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 2 hours 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

▲

roblabla 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Most match-based FPS don't do that anymore, as it's susceptible to DDOS.

We're talking about EOL plans here. You don't have to care about DDOS.

> 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).

I have multiple issues with this framing:

1. We're talking about regulation about _future games_ that haven't been made yet. SKG doesn't want to regulate existing games. So we're not talking about retrofitting an EOL plan on games that already rely on complex backend. If you're planning for it from the get-go, getting an architecture that isn't so cloud-reliant isn't that complicated.

2. Even if we accept the premise that a game _absolutely needed_ a cloud only architecture to function for one reason or another, that doesn't prevent releasing the architecture binaries.

3. Licensed libraries may have redistribution prohibitions _today_, but should EOL regulations come in place, you'd find that those libraries would quickly move to allow redistribution for EOL purposes, as otherwise studios would just _not use them_.

> 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.

AFAICT, Photon Fusion is fully compliant with SKG already - it supports games where one player is the "host" and all comms are P2P. Players can direct connect to one another. While it does work better with a STUN server or with Photon's cloud, they are not *necessary* for the game to function.

Photon's Voice offering might be different, but turning that off for an EOL plan is totally acceptable according to the SKG's wanted regulation - they would fall within the same category of "extra services" that aren't part of the core game.

And _furthermore_, of the three games you cited, I know for sure that PEAK and CW are playable fully offline. I haven't played Gorilla Tag, and I don't think it's worth looking into it. So they're already SKG-compliant even if photon fusion was somehow not.

> Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase".

WoW still has active players in the millions. FF14 has a 25k peak concurrent players in the past 24h. There are other success stories. But sure, it "tanks your playerbase".

▲

throw1093874 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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).

If they're not actually allowed to sell their product, then they shouldn't pretend they're selling it. They should be clear that it's a rental by offering it as a subscription only in that case and thus not be bound by that requirement.

▲

hobofan 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

> > you can just make your game into a service requiring a monthly payment

> Ah, yes the simple option of "completely tank your playerbase".

And gamers at large shouldn't pretend that they are going to be shelling out money for subscriptions. There is a reason that even most MMOs switched away from mandatory subscription pricing (apart from the outlier of WOW), and it's not to make the publishers filthy reach, but often barely viable.

▲

roblabla 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape. That's a lot of outlier I can cite off the top of my head.

	▲	hobofan a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> WoW, FF14, Elder Scrolls: Online, runescape There are in total ~15-30mil paying subscriber that pay subscription feeds to a single game. That's 1% of all gamers globally. But sure, let's slap a $5/month subscription fee on all upcoming games that would have the chance to be the next Among Us / PEAK, and let's see how well that works out for indie developers.