[vblanco]

Im a professional gamedev. There is pretty much no indie on earth who actually depends on cloud systems to work, because that stuff is expensive and indies dont have money. Thats a megacorp thing particularly from AAA publishers. Indies are either singleplayer (this is 0 problem) or they have local servers.

That article is paid for by the lobbysts and completely incorrect and wrong.

[cm2012]

Two of my favorite games of all, Chivalry 2 and Hell Let Loose, are indie studio games and this law would make more expensive to make.

[vblanco]

Im not sure for Hell Let Loose, but Chivalry 2 is a Unreal game and all unreal games come with a server.exe that works by default and works through direct IP connection. It would cost them 0 and im sure the game could just host servers with the normal client build like all unreal engine games do by default.

[Hikikomori]

Just no. There's zero reason (other than greed as you can rent your own server) as to why you can't run your own server with Chivalry 2, likely no reason for Hell Let Loose either. I ran a Chivarly 1 server for years, its just an unreal game with a server browser, its not an mmo or pubg like matchmaking style that requires more infrastructure to run. And even if you did that, you could still allow people to run their own private servers, just have an old style server browser, which comes out of the box with engines like Unreal.

[Rohansi]

It's not just clouds systems. SKG might not cover it but what happens if Steam hypothetically shuts down? Many games are built on the Steamworks API for things like matchmaking and networking. Those will stop working if Steam is gone which could bring down many multiplayer titles with it, even if the games have local servers.

[skotobaza]

> what happens if Steam hypothetically shuts down?

Valve themselves could make a solution (a server emulator for instance). Or publishers that use Valve servers for matchmaking can just replace them. The first solution is for games that are no longer supported. The second one is for those that are.

[Rohansi]

> Valve themselves could make a solution (a server emulator for instance).

I haven't read all the details but wouldn't SKG pin this responsibility on the game developer/publisher instead? Meaning you can't rely on a third-party to release a solution because they might not do it.

> Or publishers that use Valve servers for matchmaking can just replace them.

Steamworks makes a lot of systems available to developers (DLC, microtransactions, inventory, server browser, lobbies, authentication, networking/datagram relay, P2P networking, input binding, UGC/workshop, cloud sync, ...). It could take a long time to replace it all, especially if your game only shipped on Steam. And when you're done you get to worry about how you ship that update to players, because you might not be able to do it via Steam!

[skotobaza]

> wouldn't SKG pin this responsibility on the game developer/publisher instead?

Yes, since they have the publishing rights. To my knowledge, Valve specifically has been fairly open in terms of keeping games alive on their store. So I think that if things come to this, they will offer publishers some easy solutions. Of course, we don't know what will actually happen, that's why holding publishers responsible is a better approach, since it doesn't rely on goodwill of a single entity (Valve in this case).

>It could take a long time to replace it all, especially if your game only shipped on Steam

That's correct, but if a publisher has just shipped a game, they have the motivation to keep the game running and make money from it, so they will spend some time adjusting the game. It's only an issue when a publisher does not want to make money from the game anymore (hence they shut it down). In this case transition will indeed be less justifiable for them, and that is exactly what SKG wants - to have them do this using legal basis.