To think all of this happened because one person really liked The Crew of all things.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
375 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
83990 readers
4933 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Games should be required to have reproducible source for all components (client and server) sent to whatever the European equivalent of the Library of Congress is, to be made available in the Public Domain whenever the publisher stops publishing them.
Everything I like should last forever and everyone should put in the effort to make it last forever, or else they are shitty people. Everything I like is art but not really all that other stuff other people like.
Nah, if the publisher stop selling a game, just make him to release a docker image for the server and the game patched to use such docker image. No source code needed (even if it would be nice).
This is one of the points that a French MEP brought up during the meeting. If this is pursued it could as a side effect open up space for digital "orphaned works" which would be fantastic.
Not only games. Goes for all electronics as well.
Sick of supporting your 'old phones'? You're required by law to disclose all binary blobs as source code to let somebody else pick it up the slack.
Feeling like bricking old Kindles? Fine, but users must be able to install alternative OS on your old device.
Not providing software updates for your TV anymore after you removed features? That's your right, but so is the right of the effing device owner to install something else on it.
And it's not just consumer electronics. (caugh John Deere caugh).
Not to be pro-corporate/anti-repair...but I feel I have to play devils-advocate here...
That sounds like a legal and security nightmare.
If you just give binary blobs and no sources, there's no way to maintain the code/device long term. As exploits continue to be found in upstream dependencies, the hardware continues to become increasingly insecure.
But if the source needs to be released...I imagine that there are heaps of proprietary code that is still in use on "active" devices even after another model goes EoL...so if that code is released, there's instantly thousands of nefarious eyes on it.
On top of the regular zero-days that are found out when a popular product reaches EoL.
I think that's potentially a lot to ask of users. Will your technically-challenged great-Aunt switch to post-support build when her phone hits EoL, or will hackers be able to remote control her banking app and take away your inheritance before the community can even patch it (assuming there's enough community support out there for an 8-year-old Galaxy A-series...)
Then there could also be licensed code that would need to be released as well...hence the legal nightmare.
Not saying it's impossible...in fact, I greatly agree with your stance and stated position. Just saying that there are some blockers on this epic.
Security is constantly used as a guise for removing consumer rights and as someone who has been in the security industry for about 9 years I'm so sick of it.
First and foremost, everyone please understand: the user should be allowed to opt into your concept of insecurity: you do not know their threat model and you do not know their risk tolerance.
Using exploits in low level drivers in the wild is approaching APT level, and even if there were a simple one to use it'd likely be useless without some sort or local access to the device (bar some horror show bug in a Bluetooth or WiFi firmware). The risk is incredibly low for the average person. I'd put it pretty close to 0.
Wire transfers aren't instant and for large sums (your inheritance) the banks will likely require more than just a request from your app. If the bank cares about that then they can also use the attestation APIs which would be more than sufficient, as much as I hate them.
This boogey man of the APT going after my technologically illiterate with nation state level exploits needs to die. Long ago we entered a new era of security where it just isn't worth it to waste exploits. Especially when you can just text people and ask for their money and that works plenty well.
Security is not a valid reason to soft brick consumer devices at some arbitrary end of life date.
Agreed, but I think a framing or two is missing here, and it only applies to a subset, is that the people of the world shouldn't have to deal with more/larger bot nets because these things haven't been considered.
Another is just that the average great aunt isn't opting into a concept of insecurity they're simply ignorant to what threats there are. If it's possible to distinguish between the two sets of people, or to maybe even bucket devices by potential threat, it might go a long away. I probably a lot wrong here, I just woke up.
But yeah, agreed security is an argument that's hidden behind
Yes I'm not going to take some "survival of the fittest" nonsense approach to security: consumers need securely built devices and software. This is the first line of defense always: we need to make things secure and then have secure defaults according to whatever we decide "secure" means in the context of our widget or software. Then we need to provide "advanced" (or even just "ignorant but risk tolerant") users with the ability to change the device or software to match their definition of "secure".
The easiest example is secure boot. Your laptop likely has a key provided by your OEM and likely Microsoft's key preinstalled. This is a valid "secure boot" path for the average user, provided your OEM and Microsoft don't get compromised, which is APT territory. However you are provided with the ability to use a different key if you know how to do that. You have thus opted in to protecting your own private key but now you have more control over your device. This design is notably absent in phones, which is absolutely bananas and actually less secure in some threat models
You could extend examples like this if you wanted. One could easily imagine a device that does soft brick itself after the EOL date to simply protect people that are ignorant of the potential risks, but also provides an advanced user with the ability to revive it in a "less secure" state. The less advanced user will then have to either learn something new or buy a new device.
That implies any and all FOSS project should be getting exploited constantly, especially those being run by a community of hobbiests, and that is simply not the case.
Security by obscurity is a myth
I like it. If the publisher no longer sells/supports the full game as purchased, then they no longer to get to complain about people pirating it.
I don't like instantly throwing it public domain, that's the wrong license to use. I think Creative Common CC BY-NC-SA would be more appropriate. (Credit the original, no commercial use, and any modified/redistributed version must follow same license).
This will prevent xbox from taking all the old PlayStation games, stealing an emulator, and selling them under game pass to people that don't know those games are freely available.
I'd also add the game must be available as an individual 1-time purchase. If it's only available as a bundle or subscription service (like game pass), that doesn't count.
The Public Domain isn't a "license." It's simply the default state of a work when copyright is no longer being enforced for it. I'm saying that copyright should immediately expire for any published work that is no longer being made available by some entity with the right to do so (phrased carefully so as not to break copyleft licenses, BTW) and that anyone should be able to get it directly from a government archive of all Public Domain works.
As for selling Public Domain works, that's always been allowed and I don't see any particular reason to change it, provided that regulatory capture doesn't result in the public archive being the digital equivalent of hidden away in a disused lavatory in a locked basement with a sign saying "beware of the leopard." If the free option is prominent and well-known but you want to pay money for some reason anyway (in theory, because the person selling it added value in some way), that's your business.
I'm going to hard disagree on NC.
If the original publisher decided to dump their IP, and someone else has a good enough idea to make money off of it, they absolutely should.
BY-SA gets you the same vibe and encourages the new IP to keep making new content and allows others to do the same.
Not sure about public domain. Perhaps a non-commercial license would be best - this way fans can carry on the work, but others wouldn't be tempted to profit off of the IP.
If a studio is using the same base architecture for online services as a game that is currently active, you want developers to share their current live architecture and code?
Yes.
If they don't like it, they can keep supporting their older stuff. Or better yet, rethink their decision to impose a "live service" business model now that they'd actually be held accountable for it, and consider going back to giving users the means to run their own servers.
(Also, by the way, "security by obscurity" is bullshit. If disclosing their server-side code leads to exploits, that just means they're fucking incompetent. I have no sympathy at all.)
Yes.
If they don’t like it, they can keep supporting their older stuff. Or better yet, rethink their decision to impose a “live service” business model now that they’d actually be held accountable for it, and consider going back to giving users the means to run their own servers.
Nobody can be forced to keep supporting their older stuff forever, assuming it is even possible.
There are solutions to keep a server online or to give ways to run a local server (a docker image comes to mind), but you cannot think a company will keep a server active after years to just make few dozens happy with all the implications.
I agree on the spirit of the initiative, but I cannot really see how it can carried out: my fear is that some types of game will not be sold anymore in EU: no legally sold copies, no legal obligation to keep the server online forever. And in this case we all lose something.
(Also, by the way, “security by obscurity” is bullshit. If disclosing their server-side code leads to exploits, that just means they’re fucking incompetent. I have no sympathy at all.)
Disclosing server-side code can leads to exploits, true, but I would not call them incompetent: they are not foolproof or omniscent.
Wup, there's management. Let me guess what they're talking about.
"You, sir, are mad! Dinosaurs are reptiles! They must be cold-blooded!"
"Now, you listen and you listen good: Birds are one of the closest living relatives to dinosaurs we have. And I don't need to tell you they're all warm-blooded."
"Do you know how difficult it is to maintain thermostasis for an animal so large? They're cold-blooded, I tell you!"
"Let me tell you something. There's evidence to suggest that Velociraptors had feathers. Feathers! What does that tell you?"
It's amazing that Ross Scott has gone from delivering the funnies to absolute morale boosting for the gaming media.
Hopefully we wont see bad actors just pivot to f2p and have a few microtransactions to actually unlock the games.
Helpful tip. Don't buy trash games that do that.
As long as it’s still a one time purchase, with no clear mention of an end of life timeline, that is just buying a game with extra steps. They mention microtransactions and things like paid DLC in their plans too.
Some mobile games already work that way where they claim to be f2p but it‘s just a demo of the actual game with ingame purchases for the other levels. However annoying, it‘s not flat out scamming customers like shutting down servers months after release is. Perhaps devs should still be required to label it as a demo just in case though.
I played and enjoyed a game based on this principle (Dreadnought). I ran out of bullshit I wanted to buy to keep the game going. Also the whole community was probably a few hundred people at the end. It eventually shut down. Not that there would be much to do solo but fan-run servers would've been cool.
Dreadnought was awesome, unfortunate that it wasn't populare ...
I absolutely loved that game. I was really bummed when they shut it down but like you said there was maybe a handful of people that played it. Reminded me of EVE Online without all the bullshit.
I don't think that would work. They could lock their games behind a monthly subscription. At that point you're paying for temporary access with clearly defined end date and thus the game getting shut down later is no longer fraudulend. At that point you just have to not be a dumbass and rent a game instead of buying one.
Netflix has already experimented with putting original games behind a monthly subscription and then killing the games.
I can see other companies trying this too.
To elaborate a bit on the "unlocking" of the game: It could be that you get "1000% more exp gain permanently" or "gain a crucial resource from every mission permanently, which is usually locked behind a daily mission", a one off microtransaction that makes the game playable in a sense – but it's not "purchasing" the game, its just an account feature. I hope these arguments won't hold, but I always feel that bad actors find ways to bypass rules ...
Wouldn't work. If SKG succeeds, it would be illegal shut down the game and thus invalidate all these permanent transactions (no matter how "micro" they are) people paid for.
🤞