Sonotsugipaa

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

Isn't it impractical, if not impossible, to make online-only multiplayer games work without company servers?

Not at all. [...] If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. [...] it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.

Isn't what you're asking for impossible due to existing license agreements publishers have with other companies?

For existing video games, it's possible that some being sold cannot have an "end of life" plan as they were created with necessary software that the publisher doesn't have permission to redistribute. [...] For the European Citizens' Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with "end of life" plans and stop this trend.

... we are talking about the EU initiative in particular, right? I assumed so, mb if that wasn't the case but given Ross' "I just want this to happen" attitude I still believe they're not going for retroactive legislation.

All those games are not exceptions, nor the main target of SKG.
Keep in mind that we're talking about what is currently a vague proposal, and an eventual phase-in will most likely be discussed by the initiative's representatives; Ross discussed this in some of his update videos, at some point he even gave examples and Helldivers 2 was one of them (tbf he is not officially a part of SKG but whatever).

More like, potato skin faces

I have a tiny bit of hope that AH will remove nProtect and maybe even hand out some APIs for reverse-engineering projects like OpenCOMBAS to have something to work with, if Sony doesn't pull a Nintendo and sue anyone for even trying

The reason it's not retroactive is that existing games and games already being developed would require significant efforts to restructure in a way that would make them compliant to proposed laws; SKG only seeks to protect games whose development has not begun yet, and games that are generating revenue being preserved is not a primary goal.

How would you decide the cost of rewriting the innards of a live service anyway? It could go from a coffee and 200$ in cash paid to an intern, to an entire year and tens of millions of dollars spent between dev time, perpetual licenses and royalties.
While I agree that they should spend that capital in the first place, you'd have to convince lawmakers - people without any technical expertise - that such policy wouldn't do more harm than good.

Helldivers 2 will probably not directly benefit from SKG, as the campaign isn't aiming for retroactive legislation

Good point, I missed that.

No, following the previous exchange that would mean we aren't alone in the solar system:

Great, now let’s extend this logic to a solar system and see how that works.

... rather than:

Great, now let’s extend this logic to the universe and see how that works.

No, there's other life outside our solar system
(allegedly)

Surprisingly, we find that when developers use AI tools, they take 19% longer than without—AI makes them slower.

Who is surprised, though?

What did Han do this time?

THEY'RE ADDING THE HALO CURSED EDITION BLUNDERBUSS LET'S GOOOOOO