Addressing Pirate Software's concerns with Stop Killing Games

[Holobrine]

Needless to say, Jason Thor Hall of Pirate Software has been critical of Stop Killing Games. Regardless, he has also been specific in why he will not support the cause, which makes it possible for us to refine what we are calling for.

 

Hall cites the difficulties that online only multiplayer games will have with complying with current letter of the law as written. Upon closing their servers, such games will be made immediately unplayable, which would be in violation. This would be a poor situation for those games currently in operation.

 

The spirit of the law, however, is that these games should not become permanently unplayable. We can modify our call such that for online only multiplayer games, we stipulate that when they decide to stop maintenance, they must release usable server software under open source licenses. This will enable other entities to run their own servers, making these games playable once again. While it may require game studios to expend a little more to produce server software they feel comfortable releasing, it is still possible and will incentivize them to architect future games to make this End Of Life release easier.

 

With this modification, the concerns of Jason Thor Hall should be sufficiently addressed.

 

Is this something we can add to the website?

[Deep Dive Devin]

The site already has an FAQ that addresses most of his false impressions. The real problem is that he's spread misinformation that will proliferate beyond him, and I don't think there's anything that can go on the site to stop that.

[Holobrine]

Is the man who usually encourages people to read things more thoroughly only forming his opinion off the front page? Well that's profoundly disappointing.

[JumJum]

To be fair to Thor, the initiative put up to the EU does not direct to the FAQ - you'd have to actually care about Ross in particular to seek out his FAQ on the subject. And the EU initiative starting from a vague position instead of a specific position is not really a good place to start.

 

With the benefit of hindsight, I'd have personally tweaked the language to target the specific business practice we all have an issue with (games being arbitrarily turned into services in order to yank them away from you later, and whether a game is a service or purchase not being communicated at all), rather than simply demanding something as (legally) nebulous as requiring games be left in a "playable state".

For instance, while the initiative does make mention of games requiring a "phone home" to function, it makes no distinction between: Those where the core gameplay requires such a function; those which only contain certain components which require such a phone home; or those which do not require it at all but simply use it as cheap and sloppy DRM. Structurally the approach the initiative takes is kind of sloppy and unless politicians actually care about the topic, it'd result in draconian legislation that would actively harm multiplayer gaming rather than preserve it (assuming they take it at face value).

 

I don't think adding stuff to the website in particular is the solution, I think what would be needed to address Thor's concerns is a fundamental change in messaging and approach to the core issue.

Edited August 9 by JumJum (see edit history)