The "Stop Killing Games" Australian Petition is Live
The "Stop Killing Games" Australian Petition is Live
Just like the UK variant, this is an official government petition to look into the issue. Unlike the UK variant, the only signature threshold is 50 signatures - that said, more is better in this case.
Deadline: 20 May 2024
Here’s the Stop Killing Games campaign site for those unaware or not from Australia.
You're viewing a single thread.
This petition is worded in such a way that it almost feels like lying.
Most games that shut down aren't doing so because they had an arbitrary ping home that breaks them, it's because hosting servers is fundamentally part of the game's multiplayer-oriented experience.
You're trying to use the former to backdoor in a way to force the latter to give you all of its server code.
Assuming this law were to go forward with even the most rigorous knowledge of the problem-space, and an intentional push to require multiplayer or server-based games to give you their server code after the game is shut down, all that will do is increase the risk involved in creating any multiplayer games.
Most likely this will reduce the quality and variety of games that get created going forward, which would ironically make preservation much easier.
This specific petition was broadened to involve all software rather than just games which is why it mentions pinging home instead of focusing on multiplayer servers.
The general idea of the campaign as a whole is to force publishers to create software with a specific end-of-life plan that would include one of the few possible options:
- relase the server software to allow players host them themselves
- patch the game to not require company's server (even if not all features would be functional)
- allow people to create their own servers after official ones are dead (think private MMO servers)
Any of those options would come into effect only when the official support for the game were to end.
How exactly would that increase the risk of creating multiplayer games? Private server hosting was a thing for years and the only reason we're here now is because publishers decided they should be the only ones allowed to do it.
- relase the server software to allow players host them themselves
- patch the game to not require company's server (even if not all features would be functional)
- allow people to create their own servers after official ones are dead (think private MMO servers)
Your petition doesn't allow for the second option (exactly how much functionality is allowed to be missing?), fyi, but let's ignore it for the moment.
Let's take a not uncommon case that causes games to shutdown: a company that ran out of money.
How do you do any of these things legally without paying your now jobless employees?
You need to either release the servers at the same time as the game, which has cost associated with it, or you need to hold funds up front to handle paying for the costs on the backend (i.e you need to pay an insurance premium).
Just so we're clear, this is not my petition. It's related to the Stop Killing Games campaign mentioned in the post description, though it was slightly modified by the author (one of the volunteers helping with the campaign).
I'm not sure I follow your example.
First things first - companies don't poof out of existence suddenly. Secondly, the whole reason behind the end-of-life proposal is for devs/publishers to have a ready and easy to execute plan in case of ending the official support (whether it's closing the developer run servers or closure of the company). The whole idea is that something like that would be planned and prepared for during the development.
I have literally worked at a game company startup that ran out of money and shut down abruptly.
And have you not been paying attention to the news lately? Game companies are shutting down weekly.
Fair enough. My experience is mostly tied to companies where even shutting down would be run through a process of sunsetting all projects and tying up as many loose ends as possible before that so my perspective might be a bit skewed.
I can see this being an issue for a small or indie developer but something like Embracer Group shouldn't have any leeway in that regard - they could absolutely afford keeping a studio (at least a skeleton crew) long enough to release a single server package/patch.
It feels like developing the problem space through examples and situations would be better than trying to think of preferred solutions and working backwards.
It might also be a decent exercise for someone to go through this separately from a consumer protections policy perspective vs a culture preservation perspective, which you mention.
For instance, if the law only applied to corporations that continue to exist past the end of the product, that would be a reasonable consumer protection, but would miss most games that disappear to time from a preservation perspective.
And if preservation is the issue you want to solve, then is this the highest priority in gaming? Maybe this could be solved through a non-profit funding the transitions of server code to the hands of the consumers, or through reverse engineering efforts to rebuild servers for games that have shuttered.
But yeah, it would be nice for this problem to go away, I just hope that attempts at regulating it don't have bad unintended consequences.
It's the question of both though - sure, game preservation aspect is important but it would also be nice for the law to catch up to technology and decide whether companies should have the right to remove your ability to use the product you bought.
If the law would go through in the way envisioned by the campaign, games should be designed and developed in a way that releasing a patch/server software should be possible even for a company at the verge of closing. We're not talking about creating these releases at the last moment but baking their creation into the development process from the start.
At the end of the day all the possible solutions proposed by the campaign are just ideas to give lawmakers some kind of starting point. If this goes anywhere it'll be debated and decided upon by people with far more law and customer protection knowledge than anyone involved in the campaign itself. The important part right now is to bring the issue to someone willing to look into it.
I think your last paragraph highlights exactly how I figured it would work. If you couldn't provide the servers when you ran out of money, it would show you weren't complying with the law when you built it. Remember, online multiplayer games existed for a long time without requiring the use of company servers. The Game Awards' multiplayer game of the year last year is playable via direct IP connection and LAN. Nightingale requires a connection to official servers and was slammed in reviews for not offering the ability for customers to run them themselves like most of Nightingale's competitors do.
So those things are added risks and costs that will have to be factored into deciding which games to fund and which to not.
So it will reduce the number of multiplayer games that get made.
I am a single player gamer so I selfishly am Ok with that, but less Ok with it being handled in a way that could have other unintended consequences.
As an aside, I don't know how these petitions work, but would it be helpful to give concrete examples of software that has had this happen and what your perceived solution to it could be?
Great. It should come at great risk to build a product for customers that's designed to self-destruct. It reduces the number of multiplayer games that we'll be able to play in a decade. Even bad games should be playable indefinitely, but plenty of these are very good games that simply go through the natural ebb and flow of popularity. The solution is to allow me to host the server, connect to a host directly via IP, play over LAN (which means VPNs work too), etc. If you haven't seen the Accursed Farms video, the root of this campaign, you should watch that. He sets the bar pretty low just so we have the absolute minimum. The go-to example for this is The Crew for the purposes of this campaign.
And honestly, I'm pretty regularly on the side of free market, let people do what they want with their money, but even if this didn't bother me because of what this means for preserving the history of an art form, it's become extraordinarily difficult for me, the consumer, to even know what I'm buying. Games with online requirements often hide it in fine print italics in the Steam page; in the case of games like Palworld, that disclaimer is actually wrong, and you can play offline just fine. Games with LAN often don't advertise it on the list of features, and I have to either ask an existing owner of the game about it or hope the developer answers my question in the Steam forums. We need consumer protections for this stuff codified into law.
This proposal doesn't solve any of the issues in your second paragraph, and I wholly agree with you that those should be solved. Those would be much easier to regulate, as truth in advertising is kind of important.
The first paragraph probably feels good to think about, but right now, you don't have any right to any of that. Perhaps start there if it's important to you to change things?
My second paragraph is mostly solved by the first paragraph. If every game lives forever, guaranteed by law, then I hardly have to care, but mostly I was stressing that there's not even a free market solution to this problem. The point of this campaign is to give us these rights, because it's truly stupid that we've gotten away without having them. Perhaps with the right legal challenge in the right country, it will be seen to already violate some consumer protection law currently on the books. That's one of the things we're hoping for, and this campaign is our best shot. I'd strongly encourage you to follow whatever steps on the web site you're able to based on where you live and/or whether or not you own a copy of The Crew.
Not really, it would simply push safer practice and encourage use of open source materials. It would also encourage a push for code standard development and higher quality legislation. If you're going to reveal it, why even use proprietary code? The copywrite still applies in the cases of unauthorized use. Proprietary net code is just to obfuscate data mining and the extent to which security is breached. There's too much profit in multiplayer games for companies to simply give up because they have to work data mining in from another vector.