Just imagine how much worse it would have been for sony with Concord in the EU if this law were reality. Flop a game, a live service game no less and then they would have to leave it in a playable state for like a couple hundred people that ever played it in the EU. I don't know how this law would work in this case. Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?

It's really ambiguous how it would or how it would be revised work for games that are multiplayer only.

[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?

Sort of. The Idea is that people should be able to run their own servers, but developers wouldn't need to give out their code. All you need is the server binary. After all server software is just that software, just like the client and they don't need to give out the source code for that for you to run the game. Alternatively they could patch the game so it's peer-to-peer. (and yes in this case that would be unreasonable as the game is not successful enough to even break even)

The initiative is so ambiguous (to the extend that it is - I'd argue that it's a lot clearer than many people claim) because it's not actually legal text. It's not supposed to be. All it should do is describe the problem and explain why the problem falls under EU jurisdiction. Everything else is supposed to be handled by EU lawmakers after the initiative has met it's signature goal.

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the idea is more that if this were in place companies like Sony would be more incentivized to make sure they release games worth buying and playing, because if they didn't then they would have the financial burden of keeping them alive.

Side note: it doesn't require constant support from the developers. Just update it so players can run local servers, then it would technically still be playable. Of course I'm not a game dev so I'm sure thats more complicated than I'm making it sound, so that's again why they should focus on making games that are good to begin with.

[–] osprior@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think in Sony's case a reasonable alternative is to just refund, which is what they're doing anyways. There's no way a full refund would not be considered a true option, so I think the Concord side is a bit irrelevant to the primary issue of server owners shutting down servers for old games and keeping the money.

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That's fair, I just think it's insane that we've gotten to this point in the first place.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Literally how would this change anything? Nobody played the game because it's bad. Everyone who bought it got a refund. Why would you want a law forcing them to give people a game they don't want?

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because it would apply to games people do want

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you give an example? Every time I ask for examples I get a list of games like Concord. A bunch of failed launches nobody has heard of.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Off the top of my head not really, but I just woke up

But there's this magic way to learn about stuff called "looking it up" you can try! I recommend the people the post is talking about, you're obviously really poorly informed on the topic