• 1 Post
  • 65 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2025

help-circle

  • There probably isn’t a central database to verify against so the solution would be to come up with a distributed system where each country implements its own verification process and then implement a standardized messaging structure that all countries would have to use. It would be a significant development effort to make something like that and it probably wouldn’t pay off to if it was made just for citizens initiative. Considering in the last 5 years there has been only 4 (5 if we also count SKG) initiatives that have passed 1 mil it’s probably cheaper to collect all the signatures and then have each country verify the dataset that relates to their country.






  • You literally said this changes from neglect to “a really bad choice”.

    which in my opinion changes things drastically from someone making a poor choice with neglect or even an intent to kill, **to someone who just made a really bad choice without the expectation anything bad ** will come out of it.

    As for the other argument. If someone leaves their children home alone for a week do you think that action becomes significantly less worse if they stock up the fridge before leaving the children to fend for themselves? I would argue it doesn’t matter because you’re still neglecting them. The same way I don’t think the AC matters because in both cases those children were still strapped into the car for over 2 hours without any supervision.









  • I think it mostly revolves around how you get 100 players together for a good game. The match making part.

    This part is not really what the initiative is about. The initiative can’t guarantee you’ll be able to find 100 other people to play with. Even matchmaking (unless it’s somehow made integral to the game) is not really relevant to the initiative. What the initiative is concerned with is preservation of games. To give a specific example, if you’re able to organize 100 people to play the same game the initiative wants you to have the technical capability to set up the game for 100 people. And to give a more real life example, Anthem is shutting down at the start of 2026. That means if me and my 2 friends get nostalgic and want to play Anthem in 2027 we literally cannot, the game won’t run. But if what SKG wants to achieve would be a reality right now then EA would have to have a way for me to set up whatever is necessary for me and my 2 friends to play Anthem together, be it some kind of server binary or P2P solution or source code or whatever, doesn’t matter how the company wants to solve this as long as it works. That’s what SKG is about.

    My initial question in this thread framed changing the game design, not networking stack. So it was about making it all local/same screen only. An absurd example on purpose.

    SKG isn’t saying companies should make BR-s local/split screen. It’s only concerned with keeping games in a playable state. SKG doesn’t alter the game design unless the technical stack required to keep the game running is somehow integral to the design of the game. SKG deliberately leave the “how a game should be preserved” open so publishers/developers could preserve games how they see fit. If the publishers/developers want to rip out the multiplayer and replace it with local/split screen that’s how they’ve decided to preserve their game. That is not really criticism of SKG, that’s just a bad faith argument that can be made only because SKG isn’t as restrictive as people claim it to be.

    And specifically in your example the design of a BR game does not need to change at all because the only thing preventing some BR-s from being preserved is the fact that you cannot set up your own servers.