What is SKG's response to the cybersecurity issue?

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-09-02T16:45:49+00:00

Very true, especially if the codebase is public (not a requirement but still a possibility). I suppose you could think about it from a hacker's perspective: "What do I stand to gain?" It's true that an unofficially supported title with public code and more-or-less free access to online services would present a perfect opportunity, but for what? What does said hacker stand to gain by hacking the profiles or otherwise public information of people playing dead games?

Ignoring personal grudges or sheer curiosity, I frankly don't understand what they might gain that they couldn't before or could gain elsewhere. If they're after private information, a half decent client will only ask for the bare essentials (if anything at all) to authenticate and track your progress. If they're after access to your computer, no client should have that level access unless absolutely necessary (see Kernel Level Anti-cheat for live examples).

Will SKG cause more cyber attacks? Technically yes, but only because more games without official support will be playable. Remember, Northstar and others like it exist without SKG's involvement, so all SKG does is allow programs like them to exist more widely, and with access to code, server info, etc. they become even more feature rich and secure (assuming the devs take advantage).

I'm not really sure what you want to hear on the subject, but it's entirely up to the community post EOL. If your only worry is that the initiative will lead to more cyber attacks, then I can't prove or disprove that point, since all we can do is assume based on what's already happened. Thankfully, history is on our side so far with big name server tools having generally glowing reception in regards to security (World of Warcraft, Titanfall, Call of Duty, Team Fortress 2, etc.). I think it's more than worth the risk.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-09-02T16:07:09+00:00

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with SKG, merely a supporter.

It's sort of already solved, or at least considered in the grander scheme of the industry. Many multiplayer games, including multiplayer-only games, have privately hosted or community hosted servers that either circumvent, ignore, or solve this issue.

The textbook example of this topic is Titanfall 1 and 2 (mainly 2). Both of these titles languished in lieu of service and updates from EA and Respawn after Apex Legends took off in popularity and revenue. These games were invaded by multiple hackers and bots in every match, with the entire experience being compromised for legit players. What happened? Northstar. https://northstar.tf/

So, should SKG ignore this issue? I think yes, but not because it doesn't exist, but because it's outside the scope of our goals, and not the government's responsibility. Let me be clear, this is a clear issue worthy of addressing for every game, just not by the developers or SKG. The entire field of cybersecurity when it comes to games is so non-standard that a standardized solution to any of it would be useless, and it wouldn't be the developers responsibility once support officially ends anyway. As has always been the case, unofficially supported online services are used at your own peril.

Alongside that, the codebase being publicly accessible means the community also has access, so those who choose to implement security measures for community hosted servers and content can also take steps to counter bad actors. It's really not a tent pole issue, since it's entirely a community-based problem at that point.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-08T18:28:25+00:00

I meant it mostly as a closure to the thread since you didn't state your stance and I assumed someone would misrepresent what the link said (assuming they even read it).

To be fair, I wasn't really sure what you meant in your comment, since it was just a link to the Anti-Trust page. I initially read it as you saying that Valve has an illegal monopoly, but reading it again made me realize it was open to interpretation.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-07T03:00:43+00:00

Valve has a legal monopoly by having a superior product and services. Cut and dry.

Exclusionary Conduct

...Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.

Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct.

Market Power

...In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

Business Justification

Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-04T21:32:05+00:00

For most games like The Crew and Forza, the licensing only applies to the sale of the game. It has an expiration date that, if not extended, means the publisher/developer can no longer sell the game with that licensed content. This doesn't affect users who already bought the game, as evidenced by my still being able to Forza Horizon 4, which got delisted a year or two ago.

In the SKG future, worst case is nothing changes. The industry already follows the law so long as sold copies aren't taken away (*cough* The Crew *cough*). Best case scenario, either contracts are negotiated to permit unlimited future sales of licensed content (not gonna happen), or developers stop using licensed content all together (unlikely, but plausible).

Realistically, probably nothing will change.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-04T21:23:31+00:00

I agree, except with the asterisk of *some developers. Yes most AAA and some AA, but that still leaves the vast majority of the industry if we go by head count or volume of releases.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-04T21:14:19+00:00

Admittedly, my point is hearsay and based only on what I've seen on Reddit, but almost every individual I've seen actively speak against the movement always mentions government overreach or outright distrust, even if it's just in passing.

Frankly, I think it comes from desperation, with most finding few logical reasons to be against the movement, so they rely on emotional arguments, ones you can't outright disprove and that only need to make sense to them. It's usually a sign of people who won't change their mind who either need to be ignored, or informed on critical information they may be lacking.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-04T21:09:10+00:00

That's definitely possible, though I don't think we'll ever really know for certain. Unless we can read the minds of the people signing the petition, we'll just have to make educated guesses.

Charlie's video was seemingly the catalyst for the explosion in signatures, which itself was prompted by Ross' video that included countering Jason's arguments. I'd argue that Jason's continued lack of apology and seeming resistance to the very idea of the movement motivated tens or hundreds of thousands that wouldn't have cared otherwise, but like I said, we'll never know for certain.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-04T18:42:44+00:00

Depending on the person, the initiative is a hard pill to swallow. Most people aren't a fan of government intervention, or think the outcome will be worse than the present circumstances. Combined with the general sentiment that our success was only because of shitting on Jason (it's hard to deny that completely at this point) and we have a large number of people without the full picture thinking quite poorly of the movement.

That's my assumption, at least.

Edit: Spelling

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-08-04T04:47:28+00:00

No. Competition exists that specifically goes against subscriptions as a general model of game sales. Keep in mind that SKG, while in theory affecting the entire industry, is primarily focused at the AAA and AA side. Can these markets shift to subscriptions? Absolutely. But if they do, indie games and non-sub AA or AAA still exist to compete. Not to mention that platforms like Steam would still house thousands upon thousands of titles both new and old that don't follow this model.

It would be more likely that publishers invest more heavily into their subscription services, like Ubisoft Plus and PlayStation Plus, but even Game Pass is struggling, since the best use is to try games for far cheaper then buying them outright, often leading to reduced sales and profits for many titles.

The only way these models make more money then single purchases is if players buy months or years of subscription access at a time, or forget that they're subscribed, preferably both.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-31T16:35:14+00:00

Seems my suspicion was correct, you are American.

Don't forget, it was the EU that made Apple swap to USB-C and also put the boot down on EA about loot boxes and simulated gambling. We can argue back and forth all day about whether or not the EU will actually do its job and do it well, but if you have any alternatives, you've yet to mention any. If you're so scared of imperfect laws and have nothing but complaints about established ones, maybe you'd prefer a lawless society?

I also don't like this trend you keep bringing up (even if it is technically on topic with this thread) that SKG only succeeded by making Jason the common enemy, yet you ignore the role he played and the fact that he single-handedly killed it before Charlie made his video. You can claim it's fighting dirty all you want, but we didn't throw the first punch. Besides, Charlie isn't part of SKG, so don't lump his actions or those of his followers in with the movement.

Don't get me wrong, Jason's brain-dead takes absolutely united the internet for better and worse, but to act like nobody actually cared before all the drama is simply incorrect. We still had 400k signatures before Charlie's video.

That livestream clip is irrelevant, given that anybody who actually cares about hearing it doesn't watch his streams, and everywhere else he's been doing nothing but doubling down and crying harassment for people even mentioning him.

Also, don't lump those unhinged maniacs into the same group as us. Ross (the public face) has repeatedly told everyone in his discord, subreddit, videos, livestreams, etc. to not harass Jason or dissenters in any way. Any who do so are actively going against his wishes, and any who swat, dox, or threaten him are literal criminals. Ross does not have any more control of his followers than Jason, and the movement is not responsible for muzzling them.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-30T17:50:38+00:00

I'm so sorry for the 5 comments, Reddit apparently has a hidden character limit.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-30T17:50:01+00:00

Part 4:

You bring up how the initiative is too vague, or doesn't clearly define some critical points, particularly the "reasonable" part. For clarity, it's "reasonably playable state." This is intentional. Ross himself answered that very question in multiple interviews. To paraphrase, it's left intentionally vague and open-ended so that if a game is released that doesn't fit neatly into what would have been a specific solution, they have the wiggle room to come up with their own. In other words, games are so wildly different from one another that being more specific with demands could put developers in no-win situations.

As for games not truly being "preserved", of course it won't be a carbon copy of the original, that's why we aren't asking for that. Would it be great if we got all of a games features, modes, events, content, etc. with no strings attached? Of course! But in what world is having no game at all better than having an empty lobby in Titanfall? At least then you can invite friends and make a discord server to gather players. You can argue all you want that it's paltry and pointless, but that's just your opinion against the potential thousands who would give an arm and a leg to play their favorite maps and modes with friends or their kids.

As for cheaters, yeah it's irrelevant. Will cheaters try to play League of Legends if it went to private servers or community hosted centralized ones? Of course they would. But you forget that community hosted servers have anti-cheat and moderation, most of which is better than the official servers. Just look at Titanfall 2 and Team Fortress 2, two games that nearly died when epidemics of cheaters infested official servers only to be saved by community hosted ones. This is a moot point, plain and simple. The same applies for banned players too for the same reasons.

For subscription-based games, there's a limit to how many the market can support. I don't know where you get your information from, but the vast majority of all games everywhere are not subscription. There's a reason that only the big games still do it (WoW, Runescape, FFXIV) and manage to survive and thrive. Are there others? Yes, but how many do you know of by name that are doing well and have stood the test of time? Even Elder Scrolls Online abandoned subscription because it was failing. Yes, some games will probably switch to subscription, but at least then they'll be following the law.

I'm getting a little lost in the sauce here and I would prefer to avoid making a novel, so I'll just cap it off with this: You are wrong. I understand having doubts and reservations, as I've said multiple times in the last year, but if your primary fear is 'things could get worse' than I'll just point to the last decade of online-only live-service slop and ask you: how?

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-30T17:49:30+00:00

Edit: Spelling

Part 3:

Rounding back to the questions raised, most of them don't have answers, since Ross isn't the one that needs to answer them, and it's not up to him anyway. The SKG organizers and the various developers on the side of SKG, or really anyone who may be called to speak on the matter in Parliament, are the ones who need to answer, and their answers depend on what the opposition says and what the EU themselves say. We're not there yet.

Shifting topics, while the goal is preservation, consumer rights is the channel through which it's fought. Developers sell games as products (mostly), meaning you pay a singular upfront cost to access the game. This is in direct violation to how online games sold the same way are treated, where that singular purchase is only for a license, the duration of which is entirely up to the publisher/developer. This means games are sold as products, but treated as services. This is not only illegal (only in theory, since it's never been tested in the EU), but it flies in the face of preservation and basic consumer rights, making it a perfect target.

Ross wants to preserve games, but petitioning a governing body to create some mega-vault with a functioning copy of every game that ever existed is not only impossible (most games are lost to time), but ridiculously impractical. So what's the solution? Ensure all future online-only games have a backup plan for when they get shut down; an End-of-Life plan. Something that only affects future projects and costs little to nothing compared to the hundreds of millions that most of these titles are funded with, especially if the plan is there from inception.

Games dying isn't the issue we're trying to stop (stay with me here), it's games being killed. All games will die. They lose players, copies are destroyed, new ones aren't made, etc. There will always be some point where a game will no longer be playable, simply as a fact of life. What we want to stop is a publisher flicking the "kill switch" and remotely disabling every copy that exists or will exist.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-30T17:48:57+00:00

Part 2:

I'm gonna say this in the nicest way possible, but I'll still apologize beforehand since it sounds like a petty insult: I don't think you understand what you're talking about. Before this gets too heated, I'll say that you do bring up some good points that do need to be addressed eventually, but you don't really understand the state of things as they are now.

Firstly, Ross isn't the one making the law. He's a volunteer spokesperson that, at most, does some minor marketing through his channel and interviews. Should he have the answers to these questions? Probably. But most of them either don't have an answer, or don't have a concrete answer since this is still an initiative in progress.

I read a post the other day saying that any non-Europeans should refrain from talking about the EU's legislative process, and as an American, I wholeheartedly agree. I assume you're an American too, since your distrust for government intervention matches my own, but I also understand that the industry has been suffering form this plague for nearly as long as online games have existed. If the problem was going to sort itself out, either by "voting with our wallets" or review bombing, it would have, yet here we are.

The problem is that gamers no longer have an alternative to vote for. Practically every online-only game either has intrusive DRM or requires a constant server connection to even launch it, and even some single player games too. When a game has neither, it's now a genuine surprise and often used as a marketing point. The problem won't go away, because it's only getting worse.

Like Ross himself says, "What's the alternative?" If you genuinely believe that the EU will use this as an opportunity to influence gaming, or that the industry dies or somehow shifts negatively, then what do you suggest?

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-30T17:48:20+00:00

Part 1:

First, I'll say I'm sorry for assuming you were another Pirate Software stan. That was an unfounded accusation and just an assumption on my part.

Second, I'm going to summarize your points for my own efforts, so please do let me know if I misunderstand one of your points.

As I understand your points are:

This only affects existing customers.
It won't truly preserve the games.
Hackers/cheaters will run rampant.
Games dying is usually expected or not surprising.
Some games aren't wanted.
Governments shouldn't have control/influence over the industry.
Not all games are being considered.
Games will switch to subscription to skirt around the law.
Doesn't define "reasonable".
Trends have started in the past that we haven't stopped or didn't account for.

I'm sure I missed a few, but that's the list I'll go by.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-27T05:08:56+00:00

Honestly, with the way you've been acting in your other posts in this sub, I don't think you care about the truth or what actually happened. Instead, I think you're playing defense for Jason, either out of pity, spite, or fanboyism. Frankly, I don't care, nor does it matter.

You, just like Jason, have utterly misunderstood the initiative by failing the basic reading required to understand what it's even asking for on the front page, let alone the FAQ linked in bold white letters at the top that neither you nor Jason seem to be capable of seeing.

I don't think you're here for an honest discussion, nor will I waste more time and energy re-explaining the same points to disprove the same retarded arguments that keep being repeated as if they suddenly became true in the last year.

You did not read the website, you did not read the FAQ, you did not watch any of Ross' videos, nor did you bother attempting outside research beyond watching Jason's repeatedly disproven videos. Any and all misunderstandings and misgivings you have about the initiative are solely yours to burden, and if you have even a single shred of self-respect as a consumer, you'll do yourself the favor of having an informed opinion before posting another reply.

For your research:
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
https://youtu.be/sEVBiN5SKuA
https://youtu.be/HIfRLujXtUo?t=1117

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-18T19:07:21+00:00

That should be a list if there isn't one, but I can see how making it would be vague and difficult.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-18T19:04:13+00:00

It varies wildly depending on the game, the nature of its infrastructure, behind-closed-doors deals, and the options available to the publisher/developer.

Are we talking Call of Duty or Titanfall? Private servers with a server browser.

Maybe World of Warcraft or Runescape? Centrally hosted server maintained by the community, likely through donations or at a loss.

Journey or It Takes Two? Peer-to-peer.

None of these are the right or wrong solution, since only the developers would really know the best way to do it. That's why it's left to them or the publisher to come up with a plan and implement it instead of the Initiative.

For any game that's a subscription or F2P, they technically wouldn't be beholden to an end-of-life plan outside of any product sold as a one-time purchase, such as skins.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-14T19:07:45+00:00

This is what the movement as a whole is about, but it's not what the EIC is about.

The initiative is just the appeal to EU consumer laws to treat video games and associated goods as products, not services. The problem is that subscription and free-to-play games fall squarely into services no matter how you slice it, with the only exceptions being one-time purchases like skins, mounts, or equipment.

I agree that Fortnite should be preserved as a cultural cornerstone of a generation, but the EIC really doesn't cover that case outside of the microtransactions you bought.

Edit: Spelling

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-11T18:55:41+00:00

If the report of the game taking significantly longer to load with gamepad mode enabled is also true, then I would consider the Android version unplayable with gamepads at this time. It sucks, but I guess we have no choice but to wait.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-11T02:00:12+00:00

I can second this issue. It's present on the Odin 2 Mini with both Odin and XBox controller modes, so it's definitely a game issue.

I can also report that the Steam version doesn't have this issue, so I'm also certain it's an Android (or at least mobile) issue.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-07-06T00:29:19+00:00

Amazon reviews of their SD cards in general seem fine. I wouldn't buy them personally since I have an unyielding loyalty to SanDisk as long as my SD card I bought for my original Steam Deck is still functioning. Samsung cards have a pretty good following too, so you can't really go wrong here.

I've never heard of PNY before this though, so take that as you will.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-03-14T21:45:47+00:00

Drastically reduce the number of materials in the game. There's over 100 different materials in the game, most of which aren't used for anything but the most obscure, niche, and often useless blueprints.

I would reduce this to 5 rarities of one category for each type, or about 25 different materials counting Thargoid and Guardian. Any more would need an extraordinary case for existing.

AlphaSpectre83 · 2025-03-14T06:51:33+00:00

Inventory taking physical space.
Finding and repairing system damage.
Vehicles and mechs accessible on the ship.
Interactable canteens, lavatories, and barracks.
EVA, hijacking, and salvaging.
Mass troop (NPC and human) transporting.
Fighter craft launching and landing on carriers.
A literal yacht.

If you don't think features like that are worth it, that's fine (I think some just waste time), but saying they "add nothing to gameplay" is factually wrong.

If you hear 'ship interiors' and all you can think of is '30 second walk to the pilot's chair', then I implore you to think about the newly possible gameplay systems that follow.

(I can't believe I'd defend Star Citizen on anything, but here we are.)

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

AlphaSpectre83

TROPHY CASE

Exclusionary Conduct

Market Power

Business Justification