That’s more like it, thank you!

Source? This is just some random picture, I’d prefer if stuff like this gets posted and shared with actual proof backing it up.

While this might be true, we should hold ourselves to a standard better than just upvoting what appears to literally just be a random image that anyone could have easily doctored, not even any kind of journalistic article or etc backing it.

I thought he already put tariffs on us? And then again?

The fact anon used IPA as an example in the context of “acronyms they had to go look up the meaning of” says a lot about them, ngl.

The tacked on casual transphobia finishes painting the picture of the sorta person they are.

As a Canadian, all I can say is “hey wait a minute, I’ve seen this one before!”

I’m shocked this sorta shit still happens in 2025, how did this come into being? Thus might be a rabbit hole I go down, who founded this program, who vetted it, etc

I still today use, and hear familiar millennial use, “lmao”

Usually ironically with a twinge of negativity. Pronounced “luh-mow”

IE “Did you here the US elected Trump again?” “lmao”

Usually only used on its own, it suddenly sounds weird if you put it in a sentence but purely just used as a response to show ironic dissatisfaction quickly.

Pretty much the verbal equivalent of an eyeroll.

See documentation of business transactions for tax audits.

Yeah… no.

You can’t compare taxes which involve transactions with the outside world, and are arguably the most important thing the government cares about, to the source code of some shitty mobile game that got made 5 years ago or whatever.

If you genuinely tried to make a law in your country that tech companies are legally required to preserve all their source code for games forever, do you know what would actually happen?

Your country’s entire game industry would quickly dry up because that’s an incredibly stupid thing to try and ask.

Companies aren’t gonna sit and audit their developers git history commits for some mobile game or random steam release.

And, if you have any concept of how git or other forms of source control for games works, you’d also know that basic day to day operations would, potentially violate such a law, depending on interpretation.

And no company will wanna incur that risk so they will just avoid your country cuz it’s law was written by someone with clearly zero understanding of how source control works.

Classic example of gamers demanding stupid stuff with zero clue about the actual implementation details of what they are asking for.

As long as the cost of losing business in the EU is higher than designing an EOL transition for games and hiring developers to actually do it, it’s in their best interests.

I hate to break it to you but the EU is not that strong of a market lol

People seriously underestimate the cost of this sort of thing, companies do NOT want to hand out copies of their proprietary software to the public.

The pretty much always have tonnes of important shit baked into it that still gets used in their newer software, so even if its old stuff, it still has bits and bobs in it that matter for their newer stuff they just put out.

But also just, in general, companies are not gonna be chill with people demanding they give them a copy of their backend software. It’s just not gonna happen, and the EU is definitely the weaker of the 3 major markets. Companies are just gonna go “lol, now you don’t get to play online I guess” instead.

If you designed it for that eventuality, yeah, it’s easy to do

This just goes back to the other issue:

If your country demands the game devs contort and twist their architecture to suit that country’s demands, they just wont release it in your country at all.

Sorry but thems the breaks.

You’ll have to get way more than the entirety of the EU on board with this to make any change. Youd have to get China and the US on board at the same time

If you target only one of them, that country will decline because it would just argue “you’d fuck up our industry and everyone would leave to [other country] for sales”

And good luck getting the EU, US, and China to all simultaneously agree to this sort of thing, lol.

They don’t need to reslsse stuff they own to the public if they keep the servers running of course.

If you mandate that they have to keep the servers running, they just wont bother providing access to the game in your country in the first place, because that would be absolutely insane. Any company would look at that and go “fuck that” and now if you live in that country, you just cant play the game, good job!

No, they have to abide by the law.

Same as above, if you make a law that causes the company to be unable to operate (you have asked something stupid of them) they just won’t even provide the game in your country. If the EU passed something like this it would instantly hamstring their entire gaming industry and they’d very very quickly lose a tonne of people who leave to go work in saner places.

And the games where this is only a minor feature will be hit the least by the proposed legislation, if at all.

Same as above

I know that. But that doesn’t mean someone else can’t run the same protocol on bare metal. Just give gamers the ability to hook into someone else’s server after shutdown and you’ll be fine, probably. Make it part of your sunsetting strategy. Beats waiting for governments to come down and make you alter games you intended to drop in ways you don’t want to modify through lawsuits and regulatory pressure.

This all costs money. Enormous amounts of money. If you make it cost too much money to provide the game in your country, they just wont even show up in the first place, so now you don’t get to play it at all.

Wow, good thing they were mandated by law to release a v1.7 server so v2.4 of their game still works!

Then they ABSOLUTELY would never even think about providing the game in your country. Do you understand how insane it is to try and force a company to release their propietary STILL LIVE auth backend? Do you understand how huge of a security risk that is? No company would EVER be cool with that.

“Hey do we want to also spin up servers for our game in [country]?”

“If we do, that country has legally mandated if we shut the game down we have to release copies of the game and everything needed to run it to the public, which would include our still live auth servers and etc that our other games depend on”

“Oh, that’s insane, no nevermind I guess they don’t get to play our game then, lol”

You’d be incredibly naive to think this is a sane ask of any company, no one will do it. Ever.

There it is. Choice. That choice can be influenced. For instance, “you cannot sell your game in the EU” is a good reason to reconsider that choice. Or maybe “figure out what”'ll cost us more, the EU fine or having a few devs release a self-hosted server" for products developed while the law enters into effect.

Pretty ubiquitously the answer will be “don’t release it in the EU at all, fuck em” because for most companies doing this would actively have huge downsides on the games performance.

What you need to wrap your head around is the complicated tech stacks that back these online systems aren’t chosen for funises, they serve a purpose. These systems allow companies to reduce downtime, improve performance, provide telemetry and real time monitoring, etc etc. They use these for a reason.

If you tell the company “If you wanna be able to release your game in EU, you either have to commit to keeping your servers on, or, you have to fuck up your entire tech stack and ruin your games performance”, they’ll just go “Guess we won’t release in the EU then lol”

Games worked like this for a decade.

Yeah, because they didn’t offer the massive multitude of features that people expect of them today.

If you don’t want these online features to be so popular, stop buying games that have them

And yet… crazy as it sounds, they still make tonnes and tonnes of money. Almost as if tonnes of other gamers out there like them and pay for them.

Legally mandating companies have to commit suicide to sell in your country isn’t going to make them do it. It’s just gonna make them stop selling the game in your country.

you either don’t release in Germany or you find a way to comply.

Correct, and the issue is what is being asked of this movement is so insane to try and comply with that “dont release in [country]” is the better answer

Sorry but that’s just the breaks. You’ll have to go convince a billion zoomers to stop paying for online microtransaction laden DLCs if you wanna make any actual headway here.

They wouldn’t need to release the whole stack to satisfy the requirements.

Thats literally what I just outlined as what would have to happen.

Release the dedicated server executable and patch the game to allow direct connections to servers.

Oh yeah, just do that, as if that’s a super duper easy task to do.

Sorry mate but for most games doing this would mean the game just doesnt even work anymore, because “direct connection” means no concept of an account anymore, and if everything is tied to your account, the whole damn game doesn’t work now.

If the game in any way shape or form has any concept of a “login”, you are already screwed without any easy solution.

It’s an API. Unless they hardcode the IP address it or use certificate pinning, it can just be reimplemented.

Sure, that’s valid, but thats one piece of one example

Now realize that a single game may have several of these APIs it depends on because thats how we build stuff nowadays, so you have potentially multiple things you need to re-implement from scratch. It’s possible, sure, but by this point you’ve effectively remade a very large amount of the game from scratch so who cares now.

Quite often a “Game server” could be dozens of separate pieces, and maybe a couple of those could be released, but even then what if parts of that executable have still in use proprietary pieces that are used in other games they own?

You just can’t apply these sorts of rules to software, they arent physical products and they don’t work the same way.

It’d be sorta like if <car company> discontinued <specific model> and you demanded they open license the entire car, even though maybe 60% of that car’s parts are proprietary things that are also still used in <newer model>

So if you tried to force them to open license <old model> you’d be also demanding they open license parts of <newer model still supported right now>

And you can see how that’s not gonna be good for them.

It skirts around the issue in its wording, but the proposal in actual real life practice is, indeed, effectively demanding this.

The proposal doesn’t actually supply any specific solutions to the problem, it’s just stomping its feet and throwing a tantrum about the problem, but literally doesn’t actually give a real solution.

“Waaah, I don’t like it when they do x”

“Okay well, what alternative do you propose?”

“I dunno, I just don’t want them to do that cuz I don’t like it”

Sorry mate but you have to actually genuinely be able to describe a practical solution to the problem if you wanna make any headway. Otherwise it’s just gonna get tossed out as pointless.

Or…

If you indeed try and push something like this through, game devs will just go “okay fuck it, you don’t get anything at all then because you demanded something functionally impossible from us, byeeeee” and congrats now you killed your local game dev industry, good job :)

I am very aware of it, and I’ve read the proposal.

This is absolutely not what’s being demanded.

It is 100% what is being demanded, the proposal says:

This practice deprives European citizens of their property by making it so that they lose access to their product an indeterminate/arbitrary amount of time after the point of sale. We wish to see this remedied, at the core of this Initiative.

The ONLY way to do this is everything aformentioned. It’s indirect in how it’s asking for it, but in real life practice the only way the proposal actually gets what it wants, is by either:

A: Demanding (foolishly) that the game devs keep the servers up and running (not happening, get over it)

B: Demanding (even more foolishly) that the game devs release a copy of all the necessary backend technology for self hosting, which you can’t demand because it’s proprietary and some of it may still be in use, so it’s a security and business risk to expose that sort of stuff, so no business will ever be able to feasibly do that.

Sorry but no, it’s a foolish demand.

I read the proposal.

As a software developer, yes you are 100% asking that, up to the limit of “within feasability”

And guess what, 100% of the time the answer will just be “no, its not feasible, fuck off” by every publisher ever, so its a total waste of time.

There’s no feasible/safe/secure way to hand off your entire application stack for people to run locally, you just have to get over it. The publisher isn’t going to give you any kind of access to even an old copy of their auth servers, and basically every “phone home” video game ever uses an auth server, so you are already dead on arrival with this sort of requirement.

There’s no way to decouple off from the auth server when the entire online functionality is deep rooted in the concept of you having an account to auth with.

had to release Steamboat Willy into public domain.

Not even remotely comparable.

Code isnt something publicly accessible in the first place. You cant force a company to make a private thing become public, and I mean that in the literal sense of “this wasn’t something outside people could even see”

Because, to do so, you’d have to first force the company to keep their internal copy of it archived, which you also can’t force them to do.

If a few years later you go “You have to publish this source code now” and the company goes “We don’t even have that around anymore, it doesnt exist” wtf are you gonna do about it? It’s been deleted, and it was never publicly accessible in the first place, so you have no idea what it even was or looked like.

As a result, you can’t force anything about it, it literally doesnt even exist anymore, so you can’t travel back in time and make the company undo that.

there’s nothing stopping companies from releasing alternative servers when their main servers turn off

Aside from the fact it’s proprietary stuff they own… you can’t just mandate that a company must release stuff they own to the public. They own it, they can do whatever they want with it.

manufacturers are under tons of regulation when it comes to support and availability of replacement parts in various industries.

This is the far better parallel to draw imo, and has the best chance of meaning anything.

Except for the fact for most games the online play is an extra feature and not the core game. And thus all game devs have to do is argue that “the game still works in offline play” and this won’t apply to those games anyways.

Companies just decided not to do it anymore because they can make more money with their current strategy.

Oh god no, it’s way more complicated than that.

Modern game servers for major games are simply just not designed to be run locally bare metal. They’re often in the form of complex stacks of multiple moving parts, shit like entire k8s deployment stacks with like 12 distinct resources, many of which might be tightly coupled to implementation details.

Such that even if they release that part public, it still wouldn’t work because it depends on other pieces that literally don’t exist anymore.

A great example of this is simply any login process.

It’s super likely they have an auth server they run that you login to.

They use that auth server for multiple things, not just this 1 game.

They release, say, v2.4 of their game server program in 2025, it’s tightly coupled to the auth server v1.7 api.

It works for about 4 months before they update to fix some stuff on their auth server, now their auth server is v1.8 annnnnd…

Now that v2.4 copy of your game server stops working cuz it’s not compatible with v1.8 of their auth system, so it’s now just dead.

You can’t mandate they keep updating their old code on a game they don’t support anymore.

So… you’re fucked anyways.

You can’t mandate they release their auth server cuz it’s still in active use and you really don’t want to expose the inner workings of the auth system to hackers for them to inspect.

So yeah, it’s just not happening, sorry.

Designing a server to be self hosted is a critical choice you make very very early on in development. If it wasn’t designed that way from the start, its useless to ask for a copy of it for self hosting, it will stop working eventually when external upstream apis stop being compatible.

He’s a youtuber who is a known game dev.

And he’s pointed out the obvious issue that you can’t just demand companies keep servers up and running, if you legally mandate servers can’t be turned off then companies would stop releasing online games because that’s stupid.

It often costs millions of dollars a year to keep servers up and running. If they are causing the company to lose money, then yeah obviously they’re gonna turn em off.

Only naive, entitled gamers would demand such a wild thing. It’s not going to get past any courts

Not gonna lie, this wasn’t on my bingo board of hobbies getting ruined by AI in 2025.

Crotcheting, knotting, sewing, lego, 3d printing? Totally.

Didn’t expect plant growing to have this issue so soon too though, damn.

If literally anyone thinks “it’s okay that Trump bombed Iran, it was the right move”…

Then couldnt you just argue that “if it was such an obviously right move, wouldn’t it have been easy to get congress to approve it?”

It’s illogical to on one hand say it was the right thing to do, while ignoring the fact he did it without approval.

If it was so right, then approval would’ve been easy to get…?

What’s not normal is the shift of responsibility from drivers to victims.

Imagine unironically thinking that if a person jumps out on a busy road in front of a moving car and gets hit, somehow thats the driver’s fault.

How many layers deep inside your echo chamber are you?

We can’t keep prioritizing cars, leaving no room for pedestrians and kids to move freely, then blame the victims.

The answer to this is not to let your seven year old child go wander out into traffic on a road, thats an insane kind of response.

You don’t get to go “Well because we don’t have enough crosswalks, better just let kids kill themselves, cuz they outta just be allowed to”

That’s an absolutely insane kind of response to the issue.

Cars sucking does not excuse the mother’s behavior here. Stroads being dangerous literally means her behavior was negligent. A lack of crosswalks or safer alternatives does not excuse her behavior.

You’re logic is on par with going “Well this mom let her seven year old wander around on a pier on a lake unsupervised. Her kid fell in the water and drowned. But really the city shouldn’t have made the lake that deep so really the mom isn’t at fault here. Kids should be able to safely wander around unsupervised on piers on lakes without worrying about drowning. In a perfect world every pier is built in a way that makes it impossible for kids to fall off them and drown. So yeah, the mom did nothing wrong”

Do you see how insane that sounds? No mate, that’s not how the real world works.