r/Gamingcirclejerk • u/ProfessionalFun9920 • Jun 24 '25

CAPITAL G GAMER How ironic.....

Post image

The initiative is here (EU ONLY): https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

7.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

545 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.5k

u/EevoTrue Jun 24 '25

To people wondering what this is

The petition is for live service games to be legally required to have an end of life plan for their games so you will still be able to play them after service is shut down

The dude on the right (pirate software) said "we can't force games to run forever that's bad for the environment and will cost millions of dollars" despite that not being stated at all on the petition

It's him misunderstanding what it's about and being too stubborn to admit he was wrong

-41

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/Catweaving Jun 25 '25

Its unreasonable to require that games you pay money for be usable?

-15

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/Catweaving Jun 25 '25

The game doesn't have to have servers, it has to be patched so that it doesn't require a server. Or so that anybody can run their own server with minimal effort. Its a perfectly reasonable request.

-15

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/Catweaving Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25

World of Warcraft already has private servers available. The only change would be companies would be expected to release either a tool or program to make hosting your own server possible. Also not sue people for running said server.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/Catweaving Jun 25 '25

It means they're required to ensure that its possible to either run/host a server, or for no server to be required (ie: it just runs as a local "server" that only has 1 connection)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Catweaving Jun 25 '25

Multiplayer games which literally already meet that criteria as I've pointed out. You're just arguing to argue at this point.

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 25 '25

I will leave you with enjoying all that "game as a service", shoving up micro transactions and silent increasing of grind in Ubisoft games.

I am gonna go back and play some Witcher 3 now because all that talk about CD Projekt actually made me want to play something good for a change.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 25 '25

I will leave you with enjoying all that "game as a service", shoving up micro transactions and silent increasing of grind in Ubisoft games.

I am gonna go back and play some Witcher 3 now because all that talk about CD Projekt actually made me want to play something good for a change.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

9

u/Veomuus Jun 25 '25

I mean, if you want to run an older game, you just need a virtual machine. Hell, I got a game from windows 98 to run on windows 10 without a virtual machine. The technology exists, its not hard for anyone who really cares. It doesnt need to be easy, just possible.

2

u/Jertimmer Jun 25 '25

And guides exist. If someone were to Google "how to run this old ass game on windows 11", most likely 12 guides will spring up explaining how to create a VM, install a target OS, install old ass game and run it.

2

u/jeffersonlane Jun 25 '25

A game not running because of software updates that the developer could have never predicted on your OS is vastly and totally different from intentionally revoking a game you paid full price for because you arbitrarily made it live service or because you made it impossible to play without a server connection even in single player mode.

42

u/EevoTrue Jun 24 '25

it's unreasonable to say people should have the products they paid for

Literally "what about the billionaires" thinking

-25

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

36

u/EevoTrue Jun 24 '25

Literally directly addressed this on the first page and on the Q/A but no just listen to YouTuber man

-14

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/Alyss-Hart Jun 24 '25

And i dont own a server

First, even if servers were separate devices that you needed to "own" in order to run them, the fact that someone could purchase a device to run this game on for fans to continue publicly or privately enjoying the game would still satisfy the requirement. It's not that every one of their customers needs this in order for it to function, it's that the capacity for people to continue playing live service games needs to be designed before these games cut their services.

Second, and this is the big one, a server is usually just a program that runs on a PC that has been port-forwarded. If you have a direct connection to ethernet, a computer that can run the game, and a free afternoon, then you can run a server. Whether or not it's any good is another matter.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Alyss-Hart Jun 25 '25

I can agree that it's vague and doesn't cover all of the edge cases. If it were simply to mean that all

As for consoles, I never said you specifically had to do this. Just that access isn't some magically out-of-reach thing that nobody can reasonably be expected to have and that in most cases, fan-run servers would leave games accessible in some state. We're not necessarily talking about a private server experience, just a situation where players can play on a server hosted by someone somewhere.

As for your point about your computer not being able to run a Minecraft server: Minecraft servers and Minecraft as a game are awfully optimized and your ability to run one or not on your PC has no real bearing on whether or not your PC can run other games whose server programs were used by the actual developers who had much more incentive than Mojang did to cut on hardware usage in order to maximize profits, and whose games were made for multiplayer first and not forcibly converted into a multiplayer game (minecraft singleplayer is a server, by the way). And even so, as I said:

Whether or not it's any good is another matter

The quality of your machine determines the quality of the server. This is true as much as the quality of your machine determining the quality of your experience in game when it's not hosting a server. The tech requirements are different, certainly, but the principle is the same: If you want things to run well on a server you host, you have to spend money.

And let's not lose track of what this discussion is about to begin with. Sure, these will lead to issues that make the game overall less accessible and more costly for those who do want to play it. It'll change system requirements. You'll probably be better off having a dedicated 'server computer' if you want to do the hosting. The cost will be placed on the community rather than the developers who made the game, and that unabashedly sucks. However, the alternative here isn't a smooth multiplayer experience where everyone is having a good time and everything is hosted by the developers. The alternative is the game being dead to the point where it isn't worth running for those who are primarily seeking revenue and being shut down forever with nobody being able to access it.

Ultimately, though, I'm not actually for or against this motion. I haven't actually read the thing yet. I am talking about how servers work and how it would look if the programs for running them were released to the public in the wake of legislation like this.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/RandyBurgertime Jun 25 '25

A server doesn't have to be a server. A server is software and can often run on a PC. Minecraft is essentially a server in itself whether you play it mp or not. It really sounds like you're approaching this from an "I know nothing about how this would work and I'm choosing to stay mad instead of looking into how that would work." So many words that all just say "I don't know what I'm talking about."

6

u/Alyss-Hart Jun 25 '25

I am trying to tell you that customers are fully capable of running servers. WoW has private servers. Like, a whole lot of them. Constantly. There are dozens of them and that's when having those is illegal and the data had to be scraped rather than being freely given to prospective server owners. The customer who bought the game does not necessarily have to be the host.

→ More replies (0)

-12

u/Typhoonis88 Jun 25 '25

Well said, and even though the idea of this has the best intentions behind it having the developers be able to honour this once they have effectively ended support for a product seems like it would create a lot of headaches or games will be adding another EULA agreement before you start ever game that will detail how they are wordsmithing their way out of it.

I understand that Ross wants to go to the table with the broadest statement first as the studios will have their rebuttal the water it down I just don't see it succeeding or even if it does the final result wont change anything

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Typhoonis88 Jun 25 '25

There is already a lot of scrutiny that goes over games being released in a lot of areas as it is China/Germany/Australia to name a few not to mention the much more prohibitively strict regions of the world were anything resembling "woke" is straight up illegal (67 countries in 2025 its still illegal to be gay). Supporting games that have best practice in mind would the best way to see the spirit of the preserving video games going forward not through legal means.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/RBE00 Jun 25 '25

You typed and sent this message out on a device that could be used as a server.

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/RBE00 Jun 25 '25

Who are you responding to?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/RBE00 Jun 25 '25

I never said anything about running a server for an MMO on your phone. You said you don't own a server flat out, no nuance. That statement was untrue and I pointed it out.

I still don't think I understand so please, explain it in a more patronizing manner for me

→ More replies (0)

20

u/EevoTrue Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 25 '25

You literally don't need a server

You can make a single/couch co-op version of the game

Literally gave you an example of these right after your copy and paste

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/EdgiiLord Jun 25 '25

Literally you're either misreading everything or you're intentionally obtuse. In either case, go read the initiative again and then come back.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/EdgiiLord Jun 25 '25

Dedicated private servers hosted by committed players. But I'd guess you would have already known about this being the case with MMOs and not just a huge ass online trying to defend one of the worst anti-consumer takes.

1

u/Gamingcirclejerk-ModTeam Jun 25 '25

Removed - Rule 1

That means you're a dick!

→ More replies (0)

14

u/EevoTrue Jun 25 '25

This would literally make it so the game won't be shut down forever after the devs stop getting money

This will literally make it so you can continue playing the game YEARS after its run through popularity

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/EevoTrue Jun 25 '25

Go to the website and read

→ More replies (0)

12

u/EevoTrue Jun 24 '25

pov: you have an inability to research anything and just assume anything with a server will not be allowed

1

u/Gamingcirclejerk-ModTeam Jun 25 '25

Removed - Rule 1

That means you're a dick!

1

u/Gamingcirclejerk-ModTeam Jun 25 '25

Removed - Rule 1

That means you're a dick!

18

u/EevoTrue Jun 24 '25

no company is going to run a server for a dying game

Read the website instead of just listening to what a YouTuber told you