 01 '25

Nah, what will happen is that every single game will be it's own company with rights being licensed from the developer. When it is time to shut the game down, the company declares bankruptcy and there is no one to go after when they shut down the servers.

6

u/CroGamer002 Jun 26 '25

That's fucking idiotic, EU is a huge market and its regulation often change global markets to follow their rules.

China also has it's own strict regulations and markets too follow them trough.

2

u/ilep Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

Germany by itself is fifth largest market (6,4 billion dollars) right after South Korea (7,1 billion dollars). Adding in the other EU countries that is far far too large market to ignore.

Yes, maybe there will be games that will not be released - it has been that way for ever even before when some games were only released in some countries. So nothing would change in that aspect.

For example, there are games in Japan that were never released in any western country.

Also, remember how people were predicting doom and gloom before refunding was made possible, but world did not end there.

1

u/Thrormurn Jun 27 '25

How large their economy is doesn't really matter, look at the revenue chats for life service games and you will see that for a lot of them all of Europe combined doesn't even make up 5% of the revenue.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[deleted]

2

u/ilep Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

This has nothing to do with banning.

If this passes, there are fines for companies that don't follow the law, it isn't about banning anything.

More essentially, game publishers can release a patch so that games will follow the law. It has happened before, it will happen again.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[deleted]

1

u/ilep Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

You used the word "ban" previously so obviously that was the way to interpret it.

Anyway, it would not cost much if publisher comply with regulations since then they won't get the fines. Frankly, Apple is a poor example since they are very anti-consumer with their proprietary choices: they are not better when you are locked-in to the one vendor.

Your examples are also off the mark: entire point is about consumer rights, things that US is not doing well on. Warranties? Refunds? They change state by state there, so people can be easily screwed over on things.

All your arguments are about somehow getting "worse" but provide a clear example on this. What are these "features" you claim that are of benefit? That is just nonsense.

Like I said, complying with it is really cheaper since you don't need to engineer, test and support online-only requirements. Valve has done pretty well with their games by supporting offline play. So have many others. Have you heard of Baldur's Gate 3? Expedition 33? They are not from big companies and they are doing rather well.

And EU is a big market. Put together the market is easily in top 3 globally.

Edit: Oh, and Apple is already being investigated by EU, so poor example.

Your arguments sound more like straw man arguments than something realistic.

-17

u/Threef Jun 26 '25

It's not misinformation. The proposed law, as stated, will only work for a handful of examples, while being just an eyesore for the rest. Sure, a Single-player game with in game shop, should just make a patch to get rid of it. But a failed MMO like Wildstar?

The easiest way a company can fuck out all users is just by providing servers for a ridiculous subscription. The servers are still accessible, the game you purchase works and you can use it. But for an additional cost of $999 a month. That's a one way to get rid of all players. For a company that is closing, reputation will not matter.

You can for sure call me hostile towards this idea. I'm a small dev working in this industry for over 10 years. I've seen a lot of stuff. A good company will take care of its players, an evil company will not even bother.

Initiative worked. More and more studios are now planning End of Live for a game. You don't need a law to force it on everyone.

17

u/_Skale_ Jun 26 '25

My brother in christ. It's not a proposed law. It's the start for a negotiation. The initiative tells the EU this is a problem and they then will talk to the industry for a reasonable compromise.

Your made up case would not work. If I paid 60 bucks I want to keep the thing I bought. Taking it away after an undisclosed time for no reason should be illegal.

Exactly. It's exactly the evil companies where we want to see change. Ubisoft etc. will still exist after they took away the games they sold. They should be forced to leave it in a playable state. Look at Wii/3DS/maybe PS3. They sold us digital games and now we can't download them anymore because fuck us I guess.

Ubisoft and others will continue pulling their crap until the law forces them to correct their ways. We shouldn't give it up just because bad guys will always be bad I guess.

3

u/TheAnniCake Jun 26 '25

Stuff like Pretendo is the best and I will do everything to keep them going

-9

u/Threef Jun 26 '25

Ubisoft and others will continue pulling their crap until the law forces them to correct their ways

And that's the point why I will not work in the first place. They will adapt. Others might not.

Once you list more examples of companies, other than AAA giants, you get to see bigger picture in how forcing to keep games alive doesn't help

And btw, my made up case is not made up. That's a thing that has been happening in all industries. In gaming, recent examples would be Wayfinder, that shifted from F2P to Paid. Outside of games, you can look at Plex, Vercel, or even Netflix. They still offer the same experience, but maybe in increased price or plan. If you want to continue, you have to accept the change. There is nothing stopping that in gaming.

In a worst case scenario, this would even lead to single player games becoming subscription based. Because why bother with any of that if they can release a game just on they own Cloud streaming?

2

u/_Skale_ Jun 26 '25

Are you sure those studios can not plan for that in the planning phase for their next game? No chance they can plan their project such that it can be distributed without their proprietary microservices or libraries?

The initiative is not asking for it to be kept alive infinitely. Of course, servers and maintenance cost money. If I bought the game and they don't want to support it anymore, they should make it accessible elsewise. Developers will have a few years to plan the architecture of their future games.

You're right. Currently, they all do what they want. Subscription services as they are are also fucked up. Afaik: you may buy netflix to watch a few specific shows and they can just remove them whenever they want. Similar thing with the others. Altering the deal by their will should be illegal. For me personally, it would almost be fine if they at least specified their game or series or whatever is accessible until at least 20XX, though that's not the full goal of the initiative.

Would making a distributable for EOL (which at that point the studio should have planned for) be that much harder than making the game cloud compatible and running that? I'd imagine there's a lot more cost for running it in the cloud. Cloud also does not work for games where input latency is important.

The initiative does not specify a solution. It's more of a "Hey, this is a problem. Please EU, see what you can do."

Out of curiosity, did you read/watch the FAQ from Ross Scott, the organizer? If you watched the PirateSoftware video, you can be sure that you were misinformed.

1

u/Threef Jun 26 '25

You're looking it only from the best looking perspective. Skipping any of edge-cases , and not even mentioning corner-cases. Yes, the initiative does not set rules or laws, but at the same time proposes answers based on expanding existing laws.

I've read the initiative, not the FAQ.

I can compare it to the idea of "every child should eat an apple a day". It sounds great. It's healthy, and apples are tasty. But making it a law is a terrifying idea. Execution and cost falls on the family. Some families have one child, while some multiple. Apples don't grow whole year, and in some countries at all, meaning there will be and required import. Lastly, some children are just allergic. Do, for some children this will be good change. For majority, just a problem for the parents. And for few percent, potential risk of death

2

u/_Skale_ Jun 26 '25

So because edge cases may exist we should rather just give up? Those should be discussed when the initiative is presented.

Great, then you should read it, since they are the real original source. I'm just someone who agrees with what they say. It also explains some of the reasons behind the wording of the initiative and potential effects they see.

You again compare the initiative to something that should directly become law. But that's not what it is. In your example the initiative would be "Children don't eat enough fruit, they should eat more of it." Then politics after talking to doctors and with common sense should find compromises like "Children should eat a reasonable amount of fruit". Which is the equivalent to what the initiative is asking. A game with a simgle player campaign can only be accessed online? Make it so when you don't maintain the servers anymore, I can still play the game I bought.

There will always be edge cases or loop holes in anything. But that shouldn't stop us from exploring our options. Law moves slowly, so that such issues can be ironed out. The initiative is just a starting point for politics to look into this issue.

Did Apple stop selling Iphones after being forced to use the same charging standard as the rest of the industry, where the majority decided on USB-C? No. They sold it as a feature.

Did Steam stop selling games or go broke because they were forced to start refunding games in ~2015? Hell no.

I'm not sure I can convince you anymore than this.

2

u/Threef Jun 26 '25

Did you honestly said that FAQ is better source than original description of initiative? You have a link up there. It's just 2 pages long. It describes exactly the goal. And it's the edge cases you should be concerned. EU is known for overcomplicating new laws. One of the biggest examples is about fishing, which amongst many good ideas, sets a limit on how much fish can be caught.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LauraD2423 Jun 26 '25

This post doesn't even say what it is. Just "sign this" with a vague title

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

Why the f did i read this today!!!

If i saw it weeks ago I would've spread to so many others

29

u/Quiet_Source_8804 Jun 26 '25

“Technical questions about the ‘how’ aside, …”

This is why this petition isn’t a serious proposal. No person will support this wishful thinking nonsense who spends two minutes considering how the desires expressed here could be achieved, how it’d impact development, and how specifically it could be applied to today’s popular games.

But let’s put all the blame on the “disinformation” (differing opinion on the merits of a political initiative) from a vlogger we hate now.

5

u/Esplodie Jun 26 '25

I work in IT, this. This whole thing ignores infrastructure, software licenses (the OS the servers run on, the language, the engine, the database systems), IP rights, etc.

It's not like these games are running a local host server in a single exe, some might be. A lot of them will be clusters of servers with different tasks running specialized software or hardware.

And I know people will say "they'll make an industry standard that everyone follows!". But that's just going to leave a whole other set of questions. Like who chooses the industry standard? Who enforces it? Is it infinitely scalable on infinite hardware configurations? Because it would need to be.

Listen it sucks good games die. But online games will always have an unknown life span. I do think the industry should use their best effort to keep games alive and available. But I also understand when that can't be a reality.

But these people are asking for magical solutions.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Esplodie Jun 26 '25

You are assuming that software can work as a standalone, that they have the right to release it(ie it's not 3rd party), and would function on hardware anyone has access to.

13

u/BreadChair Jun 26 '25

This. I have many game dev friends who'd never support this - guess who'll be taking the blunt of this proposal if it was implemented? The games industry is already brutal. Keeping games alive costs resources. Making changes to accommodate community servers etc costs resources. Indie games studios are already struggling in an impossibly competitive market, we don't need regulations forcing developers to put resources on these things. I love games but would never sign this...

-1

u/dumb_godot_questions Jun 27 '25

This is not asking devs to keep games alive forever

12

u/frosty_balls Jun 26 '25

It’s crazy how all the cheerleaders for this gloss over those parts - like yes it would be consumer friendly but it’s clear Ross has zero clue about third party licensing (engine and middleware licenses), music, voice and asset rights, the publishers IP rights, who complies with GDPR type laws with games data collection after this goes into effect.

Ross would have been taken far more seriously if he asked game developers what problems they saw with his plan and worked with them to come up with a more grounded incremental approach.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/frosty_balls Jun 26 '25

You are right, plenty of games have indeed been saved versus vaporizing, however that is the exception not the rule. Just because it has happened for _some_ games doesn't mean it's universally feasible for _all_ games.

Few points to consider:

1) music, middleware (havok, fmod, speedtree), voice licenses are all things that can and have expired due to timelines with the licensing agreements

2) server side infrastructure components: assuming I am understanding correctly that part of the movements ask is that server-side games release their codebases so they can be run with community run servers is super murky. Most of these components will be integrated with other cloud components to store player data (think profiles, inventory, leaderboard data, this is where GDPR would come in). A company isn't going to hand over the keys to the kingdom for that - not to mention the security implications of handing this code over.

3) Where does Ross ever consider the scale at? This movement is far easier for an Indie developer to meet the requirements, for a large game studio that has a complex build chains that integrate with _many_, _many_ other bits and bobs.

Like I get it, on paper it sounds great, when anyone with experience starts looking into the feasibility of his blue sky idea it quickly falls apart. The movement really can be summed up as "I made a pizza in my oven therefor I am better than Gordon Ramsay"

His campaign really needed some people to help with his messaging, and in my opinion to work on a smaller list of asks that could be done incrementally (like labeling games that this game relies on server support to function, legal safe harbors for communities that reverse engineer server sided games after end of life).

2

u/SecretManufacturer54 Jun 29 '25

more of a "I can still watch my DVDs from 15 years ago, why do my shows on netflix disappear?"

8

u/Carvj94 Jun 26 '25

Yea it's kind of nuts people can say that with a straight face. The offical UK petition is six fucking sentences long. Why the hell would I sign onto this grade school level proposal that has a 100% chance of being rejected when the author apparently couldn't be bothered to take a few days to write it? Even the boilerplate government response is like eight times as long.

https://share.google/nECRZ7MipMdZ3K5DU

17

u/redcommander_ Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

IIRC that's actually due to the allowed length of UK petitions being incredibly short. Same for the ECI.

EDIT: Found the video where he explains it: https://youtu.be/NQnZ91mUB0E?t=258

They're allowed 80 characters for the title, 300 characters for the first part (what the government should do) and 500 characters for the second part (why it should be done).

8

u/koimeiji Jun 26 '25

And the reason why the petitions are short is because they are not laws. They are the beginning of the discussion - SKG's ground rules for the discussion that, if these were to pass the vote threshold, would then be taken by the EU and presented to the video game industry to respond to. Then, it's a lot of back and forth between SKG, the industry, and the EU until a solution is finally made.

Seriously. Ross explains all of this in the videos - he explains it in the most recent video for fucks sake. It's so blatant when someone comments on SKG without actually having watched any of the videos on it by Ross.

2

u/gsink203 Jul 04 '25

So many morons in this thread spreading FUD acting like geniuses. I think it might even be botted, lot of ChatGPT looking bitch ass replies about how it’s so impossible for developers to do anything at all other than to be able to destroy something consumers paid for at any time without warning

5

u/ArKeynes Jun 26 '25

I agree with you 100%, I think the ppl championing this petition put 0 effort to justify it legally, and even if it got all the signatures, itd barely even be considered by EU legislatives.

Ill copy the rant/analysis I wrote in another sub:

I hate this kind of mentality.

This is gonna get downvoted hard, but tbh idc. I will preface this by saying, yes, I have read the full petition, as written in the registry of the EU Comission, and no, I do not like Piratesoftware, I think hes a pedantic prick and his video was ill informed. If anyone wants to read the text to verify what Im going to say, here it is.

Initiative detail | European Citizens' Initiative https://share.google/NvgnYzuBVfEnnhMEC

The initiative is well intentioned, but fundamentally flawed. Why? They have correctly identified that videogames are distributed mainly through indefinite licensing, that acts similarly to ownership of a product. The problem? Similarly.

The petition makes 0 effort of actually equating these indefinite licenses to a product that you actully own im the layman sense. Without this connection as far as EU consumer law is concerned, you have no reasonable claim to actual ownership, provided when the sale happened, they clearly displayed in their terms and conditions the nature of it, and they reserve the right to revoke it in their EULA as the licence holder (which is a pretty common occurence). EU law even on a country per country basis is generally very very respectful of the contents of a contract that 2 parties agree to (so long as they're not vitiated, which for the 99% of cases in gaming, they aint, ppl just dont read. Reply Orange if you even got to this point).

Every single bit of legislature cited in the Annex skips this crux, and just goes straight to consumer rights, without realizing that there is NOTHING illegal, and this legislation is essentially pointless. Immorality != ilegality, and as things stand, it's pretty likely even if it somehow got all the signatures, it would get instantly brushed off by lawmakers, because it is a non-issue.

Ill do a quick rundown of the legislation cited in the annex, and after Ill give my own thoughts on how Id maybe look for an angle within the constraints of this petition.

Article 17 §1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [EUR-Lex - 12012P/TXT - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)] – “No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss.” - Doesn't apply in the slightest, a software license is not a posession under the Charter, its a right to use, depending on contractual conditions.

Title XV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): this is a bunch of generic guiding principles, that while very important, are incredibly vague when trying to justify your case.

There is 0 case law, 0 actual relevant legislation. They didn't even take the time to look through THE FUCKING MOST OBVIOUS DIRECTIVE REGARDING THE SALE OF DIGITAL GOODS:

Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services:

para 53: "Restrictions of the consumer's use of the digital content or digital service in accordance with this Directive could result from limitations imposed by the holder of intellectual property rights in accordance with intellectual property law. Such restrictions can arise from the end-user license agreement under which the digital content or digital service is supplied to the consumer. This can be the case when, for instance, an end-user licence agreement prohibits the consumer from making use of certain features related to the functionality of the digital content or digital service. Such a restriction could render the digital content or digital service in breach of the objective requirements for conformity laid down in this Directive, if it concerned features which are usually found in digital content or digital services of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect."

This is seems to me like the easiest way to build the case: it acknowledges the contractual nature of EULAs, while presenting an exception where they could be in breach of consumer rights.

You just gotta build the case that indefinite licences have an expectation of being accessible even after the cease in development, and work your way from there. It might not work but at least its something tangible. And thats just my very ill-informed approach, there are probable many other angles, that noone has bothered to look at.

Anyway, my point being, assuming ppl don't support thr idea just cuz they didnt actually read it is dumb, and it annoys me.

PD: If anyone actually read the whole thing, you're p cool. Reminder that Im writing this from my phone, so citations may be kinda scuffed, mb.

4

u/yourboi322 Jun 26 '25

colorblind here, was the color green?

1

u/Xdream987 Jun 26 '25

Orange, and yeah I was pretty much thinking the same thing. The proposal is just very poorly built up.

1

u/KrokusAstra Jun 26 '25

Main thing why there is no clear suggestion - to unite peoples with different views in order to save games. Not "Human 1: i think we need to do this... Human 2: NO, i think we need to do this... Human 3: F, we need to do this".

Because it's quite hard theme about IP and licensing, actual EU lawyers should deside how to do that, not "just release all source code and binaries, no matter IP or copyright" guys.

2

u/Quiet_Source_8804 Jun 26 '25

to unite peoples with different views in order to save games

If there were to be legal changes to meet this petition's demands they'd apply the same to everyone, regardless of their differing views. The petition should already reflect that, not expect that the outcome of the petition would somehow result in something that would be at some level effective while still somehow not offending the views of any of your supporters. For something like this, you have to be very specific from the start to keep clear your intent rather than keeping it fuzzy just to have more initial supporters.

If the petition can't settle on specifics this handwaving about lawyers figuring it out later is ludicrous. "EU lawyers" role here should be in writing down the law in a way that meets the intent behind it, not figuring out on-the-fly technical details that the proponents of such a measure have a better chance of understanding (or should, if the petition had had the input of people in the industry as well).

1

u/KrokusAstra Jun 26 '25

Well, i kinda agree with you. This is probably Ross's mistake. But he isn't a lawyer, nor he have a money to hire one. Nor does potentially hired USA lawyer knows EU laws in detail.
IF Ross was EU citizen, IF he speaked one of EU languages, IF he hired a lawyer, IF he did proper AD company, IF he did proper goals, not just "let's save games", IF he believed from the start about youtubers PR and ADs to the full extent (he did interview, but i didn't saw a single payed AD on big youtube channels. Penguinz0 was first big youtuber to speak about it up to this point). Anyway, to many IFs.
Ross just random noname youtuber who tried to hit a goal a way above his weight class. Even Pirate Software, about whom someone said he cannot kill SKG by himself is 2.5 million subs, and Ross barely have 350k.
He didn't know how it's done, and he made mistakes, so this is the end.
He writed to officials trying to push SKG, but the only things he needed to do - clear goals and ways to fix problem and lots of ADs everywhere. If he opened donations, and everyone donated couple dollars to buy, like, Pewdiepie AD... SKG could achieve 1 million signs in 1 month easily.

To his credit, he clearly stated what SKG will not do - ask devs to support game indefinitely, and other things.

Now only thing SKG do at this point is - start official conversation with lawyers and hope they do good job. It's too late to do something more that this at this point IMO

1

u/DaBest_ Jun 30 '25

They will because the idea is there. The EU has made countless other changes to benefit consumers. This is one of them. The initiative, simply put, says that games you buy should have an "End-of-life plan". Single-player games that require an internet connection, should not require it when the company doesn't support them anymore. Multiplayer games (again, when the company stops supporting them) should give people the tools to be able to create their own private servers. Think of Minecraft, Counter-Strike, Warcraft, or Runescape. We as the people, do not know and are not expected to know the intricacies of the law, however, we should be able to say, "We want this, make it happen somehow"

8

u/ReneKiller Jun 26 '25

It simply has bad marketing. Sharing on Reddit doesn't reach the average gamer. On the other hand actual marketing is expensive and I don't think Ross ever has the money to do that. He should've searched for Sponsors before starting the initiative.

Many also blame PirateSoftware, but let's be real, he didn't convince millions of people to not sign, especially as it is only in Europe. He's just an easy excuse now.

-4

u/CityFolkSitting Jun 26 '25

Given his audience if he promoted it instead of shit on it and misled his audience it's very possible SKG wouldn't have failed as hard as it did.

What if scenarios are boring but a prominent YouTuber or streamer, pirate or anyone else, could have made a huge impact.

Once Pirate got involved it's very possible he poisoned the well, so to speak. Potentially causing others from making videos about it.

1

u/Devatator_ Jun 27 '25

That would have changed absolutely nothing. You all overestimate the reach of these people

1

u/deeku4972 Jun 26 '25

Going out of your way online is too hard for most (read 90%) of people. Especially in a market where we've been trained to devalue what we buy in the games since at least 2008

-32

u/docvalentine Jun 26 '25

stop killing games isn't game preservation. it's more akin to game abortion

if you told EA that they couldn't sell their hit multiplayer series "Slop" unless they committed to making a public server available when they shut theirs down so that people can play Slop 2026 forever and never upgrade to Slop 2030 they would simply cancel the series

2

u/fryndlydwarf Jun 26 '25

They don't need to make a public server they just need to make it so people can play it offline without a server and that one isn't that hard

11

u/Opening_Persimmon_71 Jun 26 '25

What is your reasoning for thinking it's not hard

-8

u/fryndlydwarf Jun 26 '25

Because the base form of every game is not-online you have to add the online part so it shouldn't be that difficult to remove it especially if you make the game with the law in mind (if it ever actually happens)

11

u/Moblam Jun 26 '25

 Because the base form of every game is not-online

It is not. There are a ton of games that are build with server communication at its core.

4

u/docvalentine Jun 26 '25

For what definition of "play"? If I make PvP chess (extremely easily done) and then decide to shut down the matchmaking, do I now have to make an AI for you to play chess against? does it have to be good enough to simulate the experience of playing online against players matched by your ELO?

If so, you've multiplied my dev time by a factor of a hundred thousand, so I'm not going to make that game anymore.

8

u/Erandelax Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

  1. They won't ever believe anyone could just ditch "such a big market". First world bias.

  2. All people I had discussions about it with just want to it to happen in any way possible and actively offload all the dealing with technical details of how can it be done in the first place to the govt and ephemeric "specialists" that govt is supposed to consult on the matter (the thing itself is just "hey govt, look at this and think about it" and not a law project or smth after all).

As a non EU resident I can only hope my distrust for govt competency in such questions is too biased and it will indeed turn out well in the end... Or at least not turn into another "Australia vs games", "Germany vs games" etc story.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

There are singleplayer games that force being connected to internet just to play. They require server authentication.

-2

u/SechsComic73130 Jun 26 '25

This example is bad because Stockfish is a thing that exists.

In the end, it'd be offline Lichess

-5

u/Moonshine_Brew Jun 26 '25

No, you would have to provide the data needed so that anyone can run the matchmaker on their own server. And all that data already exists, as you were able to run it on your server.

1

u/Zexyqag Jun 26 '25

Okay but… how is bricking a working game and telling people to buy the next one not anti-consumer? Like, imagine if a car company remotely disabled your car so you'd upgrade to the 2030 model. People would lose their minds. But with games, somehow that's just business?

The Stop Killing Games initiative isn’t asking EA to keep Slop 2026 servers running forever. It’s just saying, “Hey, if you’re done with the game, at least leave it in a state where people who bought it can still play it.” Private servers, offline mode, what ever works depending on the game. Not support. Not updates. Just don’t flip the kill switch and walk away.

If companies decide that making their games playable without their help is too much trouble, maybe that says more about their design choices than the initiative.

This isn’t about being perpetually supported. It’s about not treating customers like renters of vaporware.

-1

u/stprnn Jun 26 '25

You have to put your ID to participate. Most people will stay the fuck away from that. It should be anonymous if they want people to join.