Comment by rgblambda | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rgblambda | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The Stop Killing Games website's FAQ does specifically mention this scenario:

>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. Games like these would need to be either retired or grandfathered in before new law went into effect. 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.

That is just not going to happen. Sweeping regulations that govern how games will be designed and created will just mean no game is made or sold in that market. Or this whole thing will be circumvented using malicious compliance. So end of life plan just means your client works but it stops being a playable game.

Categorisation, maybe like even how cigarettes are sold, with big warnings and steam made to add a filter that doesn’t show games with no eol support will go a long way in the market coming up with solutions than just legislation forcing creators to make games in one way.

So does that mean that games are not allowed to use proprietary technologies in their backends anymore? That seems like a strange restriction to apply only to games.

Sure they can use proprietary technology in their backend. They just need permission to redistribute it, like is currently the case with any proprietary technology used by the client.

Alternatively they can use proprietary technology in the backend without permission to redistribute, so long as it is replaced before support is ended.

They are allowed to use that. There just needs to be a way for that proprietary technology to be bought and used on a backend by a user if the company deems providing the backend to be costly to continue. That's my understanding

Reply on news.ycombinator.com