Stop Killing Games

259 readers

20 users here now

[EU/UK] Stop Killing Games:

The consumer movement to stop game publishers from destroying older games with kill switches.

The goal is to reach 1 million signatures in the EU so that the european parliament will respond to the initiative that then leads to regulation that requires end-of-life plans for games to stay playable.

List of Actions taken

Progress Tracker:

Progress Bars

Overlay

UK Final Day 14/7/2025

EU Final Day: 31/7/2025.

founded 1 month ago

MODERATORS

Sunshine@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Sunshine@lemmy.ca

141

UK has made it! (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works to c/skg@lemmy.dbzer0.com

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Please support the initiative of Stop Killing Games!

EU Petition

UK Petition

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] joshcodes@programming.dev 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

What'd Pirate do?

Edit: search terms were 'pirate software kill games' and found a pretty good article. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/esports/news/what-is-going-on-with-pirate-software-and-stop-killing-games/articleshow/122207917.cms

From watching the first 5 minutes of the first video: Thor is saying game developers can't be forced to share their server code with gamers, even though Valve does it. Terrible argument. It's a solved problem, also it has to be distributable so they can manage servers across the planet.

Edit 2: "We might miss out on some cool games that we won't be otherwise able to have if live service is a removed practice" is a legitimate argument. Can games be reengineered so that this isn't the case? Should developers be forced into making it that way? I might watch some criticism videos after work. I think there's points on both sides but it seems really easy to clarify what Thor wants clarified. Personally I don't think what's on the SDK website would be what gets put into legislation but if he really wants it clarified that's easy.

[–] RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

From the SDK FAQ:

Q: Won't this consumer action result in the end of "live service" games?

A: No, the market demand and profitability of these games means the video games industry has an ongoing interest in selling these. Since our proposals do not interfere with existing business models, these types of games can remain just as profitable, ensuring their survival. The only difference is future ones will need to be designed with an "end of life" build once support finally ends. This is not difficult to have if done from the design phase onward, and any costs to it are far outweighed by potential sales in Australia and / or the EU.

And even considering that, SKG is not writing a law. In the EU, if they go through with this, the law would be written by a group of politicians, lawyers and experts in the industry (including lobbyists from publishers) based on the proposal

[–] joshcodes@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah he either doesn't understand the process and hasnt decided to work out what's happening, or he's intentionally deceptive. Either way, I think it's very stereotypical American thinking to presume everything is binary and no nuanced conversations can happen. "You asserted a thing, but didn't specify x while doing so, therefore you're against x". It's letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Another thing is that law can and should be left open to interpretation in many cases. That's not always the best thing, see financial law etc, but you can't set up a framework for every scenario. However, you can define a list of obvious things and if someone does something against the spirit of the law, it can be amended and/or someone can prosecute to further define. Laws can be changed and judges make rulings that set precedent.

Idk, I'm coming into this late but it's arguing in bad faith so im frustrated.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, he has some good points that I agree with - like the bot takeover, and some other ones. However, he is a narcissist and know-it-all. He took SKG to the extreme, assumed it will be reality, and then bashed it to end. That is not how you do it. And you don't say "eat my whole ass" to someone trying to keep games playable after sunset - especially as a gamer and a game developer. It is not a law, it is an incentive to show support and let legislators handle it, so they know we want it. The guy is not a lawmaker, he is a YouTuber and a gamer, ofc it is not gonna be worded like law.

[–] joshcodes@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah, at my work we have a legal department who does all the lawyer writing, but as a cyber analyst I have to do analyst writing. We don't conflate the two, I never write legal stuff and would never try. They don't pretend to understand technical stuff and wouldn't bother trying. No random youtuber would be capable of writing law, except maybe legal eagle?

I had a think about some of the 'licensed content has to go away after x years' which he talked about with the cars in the Crew. Before live service was possible, there were similar deals to put content in games. Think GTA etc. What licensing model was used there and why can't it be used today. His arguments assume you know nothing about the industry and take things at face value. They also assume that it's a binary situation. Not a fan of that kind of thinking personally.