But what’s his profit motive? He makes mediocre indie games and did some undefined work (probably publicity) at an indie publisher. I don’t see any material change to him financially whichever way the petition goes. He’s kinda popular, but far from a big influencer.
That argument doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.
fear of missing out on profits, if he ever gets his game out.
This doesn’t make much sense. The obligations only kick in once the game gets shut down, so either he makes so much that it doesn’t matter (can keep running the servers for a long time) or it doesn’t sell well and he just releases server binaries and cuts his losses. Even in the worst case (his misunderstanding), releasing server sources isn’t an issue for a failed game, and a small cost to pay for a very lucrative one.
I think he’s just an opinionated guy who sticks with his initial impression, even if it’s wrong, and will oppose anything that sounds inconvenient for game devs (what he sees himself as). That’s sadly really common, people seem to love jumping to conclusions and only really dig in if the easy assumption negatively impacts them.
all the creators that jumped on that particular wagon were dead silent on the initiative in the first place.
Exactly! But honestly, that should be expected because their entire job is to get views.
The only one I kinda like on this subject is Gamers Nexus, because they actually approach it like journalists instead of just reacting to headlines. They’ll interview companies and people to get both sides before making a hit piece. Even then, GN can rub me the wrong way when they pursue something too far.
never understood the appeal…
Same. I watch only a handful:
- FlorryWorry - he’s the best at EU4 and goes deep into the mechanics; I’ve become a much better player from watching his videos
- MTG draft streamers (NumotTheNummy, LSV, NicolaiBolas) - great at explaining plays and picks
- Hikaru Nakamura - chess streamer, second in the world, good at explaining plays
Notice a pattern? I watch people who are better than me at a game so I can learn to be better myself. I don’t watch action game streamers, mostly strategy games.
I’ll occasionally watch YT videos when I either don’t have time to play a game, or I am stuck and need help getting through a section.
9bananas@feddit.org 10 hours ago
I’m afraid that’s a misconception: in most cases the obligations have to be considered during development.
in 95%+ of cases, you can’t “just release the binaries”, because the developers usually don’t own all of their assets/code.
modern coding, and especially game dev, is highly modularized.
you usually don’t build code from the ground up, if there is an existing solution for what you need. (some indie game devs still do that, but it’s usually because there isn’t an existing solution, or not enough budget; it’s not the usual approach)
so for example, you wouldn’t create your own networking solution for a multiplayer game, you’d just use an existing solution.
but because you didn’t write that solution yourself, that part of the code either needs to fall under a license that allows for redistribution, or it has to be removed before you “release the binaries”.
and removing such code after development is a huuuuge headache. this is something that needs to be planned for during development in most cases.
so yeah, there is some upfront cost associated with SKG, mostly in that the new regulations would need some rethinking about how to handle these code modules.
either through new or more open licenses, careful design that allows for the removal of problematic modules before release to the community, etc.
it’s not a big cost, but it is there. and creating new requirements for the code, integrating that into review cycles, testing the removals, and on and on the list goes. it’s mostly a management issue, but it’s by no means trivial.
not that any of this is a deal breaker, but it should be kept in my mind that these new regulations are not entirely free… it’s gonna cause some chaos in the industry. manageable chaos, but all chaos is somewhat expensive, when it comes to industry.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
They should be, but my understanding is that there’s only a penalty if they kill a game without an EOL solution, and what their EOL plans are don’t need to be complete or even stay the same during development. The wording is really flexible here and allows companies a lot of room to explore different options.
If a company can’t redistribute the server code, their options include (and there are probably more):
That’s certainly easier to do at the start, but my understanding is that the obligation only kicks in once the servers are shut down.
And yes, it’s not “free”, but it’s basically free for an indie shop that likely built the server from scratch or used something FOSS. And that describes PS.
9bananas@feddit.org 3 hours ago
yes, that’s pretty much correct.
and i think i misunderstood the part about the obligations only kicking in after service ends; you are right about that.
yeah, there’s a lot of wiggle room; the proposal is pretty generous!