alt Hacker News> The initiative has no problem with this as far as I know; the backend being an overengineered mess doesn't make it non-compliant with what SKG wants.
SKG wants games to be "playable" and doesn't define what playable is. Is a multiplayer chess game with no AI "playable" if you can boot into the menu? Is TLOU remastered playable if the multiplayer is turned off but the SP is still playable? Is Trackmania playable without UGC sharing and leaderboards? I would say "no" to all of the above, FWIW.
> With that said I don't think anyone would really be developing things this way in a world where they actually took this type of compliance seriously, and there is no real upside to hyperfocusing like that on third-party platform solutions and so on.
I think that what will actually happen is three things. 1) Many small studios that try things will just nope out. 2) Studios will switch to the Hollywood model of spinning up an entity per game to tack all the liability onto. There's no real reason to do this now, but if there's actual liability for it, that will change overnight. 3) Larger studios will split out online development from game development into separate entities.
I don't think it's hyperfocusing to say "there's a massive hole in this idea", I think it's dismissive of SKG to ignore people who work in this spaces concerns (ironically, it appears this is one of the reasons the EU commission isn't proceeding here, because SKG haven't engaged with industry groups to come up with a way to make this work).
Replies
> Is a multiplayer chess game with no AI "playable" if you can boot into the menu?
Arguably a multiplayer game is playable when, given that you've convinced other people to join you, you can play against them on a self-hosted backend.
With that said, I don't really think the lack of a clear definition from the initiative as to what "playable" means is a problem; this is something that should be hashed out with the relevant parties. You seem to acknowledge that some level of discussion should be had with them, so it's unclear to me why you think somehow SKG should come with a fully formed basically-legislation to the table, when arguably that's not needed or useful for actual lawmakers.
> I don't think it's hyperfocusing to say "there's a massive hole in this idea"
The hyperfocusing I was referring to was making your backend as if you owe AWS/GCP/other-cloud-provider money, i.e. being stuck literally on exactly that platform and maximizing your usage of their services. It's not a great way of making things to begin with, and an even worse way when you actually have to be accountable for things being runnable over time.
One of the biggest issues the industry will face is that it puts pressure on its rapid decline in competency (the same one created and enabled by the things you allude to as being roadblocks for any initiatives around keeping games around after service ends).
They might solve those types of things with interesting accounting solutions like the ones you referred to, but those can be legislated against as well; liability circumvention is only a magic wand if you allow it to be.
> it appears this is one of the reasons the EU commission isn't proceeding here
I think nothing is being done in this particular case because there are groups that have talked quite a bit to the people deciding whether things should be done, not really because of any supposed lack of interaction from SKG. It seems naïve (or driven by other motives) to me to think otherwise.
> SKG wants games to be "playable" and doesn't define what playable is.
Which is completely fine since they're not a legislative body. Instead of settling on a hard line, they're leaving this part open to be defined in collaboration with lawmakers and the industry. Isn't that exactly what so many detractors are asking for?
Let's be honest, SKG wouldn't have fewer critics if they chose a specific definition of "playable". I'd even argue that the industry would be opposed far more strongly.