technokater wrote on 2024-04-27, 22:25:

Especially with bigger companies, they often use middleware or licensed assets for which they do not have the right to publish it outside of what contractually has been agreed on. For example, id Software had to change some stuff before releasing Doom 3 source code due to use of licensed technology. So even if you want to release something, your third-party licenses might prohibit doing so.

Oh, that's very true, and even the original Doom source code could not be released as it is because of the DMX library that was still proprietary. But that hasn't deterred id Software, or other companies that followed suit, from releasing the code, even if it was missing something. It's still of huge value for the fans, and licensed third-party code components usually have nothing to do with the game itself, it's more about sound or video output, codecs and that sort of thing -- which can be replaced with libre components.

I know not of any example where the source code release was completely impossible because the game relied on third-party code.

dr_st wrote on 2024-04-28, 06:48:

You might want to do something nice to the fans, and then realize that to avoid putting yourself in legal jeopardy, you have to jump through tons of hoops, spend time and money on getting all your intermediate licenses in order, and/or cutting out content from the release - and all this for something that will not make you any money at all.

That's why I generally stopped caring (with just a handful of exceptions) about stuff that is not open source nor at least free-for-keeps without strings attached. I do use Steam, but I keep in mind that the games I have there might disappear without a trace at any given moment.

Moreover, it is my personal conviction that supporting FOSS, freeware and DRM-free developers and publishers is the way to go, rather than expecting that regulator intervention will somehow solve the problem of publishers discontinuing their games and taking them entirely away from players.

That said, there are counter-examples as well. It is my understanding that Microsoft gave the fans their approval to continue working on Age of Empires Online after it was officially discontinued, and I believe gave them the source code to work upon (although I'm not sure if it is public). There might be other examples of this kind that I am unaware of.

MrFlibble wrote on 2024-04-28, 13:10:

Oh, that's very true, and even the original Doom source code could not be released as it is because of the DMX library that was […]
Show full quote

technokater wrote on 2024-04-27, 22:25:

Especially with bigger companies, they often use middleware or licensed assets for which they do not have the right to publish it outside of what contractually has been agreed on. For example, id Software had to change some stuff before releasing Doom 3 source code due to use of licensed technology. So even if you want to release something, your third-party licenses might prohibit doing so.

Oh, that's very true, and even the original Doom source code could not be released as it is because of the DMX library that was still proprietary. But that hasn't deterred id Software, or other companies that followed suit, from releasing the code, even if it was missing something. It's still of huge value for the fans, and licensed third-party code components usually have nothing to do with the game itself, it's more about sound or video output, codecs and that sort of thing -- which can be replaced with libre components.

I know not of any example where the source code release was completely impossible because the game relied on third-party code.

dr_st wrote on 2024-04-28, 06:48:

You might want to do something nice to the fans, and then realize that to avoid putting yourself in legal jeopardy, you have to jump through tons of hoops, spend time and money on getting all your intermediate licenses in order, and/or cutting out content from the release - and all this for something that will not make you any money at all.

That's why I generally stopped caring (with just a handful of exceptions) about stuff that is not open source nor at least free-for-keeps without strings attached. I do use Steam, but I keep in mind that the games I have there might disappear without a trace at any given moment.

Moreover, it is my personal conviction that supporting FOSS, freeware and DRM-free developers and publishers is the way to go, rather than expecting that regulator intervention will somehow solve the problem of publishers discontinuing their games and taking them entirely away from players.

That said, there are counter-examples as well. It is my understanding that Microsoft gave the fans their approval to continue working on Age of Empires Online after it was officially discontinued, and I believe gave them the source code to work upon (although I'm not sure if it is public). There might be other examples of this kind that I am unaware of.

last i heard the source to AOEO was source available not open. But when you have companies buying other companies or companies go public you the consumer loose all control of the media you paid for because of rampant updates and well no leg to stand on when it comes to lawsuits enforcing the terms of service due to mandatory arbitration which of course is pennies on the dollar if you actually win and no real recourse for the company to hold itself accountable.

MrFlibble wrote on 2024-04-28, 13:10:

That's why I generally stopped caring (with just a handful of exceptions) about stuff that is not open source nor at least free-for-keeps without strings attached. I do use Steam, but I keep in mind that the games I have there might disappear without a trace at any given moment.

Moreover, it is my personal conviction that supporting FOSS, freeware and DRM-free developers and publishers is the way to go, rather than expecting that regulator intervention will somehow solve the problem of publishers discontinuing their games and taking them entirely away from players.

Absolutely. I only buy digital stuff from GOG, and happy doing so. The only things in my Uplay/Steam accounts are games I got as freebies or some physical copies I activated online for purposes of research. For these, I have offline cracks, in case Ubisoft/Valve decide to deactivate the games or their services.

dr_st wrote on 2024-04-28, 14:01:

MrFlibble wrote on 2024-04-28, 13:10:

That's why I generally stopped caring (with just a handful of exceptions) about stuff that is not open source nor at least free-for-keeps without strings attached. I do use Steam, but I keep in mind that the games I have there might disappear without a trace at any given moment.

Moreover, it is my personal conviction that supporting FOSS, freeware and DRM-free developers and publishers is the way to go, rather than expecting that regulator intervention will somehow solve the problem of publishers discontinuing their games and taking them entirely away from players.

Absolutely. I only buy digital stuff from GOG, and happy doing so. The only things in my Uplay/Steam accounts are games I got as freebies or some physical copies I activated online for purposes of research. For these, I have offline cracks, in case Ubisoft/Valve decide to deactivate the games or their services.

some of the games on steam are drm free, though on uplay/origin/epic some are drm free as well but those are either running in dosbox or drm free files which you can set up a virtualbox vm if you just buy a copy of windows xp/2000/9x/7/10/11 etc. sorry

when the game requires some code to run online though, what then? i don't just mean networking to allow multiplayer i mean some content too, something which the game genuinely needs to function

games seem to be slowly heading towards a point where some, then almost all, the code execution will be happening at the server not on the console, which will increasingly serve as input/output device only

imagine an eventual game which is served up online and "streamed" to you as interactive content (its being partly 'generated' on the fly too). What is the game then and how would a gamer do anything other than be renting it, there would be no way to 'hack' or otherwise capture the code and no way to make it a gog-like download later on. it would finally be over wouldn't it?

gerry wrote on 2024-04-28, 20:06:

when the game requires some code to run online though, what then? i don't just mean networking to allow multiplayer i mean some content too, something which the game genuinely needs to function

games seem to be slowly heading towards a point where some, then almost all, the code execution will be happening at the server not on the console, which will increasingly serve as input/output device only

imagine an eventual game which is served up online and "streamed" to you as interactive content (its being partly 'generated' on the fly too). What is the game then and how would a gamer do anything other than be renting it, there would be no way to 'hack' or otherwise capture the code and no way to make it a gog-like download later on. it would finally be over wouldn't it?

google stadia and amazon luna come to mind

twiz11 wrote on 2024-04-28, 23:09:

gerry wrote on 2024-04-28, 20:06:

when the game requires some code to run online though, what then? i don't just mean networking to allow multiplayer i mean some content too, something which the game genuinely needs to function

games seem to be slowly heading towards a point where some, then almost all, the code execution will be happening at the server not on the console, which will increasingly serve as input/output device only

imagine an eventual game which is served up online and "streamed" to you as interactive content (its being partly 'generated' on the fly too). What is the game then and how would a gamer do anything other than be renting it, there would be no way to 'hack' or otherwise capture the code and no way to make it a gog-like download later on. it would finally be over wouldn't it?

google stadia and amazon luna come to mind

Well Stadia was a flop and I haven't heard much of a buzz surrounding Luna. Personally, I can't say that I'm that excited about cloud gaming. In Canada, fast internet still costs a premium and neither GeForce NOW nor Xbox Cloud Gaming have worked particularly well on my connection.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-04-28, 23:53:

twiz11 wrote on 2024-04-28, 23:09:

gerry wrote on 2024-04-28, 20:06:

when the game requires some code to run online though, what then? i don't just mean networking to allow multiplayer i mean some content too, something which the game genuinely needs to function

games seem to be slowly heading towards a point where some, then almost all, the code execution will be happening at the server not on the console, which will increasingly serve as input/output device only

imagine an eventual game which is served up online and "streamed" to you as interactive content (its being partly 'generated' on the fly too). What is the game then and how would a gamer do anything other than be renting it, there would be no way to 'hack' or otherwise capture the code and no way to make it a gog-like download later on. it would finally be over wouldn't it?

google stadia and amazon luna come to mind

Well Stadia was a flop and I haven't heard much of a buzz surrounding Luna. Personally, I can't say that I'm that excited about cloud gaming. In Canada, fast internet still costs a premium and neither GeForce NOW nor Xbox Cloud Gaming have worked particularly well on my connection.

yea cloud gaming is relying on stuff out of your control. that and well electricity costs i mean its not guaranteed alot of uptime, unless you use geothermal energy and or human powered pc. or battery backups like UPSes

twiz11 wrote on 2024-04-29, 01:04:

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-04-28, 23:53:

twiz11 wrote on 2024-04-28, 23:09:

google stadia and amazon luna come to mind

Well Stadia was a flop and I haven't heard much of a buzz surrounding Luna. Personally, I can't say that I'm that excited about cloud gaming. In Canada, fast internet still costs a premium and neither GeForce NOW nor Xbox Cloud Gaming have worked particularly well on my connection.

yea cloud gaming is relying on stuff out of your control. that and well electricity costs i mean its not guaranteed alot of uptime, unless you use geothermal energy and or human powered pc. or battery backups like UPSes

Wouldn't the electricity costs be less of a barrier for cloud gaming? If most of the heavy duty computational work is done by the cloud provider, then you wouldn't need a high end computer locally. Given that the electricity costs for cloud provider could be lower due to the economy of scale, I don't think that as much of these costs would be passed on to the consumer.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-04-29, 01:28:

twiz11 wrote on 2024-04-29, 01:04:

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-04-28, 23:53:

Well Stadia was a flop and I haven't heard much of a buzz surrounding Luna. Personally, I can't say that I'm that excited about cloud gaming. In Canada, fast internet still costs a premium and neither GeForce NOW nor Xbox Cloud Gaming have worked particularly well on my connection.

yea cloud gaming is relying on stuff out of your control. that and well electricity costs i mean its not guaranteed alot of uptime, unless you use geothermal energy and or human powered pc. or battery backups like UPSes

Wouldn't the electricity costs be less of a barrier for cloud gaming? If most of the heavy duty computational work is done by the cloud provider, then you wouldn't need a high end computer locally. Given that the electricity costs for cloud provider could be lower due to the economy of scale, I don't think that as much of these costs would be passed on to the consumer.

Yes true if possible you could use thin clients with a big game server at a LAN party or something ah esports no no. In fact IDK anymore something gotta give.

Maybe vr or ar I could see

No no it's SimCity all over again like cloud computing

It sounds great to try as a rental or lease games game fly
But there's always fps via post mail hehe.
Even 4x games could be played by email

gerry wrote on 2024-04-28, 20:06:

imagine an eventual game which is served up online and "streamed" to you as interactive content (its being partly 'generated' on the fly too). What is the game then and how would a gamer do anything other than be renting it, there would be no way to 'hack' or otherwise capture the code and no way to make it a gog-like download later on. it would finally be over wouldn't it?

Trends come and go. If and when what you've described becomes reality - it will be the mainstream for a while, until someone comes up with the revolutionary idea of a game that you buy once and then play on your system, offline, indefinitely.

One additional advantage of physical copies vs. digital releases is that you can play a physical game as it shipped at launch, if you so desire.

Some games change quite a bit with subsequent patches, while others may lose certain features or even audio tracks because of licensing issues. See the GTA San Andreas update controversy for an example of the latter.

dr_st wrote on 2024-04-29, 06:29:

gerry wrote on 2024-04-28, 20:06:

imagine an eventual game which is served up online and "streamed" to you as interactive content (its being partly 'generated' on the fly too). What is the game then and how would a gamer do anything other than be renting it, there would be no way to 'hack' or otherwise capture the code and no way to make it a gog-like download later on. it would finally be over wouldn't it?

Trends come and go. If and when what you've described becomes reality - it will be the mainstream for a while, until someone comes up with the revolutionary idea of a game that you buy once and then play on your system, offline, indefinitely.

I'm not sure that would happen any more than we'd go back to dumb phones in telephony. it doesn't look like a cyclical market but a one directional market. there could be niche markets that are big enough though, like there is for dumb phones, record players and so on, but nothing as the dominant mainstream.

think of a generation of gamers, already born, who will get used to and think of games only as being online and who will expect almost any game to have multiplayer, increasingly (ai) generated environments, new features constantly added (not bounded by the limits of the console). Games not only will be different for different gamers (with ai responding to the player) but no definitive game versions will exist, everything will be in constant change

by making a console an input/output device it also makes it cheaper, no need for powerful cpu or gpu if its all done in a game computing centre and streamed (to what, flat screens, curved-surround screens, vr devices, 3d projected images or a combination of all). that requires some pretty quick internet speed and low latency so i dont see it as imminent, but not far away either. future gamers may even subscribe the services with libraries of games, a netflix of games.

i don't even think of this as some far off unlikely sci-fi scenario, more where the trends are pointing to in a relatively short number of years

I hate to say it but I gave up on games a LONG time ago - when it got to where you could no longer just but a disk in a store and install it (without an internet connection or some kind of account)

I HATE this whole subscription movement

ncmark wrote on 2024-04-30, 22:24:

I hate to say it but I gave up on games a LONG time ago - when it got to where you could no longer just but a disk in a store and install it (without an internet connection or some kind of account)

I HATE this whole subscription movement

I hate subscriptions for individual games or software (looking at you Adobe), but I actually really like Xbox Game Pass. It's far cheaper than buying games and I rarely replay any newer games, so I'm not really missing out by not owning them. For anything retro, I'd rather own it though.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-04-30, 22:53:

I hate subscriptions for individual games or software (looking at you Adobe), but I actually really like Xbox Game Pass. It's far cheaper than buying games and I rarely replay any newer games, so I'm not really missing out by not owning them. For anything retro, I'd rather own it though.

Game Pass is a carrot on a stick. The wedge strategy of the gaming market. The slippery slope. It's to make you accept not owning games and fully embrace them turning into a subscription service. Now it's just an alternative. In the future if it grows enough in populatity, market paces will stop selling individual game licenses. That's exactly what happened when distribution moved from physical to digital.

I'm not OK with not owning anything that holds value to me. If something is completely viable as a product, don't turn it into a service.

RandomStranger wrote on 2024-05-01, 05:17:

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-04-30, 22:53:

I hate subscriptions for individual games or software (looking at you Adobe), but I actually really like Xbox Game Pass. It's far cheaper than buying games and I rarely replay any newer games, so I'm not really missing out by not owning them. For anything retro, I'd rather own it though.

Game Pass is a carrot on a stick. The wedge strategy of the gaming market. The slippery slope. It's to make you accept not owning games and fully embrace them turning into a subscription service. Now it's just an alternative. In the future if it grows enough in populatity, market paces will stop selling individual game licenses. That's exactly what happened when distribution moved from physical to digital.

I'm not OK with not owning anything that holds value to me. If something is completely viable as a product, don't turn it into a service.

I have no idea what this would be related to some creationist wedge strategy that you linked. That aside, I don't think there is any reason to believe that this would cause the entire market to switch to subscription services. At worst, this would apply to the AAA games and even then, it would probably only apply to the latest releases. I would care less, as I strongly prefer indie games where it wouldn't make sense to use a subscription model. How many gamers would be willing to sign up for a subscription to an unknown and unproven indie game team? Also, indie games are a lot cheaper to begin with. Instead of paying $10 once, would gamers be expected to pay a monthly subscription for a short single player game that lasts a few hours? A subscription service would only work for games whose rights are controlled by a single company or for a small group of companies that all agreed to switch over to a subscription model. Neither of these apply to indies, which are usually self published.

Steam is by far the biggest platform for PC gaming and they are making a killing off of the current business model. What incentives would there be for them to switch to a subscription model? How would that even work? Think of how many different publishers and self published games are on Steam. Could Valve get enough of them onboard for a subscription service?

Game Pass is analogous to Netflix and other streaming services. While streaming has been a huge success, people can still buy movies if they want their own copy.

I agree with the Netflix comparison. Given that most games of companies offering a subscription model would required online DRM anyway, you don't own anything there either. And to be honest, I usually play a game once. The times where I played a game multiple times have passed, as the overall gameplay quality of the majority of games has plummeted. So why pay full price for something that I touch only once and be like meh? I actually think that this might hurt companies in the long run. Game production is getting more and more expensive (which is a problem on its own), and having people getting a one-month 15 € subscription to play a specific new game doesn't look sustainable to me. I think Xbox game pass might be a bit more safe here because you can use it on your Xbox for online services too, so people might keep it even if they are not playing that much.

technokater wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:29:

I agree with the Netflix comparison. Given that most games of companies offering a subscription model would required online DRM anyway, you don't own anything there either. And to be honest, I usually play a game once. The times where I played a game multiple times have passed, as the overall gameplay quality of the majority of games has plummeted. So why pay full price for something that I touch only once and be like meh? I actually think that this might hurt companies in the long run. Game production is getting more and more expensive (which is a problem on its own), and having people getting a one-month 15 € subscription to play a specific new game doesn't look sustainable to me. I think Xbox game pass might be a bit more safe here because you can use it on your Xbox for online services too, so people might keep it even if they are not playing that much.

I agree with the decline of games overall, which is another benefit of a Netflix type model. I don't take many chances games that look interesting but could end up being bad. Sure, I could refund them if I don't play it them too long, but I don't like feeling rushed to decide whether to keep a game or not. With Netflix you can browse their catalog to find something that looks interesting. If you don't like it, you can just look for something else to watch. With Game Pass, I can install something without worrying that it might be a waste of money. If I don't like it, I will just uninstall it and try another game.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

I have no idea what this would be related to some creationist wedge strategy that you linked.

The method. Just one foot in the door to establish a presence and normalize the situation then work from there.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

That aside, I don't think there is any reason to believe that this would cause the entire market to switch to subscription services.

That's what they said about digital distribution and by today the majority of the games are digital only. Even physical copies are locked into those online services and not functional without them.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

At worst, this would apply to the AAA games and even then, it would probably only apply to the latest releases. I would care less, as I strongly prefer indie games where it wouldn't make sense to use a subscription model.

First, you are not the only person in the world, second, it makes just as much sense as it does for AAA.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

How many gamers would be willing to sign up for a subscription to an unknown and unproven indie game team?

How many are willing to pay for the game of an unknown and unproven indie game team? It's the same thing.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

Also, indie games are a lot cheaper to begin with. Instead of paying $10 once, would gamers be expected to pay a monthly subscription for a short single player game that lasts a few hours?

Some are much cheaper, some aren't. And a subscription service allows access to a library of games, not just that one game.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

A subscription service would only work for games whose rights are controlled by a single company or for a small group of companies that all agreed to switch over to a subscription model. Neither of these apply to indies, which are usually self published.

As I see it applies the same way it applies to distribution through Steam.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

Steam is by far the biggest platform for PC gaming and they are making a killing off of the current business model. What incentives would there be for them to switch to a subscription model? How would that even work? Think of how many different publishers and self published games are on Steam. Could Valve get enough of them onboard for a subscription service?

Through changes in consumer behavior.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-05-01, 06:04:

Game Pass is analogous to Netflix and other streaming services. While streaming has been a huge success, people can still buy movies if they want their own copy.

I see it as a fundamentally different thing. Like with digital distribution of games, you are stripped of the option to buy games on physical media playable without online access. Also, when it comes to movies, there are a lot of streaming exclusive content you can't legally watch without subscribing.