• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2025

help-circle



  • Well, if you had been here since the start you’d know that Ross started SKG by having multiple petitions around the globe. The EU initiative is one the last (if not the last) petition he pushed for. For Australia and Canada the ship already sailed, Australia said no and Canada gave a roundabout no. Ross didn’t even try in the US because the US is such a lost cause there’s nothing to even petition for. I don’t remember what happened with Brazil but it was on Ross’s radar. Most other countries would simply be too small to have an impact on the global scale. Which is why the last two bastions left are the UK and the EU, because the haven’t said outright “No” yet and they’re big enough to influence the market. The rest of the world has to wait because the other influential parts of the world have already failed.

    As for a boycott, you’re free to start organizing one. I see that as a lost cause. If we can barely get 1 million Europeans to do the bare minimum of signing one petition I don’t see how you’re going to get 10+ million people across the globe to do more than the bare minimum for who knows how long. Boycotts don’t work because 99% of gamers do not give a fuck. I’ve seen different groups of people boycott Ubisoft for 20 years now and I personally had boycotted them for about a decade, it had no impact as Ubisoft made even more profits despite the different boycotts. Modern Warfare 2 boycott had no impact on the removal of dedicated servers. People even boycotted Valve when Steam launched and that did nothing. Boycotts have only had very limited consumer rights successes in individual games, like EA removing pay to win mechanics from Battlefront 2. Meanwhile Australia ended up made Steam to offer refunds to everyone and Belgium and Netherlands restrictions on lootboxes has noticeably reduced their usage in games.

    You’re free to prove to me wrong but government actions end up being far more successful than boycotts.






  • There probably isn’t a central database to verify against so the solution would be to come up with a distributed system where each country implements its own verification process and then implement a standardized messaging structure that all countries would have to use. It would be a significant development effort to make something like that and it probably wouldn’t pay off to if it was made just for citizens initiative. Considering in the last 5 years there has been only 4 (5 if we also count SKG) initiatives that have passed 1 mil it’s probably cheaper to collect all the signatures and then have each country verify the dataset that relates to their country.









  • I think it mostly revolves around how you get 100 players together for a good game. The match making part.

    This part is not really what the initiative is about. The initiative can’t guarantee you’ll be able to find 100 other people to play with. Even matchmaking (unless it’s somehow made integral to the game) is not really relevant to the initiative. What the initiative is concerned with is preservation of games. To give a specific example, if you’re able to organize 100 people to play the same game the initiative wants you to have the technical capability to set up the game for 100 people. And to give a more real life example, Anthem is shutting down at the start of 2026. That means if me and my 2 friends get nostalgic and want to play Anthem in 2027 we literally cannot, the game won’t run. But if what SKG wants to achieve would be a reality right now then EA would have to have a way for me to set up whatever is necessary for me and my 2 friends to play Anthem together, be it some kind of server binary or P2P solution or source code or whatever, doesn’t matter how the company wants to solve this as long as it works. That’s what SKG is about.

    My initial question in this thread framed changing the game design, not networking stack. So it was about making it all local/same screen only. An absurd example on purpose.

    SKG isn’t saying companies should make BR-s local/split screen. It’s only concerned with keeping games in a playable state. SKG doesn’t alter the game design unless the technical stack required to keep the game running is somehow integral to the design of the game. SKG deliberately leave the “how a game should be preserved” open so publishers/developers could preserve games how they see fit. If the publishers/developers want to rip out the multiplayer and replace it with local/split screen that’s how they’ve decided to preserve their game. That is not really criticism of SKG, that’s just a bad faith argument that can be made only because SKG isn’t as restrictive as people claim it to be.

    And specifically in your example the design of a BR game does not need to change at all because the only thing preventing some BR-s from being preserved is the fact that you cannot set up your own servers.