wrong, the commission did discuss with SKG, but the entire group had their head in the sand when reasonable people asked SKG to respect technical reality and resubmit a better, reality-focused proposal as SKG 2.0. They ban anyone not in their echo chamber.

▲

Farbklex 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The technical reality is: - that singel player games don't need a persistent online connection - that it is not that complicated if you develop your game with offline playability in mind from the beginning - multiplayer games can very well have an offline playable LAN mode (Age of Empires 2 is currently sold as "Definitive Edition" which does not work offline in LAN unless you connect to Xbox online services first)

The gaming industry did way too much stupid shit in the last few years and just needs to take it a notch back.

▲

danieltanfh95 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> develop your game with offline playability in mind from the beginning

> players churn on their own without social features

you say one thing but the market votes the other way. Game developers are under pressure to turn a profit. If you want a game your way, develop them yourself! Thats how I started making games for myself. Projecting or pressuring others to do so yield no productive consequence.

▲

hobofan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> multiplayer games can very well have an offline playable LAN mode

_some_ multiplayer games can, many can't, as they are using a cloud-based multiplayer backend that isn't easily replaceable (see other discussions in this thread). SKG makes no effort to address those differences.

▲

roblabla an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't understand your argument. SKG specifically excludes:

- Existing games (they only aim to have regulation for newer game, as existing games may be locked into technical choices like a cloud based multiplayer backend that can't be replaced)

- Non live-service games (ergo games where you have a monthly subscription of some kind, which makes it obvious you're "renting" the game for a limited time).

Within these confines, it seems _very obvious_ to me that you can design just about any multiplayer game in a way that's compatible with SKG's desired regulations. In the vast majority of multiplayer games, you can:

- Provide a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that. Too many examples to cite.)

- Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers (Many survival games, or games with a persistent world, can do that. See v-rising for a recent example.)

- Provide a local multiplayer mode (split screen/couch coop style)

And if you don't want to go through any of that for [insert reason here], you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment like WoW and you're no longer subject to the regulation!

Now, please give me an example of a game that doesn't fit within that framework if you want to continue this argument.

	▲	hobofan 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> a LAN multiplayer mode (most match-based FPS/strategy games can do that Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS. Whether a LAN-like mode is otherwise still feasible/acceptable by todays game quality standards is debatable. > Provide server binaries for self-hosted servers This is only feasible if the multiplayer backend is a simple server binary, which in many cases it's not anymore, but a full cloud architecture you would find for any SaaS app. There additionally is the issue of licensed libraries, which may prohibit redistribution of the server binaries (and may e.g. be bound to a per-host pricing). > Now, please give me an example of a game that doesn't fit within that framework if you want to continue this argument. Take your pick from[0] or a competitors website: PEAK, Content Warning, Gorilla Tag; All games from indie developers that heavily rely on good networking that wouldn't be feasible to be replaced. > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase". [0]: https://www.photonengine.com

▲

skotobaza 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The commission was talking with the game industry much more than with the initiative, which opened a clear way for the industry to misrepresent the initiative with phrases like "endless support" which nobody demands.

▲

ozlikethewizard 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The technical reality is peer to peer multiplayer has existed for decades, and if indie studios can manage both then AAA games certainly can. Single player always online need not even enter the conversation. No point engaging with bad faith arguments to the contrary.