I don’t follow this argument. In this context, proprietary code is work product that has value to its owner. Often large swathes of said work product is reused across games so the theory is that releasing the work product means your competitors can make your work product. I do not understand how wrapping someone else’s work product in your own work product doesn’t require them to first release their work product.

Note I don’t necessarily buy the company mindset on proprietary code; I explained here because I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

Abstraction is a trade off. You don't want to build interface layers between everything... It's a pain in the ass, and if there's a 1-1 relationship between parts of a system then you're basically putting in a minimum cost to modify that area in any way. So if you do it, it'll probably be once you've locked down the design pretty well

Game development is pretty different than normal development too. You have a lot of one off and lose ends based on creative decisions... You aren't building up on top of your system, you're building out

And frankly, it leads to a mix of mind blowingly good code and a lot of terrible code

So no, I don't think it's that easy. I think it's also a bullshit argument, and they should release the "proprietary" code when they finish supporting the game, or put in the time to make the interfaces

Most devs are shit at their jobs.

Not that this is exclusive to devs. Most people in general are shit at their jobs.

In my experience working with devs at game studios (i'm a sysadmin/infra engineer type by trade), it is rarely them that is so against open sourcing code, or giving fans of the game the tools needed to keep it going on their own once the devs move on. Most of the devs I have dealt with would like nothing more than to see the thing they created live on and be enjoyed by people, even if they are not personally getting paid for it 10 years down the line.

It is nearly always the executives looking to make sure no one manages to enjoy something the people that work for them created without the c-suite getting paid for it first that is the road block.

I'm not a smart nor good developer so maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but if you're a game Dev and you're using Unreal Engine or Unity, aren't you already bound to whatever license they have?

I believe if you're following say Unreal's structure, you're using their server/client netcode, and while you can release whatever you've made you can't use or share any of Epic's code. That would still require users to agree to Epic's EULA to get the full engine to compile your server setup.

Add in server handling for VoIP, audio middleware like FMOD, proprietary stuff like Xbox/PS crossplay, Steam's SDK, etc and I feel like that's a tangled web.

I'm also very tired and am probably not fully registering here.

Understand that significant percentages of any game are made under crunch conditions. And there is no real "okay, let's go back and reduce our technical debt" for the majority of games.

So all those best software practices go out the window when you have slept in your cube for the past four nights and your well rested boss is screaming at you wondering why the cape physics still look so shit.

But also... how does that change anything? "Here is our end of life offline mode. We reference these packages you will never have access to and that have no open source equivalent because they are so specific to the proprietary way this auth system works"?

Idk if most software developers know this is what they should be doing and ignore it completely or if they just don't know.

There are so, so many reasons to do this.

But I don't think this really happens very often in the real world because it's not the shortest line from A to B.

He's a dev himself. He won't be able to abandon his next game after it flops if this goes through. That's why he's spreading disinformation. I can only hope MoistCritikal's video on it helps.

Also, SKG should seek legal action for defamation.

They certainly didn't conduct themselves in a polite or persuasive manner during their argument(s). As others have said in this thread: he has attacked everything but the topic and when they did they (purposefully) seemed very confused about the overall goal and desire of the campaign.

Is this a case of being wrong about your initial conclusions and doubling down? Or is this a bad actor spreading purposeful misinformation? Going by the video alone it's hard to see an alternative.

Louis Rossman is, at best, a "free speech absolutionist" libertarian, but he is probably the youtuber with the most experience actually working to get consumer (well, small business) rights legislature passed. And he specifically talked about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF4zH8bJDI8

In a nutshell: It doesn't matter if thor is a dipshit (he is and always has been). Attack the arguments, not the person. Because others will have similar complaints and all "He is a fucking prick and he didn't read the FAQ" does is hurt your argument and make things seem culty.

Because if it really WAS actually addressed (and understand that a response is not necessarily a refutation), point that out. Rather than require people to go dig through a bunch of youtube videos and blog posts.

Me, a US citizen, not seeing a US option. Also me, realizing that means I cannot sign for the other countries because I am not a citizen of EU or UK.

You may consider signing the UK effort, but that isn't looking chipper either.

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/countries/united_kingdom

Sign the UK parliament one

Same for me, no Switzerland option.

So I can only encourage EU citizens to do it.

It makes me sad that people like him get enough views and money to live off of

I mean that guy was a dickcheese even before he tried to torpedo this initiative. But wow did he add to his pile of stink.

I don’t understand this fucking clown, why is he holding water for these big corporations?

Even sadder is that there are no popular EU streamers throwing their weight behind the initiative. What are they waiting for? Does PewDiePie still stream games?

Can you help me understand which political petitions meant to document real constituent desires don’t require doxxing yourself? I don’t believe I’ve ever participated in any citizens initiative that didn’t require personal information.

zkproofs for the win!

Buenos Aires in Argentina already rolled out a decentralized digital id via zkSync on the Ethereum blockchain for their citizens, you basically have a zero knowledge proof that verifies who you are without revealing sensitive information. No more doxxing required

For those interested on how zkproofs work, it's all mathmagic:

Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=fOGdb1CTu5c
https://youtu.be/fOGdb1CTu5c

In Spain we already have that.

There is an app that let you show only some data of your national ID and it's verifiable by the other party. One of their usecases is specifically age verification. The app shows that the user is over 18 or under 18 and the portrait. There is a qr that can be used for instant verification.

But signing is kind of different. For signing you need an unique id.

I signed this petition with the digital certificate. It really never asked me for much more data. But the digital certificate includes full name, country and national ID number. But I suppose that's the minimum needed for a valid signature.