But then who's allowed to run servers? Can I modify the servers and mod them and republish my changes? Does killing the game also need to cancel any copyright on any server-side assets?
But then we need to get into licensing. What if Fortnite goes offline and they publish their server assets? Does that give me the right to use Naruto and Family Guy avatars on my homebrew server?
Submissions on HN with interesting titles keep ending up being revealed as AI slop halfway down towards them making their point.
Authors: you don't need this. Don't disrespect your reader's time with LLM slophancement.
If you're a gamer whose game became unplayable from cheaters running hacked clients because the game's developer decided to share their source code online, you're entirely justified in your outrage.
If customers and care about open source and free software games, they will support them. There is no need to dictate the funding model people want to use for art or software products. This is an industry with an unbelievable amount of competition.
There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them.
I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say:
> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
That... basically kills the entire gaming industry.
Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.
If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools over 50 years old. I would never expect Craftsman to sneak into my garage one day and destroy them because "they're old and unsupported and I should just buy new ones." I don't expect Toyota to repossess my car because it's hard to supply parts for old cars and they really just need me to buy another one.
So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for?
EDIT: I realize I am arguing for subscription pricing for software, which I am generally against. But for a game that requires a server operating in order to function, perhaps subscription pricing is more appropriate at least for that kind of game. It's still not appropriate for games or tools that run natively and don't have a significant reason for their logic to reside in a server.
Let's think about it. Free software just applies to the source code. Artwork, logos, even trademarked names are not Free. Support, services, and documentation can also be non Free. This is the Red Hat business model and they make a ton of money.
Right now several very popular games are free or almost free to install and play. The game studios make money off of in game purchases. There's no reason that couldn't continue.
Games could be Free but connecting to the server for multiplayer would of course cost money.
What about anti cheating? I think motivated software engineers working together around the world could come up with solutions to this. Or (and?), good social engineers could come up with incentives/punishments that heavily encourage fair play. I worry about this one the least. Here's one idea that my son just made me aware of this morning. Some game he was playing allowed him FPV of his teammates after he was eliminated from the round. He saw his teammate could see through walls. This angered my son and he called the teammate out. The cheating was defeated.
The inherent injustice of developers being able to eat? The entire reason we're in this mess of a field is because of this ideological purity crusade. We could have a world where independent developers make a modest living producing good software that people pay a reasonable amouunt for, but because everyone expects everything for free, the majority of developers are forced into working for soulless corporations, who make the money that pays their salaries with the most predatory software imaginable, spamming ads, tracking, and microtransactions all over "free" software.
You also always have control over the programs that run on your own computer. Reverse engineer it if you care; the tools have always been there. The article mentions DRM, which is almost always bypassed, and private servers, which people do host -- so where's the lack of control, exactly? You just feel entitled to be given everything on a silver platter, you can't even be bothered to put effort into taking free stuff. Give me a break.
To be clear, I am fully in support of Stop Killing Games. Especially given the annoying copyright regime around hosting private servers, legislation to mandate some kind of fallback for termination is helpful. But trying to pin this cause to this horrible movement that has done 100x more harm than good? No thanks.
> Am I missing something serious here or is this really trying to advocate for that.
My reading of this was it was in terms of multiplayer games and servers. It was that the server should be freely redistributable and accessible. Much like you can download and run a minecraft server without owning a minecraft license.
The next sentence
> A multiplayer game cannot survive if only one person has the server files.
There’s so many nuances around assets, trademarks, copyright, monetisation, cheatware(?), multi-player etc but the article ignores all of it and goes for the straight freedom angle. How do you even have in-game purchases when you can’t control client code? Do we even have a single example of FOSS and mainstream game that made money and was multiplayer?
Terrible slop and I am flagging it.
that happens at the end of nearly every paragraph here
They make you buy new or else the manufacturers fear going out of business. It's just sad that this has extended to practically everything.
What you might be missing is that the author advocates for free software (which is framed differently from open source), while games typically aren’t pure software, but rely very heavily on art assets. The movement for free software traditionally draws a distinction between software and art. This means that only the software part of each game would need to be distributable, not the entire game.
they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".
by all means i 100% agree that an ostensibly single player game should not be locked behind a login or telemetry, and that platforms like steam should not be able to lock you out of playing games you paid for. but i dont think forcing the whole free software thing would work out how the author is imagining it.
I read this more as game sharing. For example, say I buy a game and my friend also wants to play the game. In the past, I could just give them the disk and we both enjoy it. But today, with DRM and one use keys, this isn't possible. The game industry survived 20 years ago so there's no reason it can't survive without DRM and with sharable keys.
See also 'Juicero'.
At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually.
It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.
This would suggest entitlement to be able to allow the game to function in any capacity. They aren't expecting the developer to host it, but the legal right of someone to host it and the capacity for anyone to direct their client to it.
That's literally all anyone wants
Community run servers were killed because there's a possibility the community run servers would let you play with content you (gasp!) didn't pay for, as happened with TF2, so they can't possibly let you have that option! If they don't get $6 for a texture file, the world will end!
And don't give me bullshit about "But they would have to put extra effort into building that", as if nearly every game server application provided to players has ever been anything other than a random exe file with no documentation and critical flaws that require third party hacks to fix. Pretty much anything built on Unreal or the Source game engine had a ready to go server by default, or with a checkbox.
Hell, even nothing more than a carveout in the DMCA to allow people to legally reimplement servers after shutdown would buy a lot of goodwill. This carveout is only needed because the DMCA dramatically limited your legal rights in respect to software products just a couple decades ago.
Now, with computer modelling and simulations, they can accurately design a part to be as cheap as possible to make while being just durable enough to last for the duration of the warranty. D4A did a good video on it.. https://youtu.be/SeMZGICNSMg?si=sideQIwNBr9s9QW6
The entrance will feature the obvious candidates that normally use electricity then gradually transition into things like a manual powered citrus juicer for which the battery is only for contract enforcement and planned obsolescence
the difference being that only one person could enjoy it at a time. the math is a bit different when one person can put a copy of their game up online and let thousands of people enjoy it for free at the same time.
there is a happy medium somewhere between intrusive DRM and demanding games be free.
It’s never been about what’s possible in theory, but what’s feasible in practice. By the same kind of logic you apply here, every country in the world is as good as democratic because you can work your way to free elections eventually, even if it takes a while.
It uses an independent reimplementation of the code of a Zelda game from the GameCube and combines them with the assets from the actual game to make native binaries for various platforms, which blows my mind a bit but demonstrates the power of this sort of split abstraction.
This is exactly what has been happening for years, only illegally. If it became legal, I imagine far less people would end up buying the game, though probably still more than just one.
But again, games are more than just software, so the four freedoms do not enable this.
I’m guessing nobody here has ever actually tried to make games, let alone multiplayer ones. It’s not “oh just make it better” we’re usually already stretching the limits of what’s possible financially and time wise to get a working (fun) product.
You can add burdens all you want, but that means the games get simpler.. because they can’t be made cheaper (price sensitive customers) and time is finite in that context. something has to give.
There are carve-outs in the legislation for this. It's a moot point.
The way the industry currently operates is you show up to an all you can eat buffet, pay your $10, and then they give you a 30 page contract that you have to sign before you can start eating. You are further SOL if you sign that contract at 4:40 and they decide "well, today we are going to close at 5pm because there's not enough people here. This isn't profitable to us".
Once upon a time, all games operated like this. I could buy half life and run a half life server locally and all my friends could play half life together without valve ever getting in the middle. That didn't cost valve anything to support that. It was all part of the price of purchase of half life.
Heck, for games like Jedi Knight Dark Forces 2, 3rd parties like MSN hosted their own 3rd party services for matching players together. We still hosted the servers, but MSN did the match making. And when they stopped that service, it didn't matter. We can still host and play DF2. Theoretically another 3rd party could start up to match make again.
The legislation specifically carves out for things like this.
> Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs.
The legislation doesn't add this requirement at all.
> It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.
No. It's paying $10 and eating until 10pm and then leaving because they are done.
Your entire comment just reads as someone who has made assumptions about what is being asked for rather than actually looked into it.
Just the opening of your first two paragraphs proves that.
Unless perhaps it means only companies selling the cheapest are surviving. Which also doesn't seem broady true.
Maybe we can say "whoever sells the cheapest acceptable units survives".
what percent of businesses follow the FSF freedoms and turn a profit?
i would love it if i could get all my games for free, and legally give additional copies to all my students, family, and friends. but the developers pumping out those games probably want to see some sort of return more substantial than whatever trickles into their ko-fi account. they'll just stop developing games and go into CRM software or whatever.
PokeMMO is a online Pokemon Fangame that combines the first 5 generations of games. From what I gather, this is possible because it is up to the user to provide the ROMs, so litigious Nintendo cannot say they are re-distributing copyrighted material
Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.
You wouldn't be able to afford it. It's well known at the time of purchase that online games will eventually become obsolete. Comparing that to tools is comparing apples to oranges.
Now, I do think that game companies should be compelled to make their servers available for others to host and maintain if they decide to stop hosting and maintaining them themselves. Some do, but all should be required to.
This makes me think, is there one of those "awesome" lists for open game reimplementations? If not, someone should make one...
That is impressive there is OSS Gothic 2
I wonder if its legal, how is it MIT
To answer your question, there have been plenty of business who have created and published free software (albeit plenty have later closed them). Notable examples are Databricks, Hashicorp, Mongodb, RedHat.
Sure they've built a moat on top of their free software, but they have (or had) free software regardless.
The issue with "Stop Killing Games" is that the legislation doesn't currently look like anything, it's a broad appeal and the solution for studios will depend on where it finally lands.
If it lands in the realm of "Games must be released FOSS after x years" then, aside from the fact that a lot of the times we don't own the copyrights to our own assets or certain code (they're on license for a single release) the second issue is how to release it.
First: the online backend for The Division or Destiny are just... not possible to run. The backend is fused to the products via a slurry of certificate pinning and object serialisation, with some things happening only on the server.
"Un-fusing" them is, basically impossible at this point; so the question is: can you build such a system without them being fused together in the first place?
The answer is: yes, but only by slowing down development. It would become much more about defining our boundaries and working on a "slim" version of the backend, or stubbing the backend completely. Obviously this is a lot of effort. The thing is we only barely managed to get a functional system, so adding an extra year for programming isn't going to be possible, we'll have to "cut" features that are hard to make.
"So, why don't you just release the server".
Well, that's a good question, we could remove the certificate pinning we have on the client, and the entitlement checks, stub out all the code that relies on third party APIs and give you a server binary.
But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs.
So, we'd have to work on slimming that down, or building things in a totally different way: which means "seamless" darkzones and safehouses becomes impossible.
THEN you have the issue of releasing a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product, which we already had a major issue with.
So, most likely, we just make single player games.
Honestly, the industry is moving that way anyway because unless you've been doing it for a while making multiplayer games is really hard from a game design standpoint and there's an ongoing operational cost which people are a bit too price sensitive to support.
That's why Massive released The Division 1 & Division 2 but then pivoted to doing single-player games like Star Wars and Avatar which only retains the most basic multiplayer elements.
i didnt say no one has thought about free software.
i said that this specific llm that output this article did not think about how the freedoms would work in todays gaming industry.
there are dozens of issues that immediately pop into my head, mostly specific to gaming, which are not mentioned or addressed at all.
As far as I understand that situation is accepted by the initiative. The requirement is not that it works on any specific hardware or software stack, just that it can theoretically work.
> a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product
Anti-cheat solutions aren't required to be released, and if there are bugs in the server, they might even be found and patched by the community.
> So, we'd have to work on slimming that down
...why? My reading of the law is that you need to make the binaries accessible, you don't have to provide the hardware to run it on.
Ubisoft doesn't have the most stellar reputation for example (I don't work there anymore) so people look at things we do by accident as if they are intentionally malicious.
Also, the California law is one law, the EU is also looking at this and it's likely to look different - that's why "Stop Killing Games" doesn't really mean anything yet, even people within the movement have differing definitions.
The "Stop Killing Games" movement is making progress with the advancement of California AB 1921, a bill designed to stop developers from permanently bricking games when they shut down their servers. If you're a gamer who has watched a $70 purchase turn into a useless desktop icon overnight, you're entirely justified in your outrage. Having a software developer reach into your home and break your own software is a profound violation of trust.
But as the movement gains momentum, it's becoming clear that they're aiming at the wrong target.
Right now, advocates are treating game preservation purely as a consumer rights issue. They're lobbying for laws that force developers to build offline modes, issue final server patches, or offer refunds. This is fundamentally treating a symptom while ignoring the disease. The real problem isn't that developers are "killing games" - it's that they have the unquestioned, systemic power to do so in the first place.
What gamers are actually experiencing is the inherent injustice of proprietary software. It's a system built from the ground up to mistreat users by denying them control over their own computers.
Without using the exact vocabulary, the gaming community is spontaneously waking up to the exact ethical arguments the Free Software Foundation has been making for forty years. Gamers are currently saying, "You shouldn't be able to control how and when I run this code." They don't just want a band-aid; they're intuitively demanding software freedom. They just haven't realized it yet.
The Anatomy of a Kill Switch
When a game "dies" because a publisher unplugs the server, it isn't experiencing a natural death - it's an execution. But how is it possible for a company to reach across the internet and execute a piece of software living on your hard drive?
It's only possible because the software is proprietary.
Decades ago, Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation established a fundamental rule of modern computing: If the user doesn't control the program, the program controls the user. And when a program controls the user, the developer holds absolute power over both.
With proprietary software, the developer holds all the keys. They don't share the source code, they lock down the server architecture, and enforce compliance through Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). Even games which are normally played locally can require a constant connection to the server and refuse to run otherwise. These mechanisms aren't merely technical necessities; they're digital handcuffs. They're designed specifically to prevent you from studying how the game works, changing it so that it's not dependent on a server for authorization to run locally, or modifying the client to connect to a different, community-run server to keep the world alive.
The "Stop Killing Games" movement views server shutdowns as an unfortunate business practice that should be regulated. But through the lens of software freedom, we can see the deeper truth: the ability to flip a switch and turn your $70 game into a digital paperweight isn't an accidental oversight or an unavoidable side effect of modern networking.
It's the intended design.
Proprietary software is built to assert dominance over your machine. Its very nature is designed to deny you the fundamental right to run the software as you see fit, for as long as you see fit. The mistreatment you feel when a game is taken from you is baked into the code itself. The kill switch isn't a bug in the proprietary software model - it's the ultimate expression of it.
Gamers Already Understand Free Software Ethics
The most tragic part of the disconnect between the gaming community and the Free Software movement is that they're fighting the same battle. Gamers are already articulating the core ethics of software freedom - they just aren't using the academic terminology of licenses and source code repositories.
Listen to the shared outrage driving the "Stop Killing Games" campaign: "I have this software. It's sitting on my hard drive. You shouldn't have the legal or technical ability to reach into my computer, break my software, and walk away."
This is the exact warning Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have been shouting from the rooftops since the 1980s. Gamers are experiencing, on a mass scale, exactly how proprietary software is actively used to mistreat people. They're realizing that when the source code is hidden and legally restricted, they're entirely at the mercy of someone else.
The public has already grasped this concept in the physical world through the Right to Repair movement.
When John Deere used proprietary software to lock farmers out of repairing their own tractors, or when Apple deliberately made it impossible to replace a cracked iPhone screen without specialized authorization, the public recognized it immediately as an extortionate scam. They understood that if you're legally or technically barred from opening the hood to fix the engine, you don't actually own the vehicle. You're just renting it.
Free software is simply the digital manifestation of the Right to Repair.
Gamers are currently looking at their dead, unplayable games and experiencing that same realization. They're learning the hard way that if they can't access the server code, or if it is illegal to modify the game client to point to a fan-run server, they never truly owned the game at all. They merely bought temporary permission to play it until the developer decided it was time to move on.
By demanding the right to keep their games alive, gamers are demanding the right to open the digital hood. They are 90% of the way to understanding that software freedom isn't a fringe, hacker ideology - it's a baseline requirement for being in control of what your computer does.
The True Demand: The Four Freedoms in Gaming
The "Stop Killing Games" movement doesn't need to invent a new bill of rights. The exact framework required to protect themselves permanently already exists, and it's been battle-tested for decades: The "Four Essential Freedoms" that define whether a user truly controls their software.
Look closely at those four freedoms. If a game comes with those, it literally can't be killed.
The developer loses the power to destroy the game, meaning the government never has to step in to force an "end-of-life" patch. The preservation of the game is guaranteed by the community's control over the code. AB 1921 tries to regulate the symptoms of proprietary control, but refuses to address the control itself. To borrow a metaphor, they politely ask the master to stop hitting the user, rather than taking away the whip. The users deserve better; they deserve software freedom. What the "Stop Killing Games" movement actually wants is software freedom - they just need to realize that the only way to achieve it is to demand it by its true name, and not settle for something less.