you make one last patch to the game that enables the user to change the address of the servers required (for authentication or whatever).
you release the server for free.
This way you are not losing money (you are not making any either, but that’s why we are here) and the users can install the game and the required components to run it.
The most “challenging” thing you must do, on the server or in the game, is eventually authorized everyone, but I can’t see this as a challenge…
PSN would presumably also have to comply and allow private servers. But even if PSN didn’t cooperate, it would still be a big lap forward for preservation if devs at least released their server only for jailbroken consoles.
That’s easier said than done. The server side software might rely on proprietary software. Releasing the server side software can be a legal licensing nightmare.
Also, the software might make many assumptions about the internal infrastructure setup. For example, it might assume that it has access to a hard coded S3 path. It’s actually a lot of effort to ensure a software can be run on anyone’s computer.
I see you watched PirateSoftware’s video. I encourage you to watch Ross’s response.
TL;DW this isn’t a proposal to make current games or already dead games left in a playable state. The proposal is not retroactive. It’s about the future. In the future, when this law is present, software developers will have to sign licenses that allow them to leave the game in a playable state. That means, they will have to adapt. It was possible before and it can be possible again.
Q: Isn’t what you’re asking for impossible due to existing license agreements publishers have with other companies?
A: 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 effort will have to be included in the development of a game. But can you explain what effort there would be? If you have a server .exe (or whatever) and have to release it. What has to be done? I’m assuming you’re talking about a guide how to run it? Shouldn’t that be part of the internal process already? New employees will also have to know how to run the server, right?
Server side software is rarely ”just an exe”. It involves databases, cron jobs, message queuing, and other internal tooling or cloud infrastructure. All of these must be in place properly for the software to function.
How is it tested locally? There must be a way, right? Developers can’t just be releasing stuff willy nilly to the main system in order to test it, can they?
They probably don’t test the entire server architecture locally. Maybe only a fragment of it, with the rest of the environment either mocked, or against a shared dev environment hosted in the cloud.
As a non-dev, I can’t say if that’s standard, but it doesn’t sound like good practice. Regardless, just like the woman said, GDPR was thought to have mAssIVe cOsTs upon development and business, but in the end companies dealt with it. Companies with insufficient preparation or unwilling to plan to leave the game in a playable state, will have to factor in the costs of not complying.
This issue is about consumer rights and if you’re for “what you buy is what you own”, then being against rendering games unplayable after purchase should be logical.
You are right, licensing could be an issue.
But as others said this is not a retroactive law, so new software must be developed accounting for a “free” redistribution.
Hardcoded paths are just bad practice.
Never said it’s easy, but it’s not that hard. At my job we are required to deploy the whole server infrastructure on-premise, so we only use software with MIT license or something that allows us to distribute to our clients without disclosing the source code. We’ve been doing this for the last 20-ish years, our software accepts easily hundred of thousands of connections and with Docker and similar tech the whole thing can run on standalone PC (with performance limitations of course).
It’s not easy, but it’s doable.
And that it’s all that is required by this proposal.
I’ve been involved in creating an on-premise version of a cloud server. We decided the best approach was just to make it a separate thing with barebones functionality. Just ensuring the client side software could connect to this on-premise solution without crashing was hard work enough.
The thing is that making an on-premise product takes deliberate effort. It’s rarely ”just ship an exe file” (or even ”just ship a docker compose file”)
I believe if this is passed game studios will resort to the same approach my team did - just ship a barebones version of the server side software.
I’m responding to the claim that ”It’s not a challenge” and that the game developers can just ”release the server for free”. It might be doable, but not easy. Especially when there’s a lot of time pressure involved.
Maybe I made it sound too easy because I’m used to do it and I find more challenging to add security features for authentication or to use some licensed libraries 😅 that’s a bias on my part.
Still I am not a good developer, and I have done it.
Even the industry has done it, just look at all the downloadable servers on Steam, some of them even free.
I expected it will not be difficult for experienced developers to comply.
Dev here. It’s not a challenge.
This way you are not losing money (you are not making any either, but that’s why we are here) and the users can install the game and the required components to run it.
The most “challenging” thing you must do, on the server or in the game, is eventually authorized everyone, but I can’t see this as a challenge…
The challenge is convincing c-suite to greenlight the work.
And if people bought a PlayStation game that uses Sony’s PSN servers they’re going to configure and run this how?
PSN would presumably also have to comply and allow private servers. But even if PSN didn’t cooperate, it would still be a big lap forward for preservation if devs at least released their server only for jailbroken consoles.
Just like WoW private servers do? Host their own PSN server.
That’s easier said than done. The server side software might rely on proprietary software. Releasing the server side software can be a legal licensing nightmare.
Also, the software might make many assumptions about the internal infrastructure setup. For example, it might assume that it has access to a hard coded S3 path. It’s actually a lot of effort to ensure a software can be run on anyone’s computer.
I see you watched PirateSoftware’s video. I encourage you to watch Ross’s response.
TL;DW this isn’t a proposal to make current games or already dead games left in a playable state. The proposal is not retroactive. It’s about the future. In the future, when this law is present, software developers will have to sign licenses that allow them to leave the game in a playable state. That means, they will have to adapt. It was possible before and it can be possible again.
Also, read the FAQ
I’m just reacting to the idea that ”releasing server side software for free” is trivial. It’s not. It requires deliberate effort from the engineers.
I’m speaking from experience maintaining server side software. I haven’t watched Pirate Software.
That effort will have to be included in the development of a game. But can you explain what effort there would be? If you have a server .exe (or whatever) and have to release it. What has to be done? I’m assuming you’re talking about a guide how to run it? Shouldn’t that be part of the internal process already? New employees will also have to know how to run the server, right?
Server side software is rarely ”just an exe”. It involves databases, cron jobs, message queuing, and other internal tooling or cloud infrastructure. All of these must be in place properly for the software to function.
How is it tested locally? There must be a way, right? Developers can’t just be releasing stuff willy nilly to the main system in order to test it, can they?
They probably don’t test the entire server architecture locally. Maybe only a fragment of it, with the rest of the environment either mocked, or against a shared dev environment hosted in the cloud.
As a non-dev, I can’t say if that’s standard, but it doesn’t sound like good practice. Regardless, just like the woman said, GDPR was thought to have mAssIVe cOsTs upon development and business, but in the end companies dealt with it. Companies with insufficient preparation or unwilling to plan to leave the game in a playable state, will have to factor in the costs of not complying.
This issue is about consumer rights and if you’re for “what you buy is what you own”, then being against rendering games unplayable after purchase should be logical.
You are right, licensing could be an issue. But as others said this is not a retroactive law, so new software must be developed accounting for a “free” redistribution. Hardcoded paths are just bad practice.
Never said it’s easy, but it’s not that hard. At my job we are required to deploy the whole server infrastructure on-premise, so we only use software with MIT license or something that allows us to distribute to our clients without disclosing the source code. We’ve been doing this for the last 20-ish years, our software accepts easily hundred of thousands of connections and with Docker and similar tech the whole thing can run on standalone PC (with performance limitations of course).
It’s not easy, but it’s doable. And that it’s all that is required by this proposal.
I’ve been involved in creating an on-premise version of a cloud server. We decided the best approach was just to make it a separate thing with barebones functionality. Just ensuring the client side software could connect to this on-premise solution without crashing was hard work enough.
The thing is that making an on-premise product takes deliberate effort. It’s rarely ”just ship an exe file” (or even ”just ship a docker compose file”)
I believe if this is passed game studios will resort to the same approach my team did - just ship a barebones version of the server side software.
And that’s just what is needed, if the game works as it does while supported.
Yes, but it’s still a major challenge.
I’m responding to the claim that ”It’s not a challenge” and that the game developers can just ”release the server for free”. It might be doable, but not easy. Especially when there’s a lot of time pressure involved.
Maybe I made it sound too easy because I’m used to do it and I find more challenging to add security features for authentication or to use some licensed libraries 😅 that’s a bias on my part.
Still I am not a good developer, and I have done it. Even the industry has done it, just look at all the downloadable servers on Steam, some of them even free. I expected it will not be difficult for experienced developers to comply.