[dijit]

What you're saying is true for the californian legislation, but not the EU which is currently being drafted (in a different direction) - nor the direction of the authors article, and like I replied in a sibling response: it's not like people would be pleased to get our binaries.

Second: anti-cheat itself is a fucking joke. A crutch, a last ditch hail-mary because we ran out of time to batten down the hatches or things were changed so often from the start of the project to the end that we couldn't add safety into the protocol design properly.

Exposing how our systems think about how you move, how you shoot, when AI ticks, when loot ticks, behaviour trees and how phase transitions are computed: gives an attacker a hell of a lot of leverage.

To put this into broader easier to understand terms: ask yourself why it's so easy to cheat in Unreal Engine games vs Battlefield.

It's not the anti-cheat. It's the complexity of digging through the engine and knowing what the memory is doing and what the server is doing.

[strbean]

> but not the EU which is currently being drafted (in a different direction)

Where can we find information about the direction the EU is going on this? AFAICT there has just been one meeting on the topic?

[dijit]

There's been... a lot more than just one meeting.

https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/news/14th-valid-initia...

https://commission.europa.eu/european-citizens-initiative/me...

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/stop-destroying...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXdmoeaYZ9Y

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/news/eesc-debates-e...

[strbean]

Seems like that's... one more substantive meeting?

First link is announcing the initiative was submitted, second is a private meeting where the initiative was presented to the comission by the organizers.

Then there was a public meeting on 16 April 2026 and a public meeting on 20 May 2026.

Is there a specific part of one of those meetings that indicates they want to go a different direction than the California bill?

From the last link:

> If designed responsibly, most games that connect to the internet can operate indefinitely without publisher support. This has been a customer expectation for over 50 years. We are open to any solution that solves the problem. We are flexible on specifics and implementation by publishers. We understand that not all game features may be operable in a discontinued game. We are not seeking ongoing support from publishers after a game has been discontinued

This sounds like the California bill would address these issues.

edit: Particularly, I'm wondering if there is any serious push for release of binaries / source code prior to the end-of-life of a game, which seems to be of particular concern.

[dijit]

theres a lot of pre-meetings, some major meetings (the ones you mentioned) and talks about getting legislation into other acts.

The fact here is pretty simple: they have not indicated any support for the californian style legislation and they aren’t done yet either. The californian model is also very direct and instructive and EU laws tend to be broad frameworks, so they’ll definitely be different in some way, but unsure if they’ll encompass each other.

I can’t say what way they will definitely go, but it seems naïve to presume the californian stance given how disparate the solutions are from with in the SKG movement itself.

I’m watching it closely, obviously, but nobody knows where it will go. But this is like a 500-sided dice, the odds are low that a solution cleanly overlaps.