There are just a ton of ways to skin that cat. You can do things like object replication, where the server is authoritative and sends updates states to every player, but even then, you might want to have something like aiming in a 3D game done locally so that it feels responsive and then update it with the server’s understanding of what’s possible just in case things get out of whack. In the fighting game space, there’s rollback, where each player has a complete up to date simulation of what the game is doing, and they only send inputs back and forth; then if something is out of date, it resimulates the last couple of frames, invisibly, until it’s done catching up, all within the span of 1 frame. However, this approach tends to be less graceful when it comes to people coming and going, because you need to synchronize the game state before you start sharing information back and forth. The network infrastructure for something like Dark Souls, where you’re dynamically pulling in players, messages, and recordings of players’ ghosts, will be different still. I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all solution, but the most common ones do tend to be available in one-size-fits-most.
Steam itself can be DRM but isn’t always. I would use GOG Galaxy if I could, but they don’t let me. What bums me out is that it’s required for multiplayer functionality in some cases, and I can no longer just assume that the entire library of GOG fits my values the way that it used to. A lot of this information I’m looking for is often not clearly communicated on store pages and requires lots of extra research.
It’s convenient for players, who don’t need to know anything about networking to play, which is why we all use it despite its downsides. But it always has downsides. Steam networking goes down for regular weekly maintenance and kills your multiplayer session in a lot of cases. If you and a couple of friends are on a train or in a rural area with terrible internet, you can still play with LAN.
But these online connections are in fact DRM. If you need to connect to your store’s servers to play multiplayer, I imagine that reduces piracy compared to being able to copy paste the executable a few times and send it to a few friends that can all play together. Still, I want the guarantee that what I’m buying is built to last, which means no DRM, which means requiring that connection to my store’s servers is not it.
The unanimous game of the year did it just last year. No one uses seat belts or air bags until you have to either. LAN, direct IP connections, private servers, etc. are essential for when services like GOG’s or Steam’s are no longer functional or available. Without them, some part of the game will effectively always have DRM.
It’s a nontrivial thing to make a good product for your customers, but it should still be done. If only GOG had the market muscle to require this without shooting themselves in the foot, like when Apple pretty much universally made digital music purchases DRM-free.
EDIT: Wait, what does this mean?
as well as having the infrastructure for the cloud peer connections
What infrastructure? You need some port forwarding know-how, but other than that, you type in an address and go.
What this means is that now you can play GOG games that previously required the (non-Linux native) GOG Galaxy client!
…for multiplayer.
And I’m not sure why these developers forgot how to add LAN and direct IP connections to their games, but it sure does muddy the experience of buying “DRM-free” games.
The answer is to allow people to host it themselves. If you’ve got a Discord server and people who want to experience a game with you, you could get 40 people together to do a WoW raid long after it stopped being profitable for Blizzard. In a case like Pokemon Go, either that stuff is determined algorithmically or there’s a game master with their finger on the button to trigger the event; users could run that too.
What the petition says is what it’s asking for. What we want may be different. What European parliament drafts, if we’re so lucky, will be what’s actually the law. The concerns in the petition are quite clearly about how this applies to EU consumer protections, and many of us are interested in that plus the bonus that this will grant to preservation by proxy.
A few things. People use MMOs as an example of a thing that cannot be run by users, and the FAQ calls out that this is demonstrably false. Second, there’s the idea of a good and a service, and games have been happy to blur this line over the past decade and change. When you pay a monthly subscription fee, there’s no question that you’re paying for a service; your service ends when that month is up. The problem comes from selling you things as though they’re goods but then revoking access to them at some unknown time in the future as though it were a service or lease that you had no idea when it would expire. So this campaign also demands that if you’re selling microtransactions like a cosmetic mount in an MMO, you need to be able to use that mount after the servers are no longer supported, and as we’ve already proven, it is definitely actually possible for ordinary people to run MMO servers, even if they’re hosting them for a few hundred or a few thousand people rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.
I don’t think there’s any language in this petition that says it must be hosted on a laptop. The server binary, with a reasonable expectation that someone with documentation, the hardware, and the know-how to use it, would be enough.
You sold someone some code that you then rendered inoperable by actions beyond their control; that’s what you’d get in trouble for. Delete your own code all you like.
Well, it wouldn’t be retroactive. As a consumer, I don’t think it’s ridiculous to know what I’m buying. If anything, this petition is way softer than my stance. As per this petition, you could get around doing the honest thing of providing the customers the ability to host the servers themselves by just clearly informing the customer at the point of sale how long services will be up for, if you truly want to try to convince people that it’s a service and not a product that they just made worse for business reasons. But they don’t want to do that, because then they can’t sucker people into buying something that isn’t long for this world.
Boy, it was frustrating to see Thor completely misrepresent the position of the campaign. It wasn’t “vague enough to also include live service games”; it purposely includes them.