Comment by bsjaux628 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsjaux628 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What SKG movement want, in short terms, is that game developers/publishers of live service games and online only games be forced, once the games is no longer supported, to provide tools, software, executables to the community to keep the game going. They are using the banner of consumer protection and a public EU initiative to force the EU politicians to debate and come up with a solution.

The drama mostly stems from the fact that the head of the movement is a gamer with no knowledge of either software development or game development, so he has a VERY simplistic view of how a game server-client works and thinks that developers just have a .exe executable running from a raspberry pi that can be uploaded to github and that's it. When people with knowledge call out that there are TONS middleware used to develop a game with their own licenses and that a server nowadays is more than a single machine, he just says: well, this movement is no retroactive so new games will be develop with that in mind and automatically every software vendor will be fine with distributing their code so that everyone can keep playing.

While I support the spirit of the movement, this will ultimately end up with a warning label in a box because real life has more nuances.

I think someone with his perspective might be actually a perfect head of the movement. Most people who play games are not programmers & games are becoming a big part of modern culture.

Why should people playing (and paying !) for games really care what bad technical or business decisions have the publishers done when they see part of their culture being killed to save a buck ?

A lot of other important problems have been resolved in a similar manner without every participant in the movement being a technical expert.

In a three way chat between the movement, politicians and the game industry, you need to know the technical details to rebuke the arguments and support your claims.

Also, the technical decisions are not just about saving a buck but getting the game shipped. If my game is about growing vegetables and I want to let the player drive to the state farm, but I don't want to spend time (and money) building my own physics engine for driving, I grab a solution off the shelve with their license and go back to the core of my game, this same thing is repeat for many other things like authentication, anti-cheat, networking, etc

I’m a game developer - this sums up my feelings perfectly.

A lot of this middleware isn’t necessarily even game middleware - think of a turn based game that might use a custom DB instead of mongo or SQL. You’re effectively banning any non game specific middleware from being used or requiring that every company provide a separate licensing path for game developers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com