this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
269 points (95.3% liked)

Games

40403 readers
3016 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

What they're not saying is that THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO PLAY OLD GAMES. They make nothing from it and they probably look at those people as leeches not contributing to their bottom line. Unless the government forces them, there is literally zero incentive; in fact a financial disservice for them to support legacy live service games in an offline manner

The best case scenario for them after they kill a game is for you to forget it existed and buy the next one.... Oh and engaging with the microtransaction ecosystem.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 16 points 3 hours ago

protections we put in place to secure players’ data

The player data that we are required to agree to share with 1643 trusted data partners in order to connect to your service? That player data?

Go fuck yourself, you ghouls.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

People were upset when PirateSoftware was spreading disinformation about SKG, well get ready for incoming weapons-grade corporate Disinformation.

Luckily it's no longer in the hands of the public.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 hours ago

even though there are enough signatures now, they still need more to be sure. Some percentage of the signatures will be invalid(people unable to spell their own names and fakes for example) so there has to be big enough safetymargin. Ross made video about it too.

So until the time runs out, everyone should make sure the safetymargin is as big as possible.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable.

Incorrect. Only in a capitalist hellhole like America. In the rest of the world this would never be a problem. Just release the server code under MIT and let the community fix it. Also make sure you can manually setup a masterserver in the game itself, or implement direct connect functionality.

many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

Same answer as before. Release the online part under the MIT license. Not your problem anymore at that point. You can still require an original game license for the game itself. We're only talking about the server software here.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position with policy makers and those who have led the European Citizens Initiative in the coming months.

We, the people, have been discussing this for at least a decade now. Get over it and stop trying you capitalist pigs.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 37 points 22 hours ago

No No. NO! All of this is bullshit. Its not how any of this will work. Its all misinterpreted on purpose and then used as propaganda against the inititive because companies ARE afraid of it. They know this has the power to stop their predatory business practices. Moderation is the hosters responsibility so if anything, private servers would make it cheaper for companies to make games. This is also NOT RETROACTIVE as any other such regulation. Companies will only have to comply with future games. Having to remove proprietary network components from the server so they can release it at end of life IS A GOOD THING. It also makes development MORE ACCESSIBLE for small developers as everyone will have to use more open infrastrucuture. And at last this only affects the end of life of games which means it DOES NOT touch live service games DURING their life and only changes their last stage in their life cycle. For fucks sake this is getting annoying but i take this as a good thing because these stupid multi-national corpos are finally feeling the pressure.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

just put the fries in the bag. stop making excuses. stop killing games.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist

Nanny State BS. If someone runs a private server, it's their responsibility to moderate it.

and would leave rights holders liable.

No it wouldn't.

In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only

Unreal Tournament games are online or multiplayer only games. Even though Epic shut down the master servers, you can modify the .ini file to redirect to a community server. "Online-only" translates to predatory monetization models.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago (2 children)

... as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist...

There are third party options for this.

... and would leave rights holders liable.

Liable for what? A service everyone knows they're no longer providing? Are car manufacturers still liable for 50 year old rusty cars people still drive? Can Apple today be held liable for a software vulnerability in the Lisa or the Mac II?

In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

Then don't design games that way. Don't make games like these. This is good news, actually.

[–] Toga65@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's crazy how they act like no one else could run a server for a live service game.

We used to fucking buy and rent servers to game on our own private servers.

Its wild how this disappeared and all server structure just got consolidated into shit like AWS and Azure.

[–] black0ut@pawb.social 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Minecraft, the game that sold the most copies in history, has a huge infrastructure of community-hosted servers, some with tens of thousands of players playing at the same time. The community has created different flavors of the server software, optimized it, added mod support and even reprogrammed parts of it.

At this point, it's hard for me to believe how someone could say a community can't run game servers with a straight face.

[–] Toga65@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

The whole "ITS A LIVE SERVICE IT CANT JUST BECOME SINGLE PLAYER" argument fundamentally misses every single easy point about community hosted servers.

It's the most prevalent, and also most stupid argument I keep seeing pop up.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree, the liability for user content in community hosted games is just pure bullshit excuses.

online-only is not bad, some mechanics just work like that. that's totally fine. Just release the server code when you don't want to host any more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

lol. Games like The Crew aren’t super hard to be turned into a single player game. Nobody is asking them to add a 20 hour single player campaign with a fleshed out storyline. Just add bots and open up the game to be driven around in without an online connection.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Just release the server code. nothing new has to be created. The industries claim of being liable for user content in this scenario is just bull

[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 13 points 1 day ago

Not even code, just the binaries and pre-baked libs. They already have those.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don’t even need to release the code. Just the server binary of the game.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is short sighted. Architectures can and will change in the future. I'm running game servers on my aarch64 devices, if I wasn't able to compile, and sometimes even edit, the code I wouldn't have been able to run these servers. Emulation isn't always ideal, janky or even non existent.

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but the point is to be realistic and not put undue weight on the developers, right? Binaries can generally be much more permissive than source code when proprietary dependencies are involved, and easier to release "clean" than source code.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

Yes, of course and it's a lot better than what we have at this point, it's a great first step. I still remember the days of Id Software releasing their game (logic) under the GPL.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ksin@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago

Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable

Straight fucking lie, the ones liable are the uploader and the host, which after official support ends is no longer the rights holders.

[–] LorIps@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

Dear Video Games Europe!

Bullshit.

Best Wishes,

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 186 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Here are the board members of this organisation in case someone is curious about their relevancy/neutrality on the matter:

  • Hester Woodliffe – Chair (Warner Bros. Games)
  • Canon Pence (Epic Games)
  • Kerry Hopkins (Electronic Arts)
  • Ian Mattingly (Activision)
  • Klemens Kundratitz (Embracer)
  • Qumar Jamil (Microsoft)
  • Clemens Mayer-Wegelin (Nintendo of Europe)
  • Cinnamon Rogers (Sony Interactive Entertainment)
  • Matt Spencer (Take 2)
  • Alain Corre (Ubisoft)
  • Alberto Gonzalez-Lorca (Bandai Namco Entertainment)
  • Karine Parker (Square Enix)
  • Mark Maslowicz (Level Infinite)
  • Felix Falk (game)
  • Nicolas Vignolles (SELL)
  • David Verbruggen (VGFB)
  • Nick Poole (UKIE)

You know, the people who "ensured that the voice of a responsible games ecosystem is heard and understood" (direct quote from their website).

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

My question is, what is this group as an entity, and why does their opinion matter? Are they an ngo-style advocacy group, or an actual governing body of some kind?

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's a group representing the biggest publishers in the industry, used as a front to pretend they're able to self-regulate when it comes to consumer laws vs business wants. So no, not a governing body but more of a cartel or lobbying group, I guess? One with A LOT of money on the line and enough lobbying power to push against things like the Stop Killing Games campaign the moment they feel threatened.

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Okay, so more World Economic Forum, less Electronic Frontier Foundation?

Sounds like we need more EFF's of video games then.

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, that tracks - it's a business organisation first and foremost. And yeah, we definitely do.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Whitebrow@lemmy.world 144 points 1 day ago (34 children)

“many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only”

So change your design? The corporate mind cannot comprehend this.

"many titles are designed from the ground-up to be rent seeking"

[–] Davin@lemmy.world 62 points 1 day ago

Or just let someone else host a fucking server and let the game get pointed to that one or any other they want. They could even sell the server software and make money on that. I'd love to host my own servers of some old online only games where I could play with just my friends and family.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 121 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Absolute trash statement, I really hope this bites them.

They're just repeating a lot of the same misinformation that Pirate Software had been saying, the exact things that had riled the gaming community and caused this latest wave of action. We're already primed to discount the points they're trying to make and it shows exactly how disingenuous they're being.

Positively, I hope this reflects some true fear on their end.

Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

As has been stated over and over and over again, private servers used to be an option until the industry decided they weren't any more. If the result of this is that it forces the industry to not make shitty, exploitative games, that's still a win for the consumers. I would rather have no game at all than something that psychologically tries to exploit my FOMO and drains my wallet.

[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 62 points 1 day ago (6 children)

It's also a strawman argument. Because yes, developers have less to no control over the operation of private servers. Yes, that means they can't moderate those servers.

But

This initiative only covers games, not supported anymore by the devs anyway. Meaning legally speaking everything happening to private servers would be literally not their concern anymore. And new legislation, should it come to that, would spell that out.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago

I don't know who are these people. And they have achieved in record time that I never want to really heard them anymore.

[–] Korkki@lemmy.ml 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

<Oh no this would kill live service games

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SoupBrick@pawb.social 73 points 1 day ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 70 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Our Board":

Epic Games, Take Two, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Square Enix, Bandai Namco, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

I 100% guarantee the people who wrote that statement don't know or care how much effort it would take to build the infrastructure to run their server-side components.

I'm fairly confident that any AAA production uses Infrastructure As Code to spin up infrastructure in their dev and qa environments, so it's literally just a matter of handing over the Terraform or BICEP and some binaries for any custom code they need to use. I also highly, HIGHLY doubt that the vast majority of game servers are hosted on-prem. They're most likely either using Azure or AWS.

load more comments
view more: next ›