I think the "home server" software kit is sort of the ideal solution the SKG movement has in mind - just let the people do the work of hosting and leave the developer out of the loop. For some games, it may not be so simple, if the publisher's servers handle matchmaking and coordination across the whole player base, for example. But even then, allowing people to run a traditional dedicated server would at least allow them to create private matches with friends, or utilize server browsers to find one to play on.

I think a reasonable and broader approach to this issue is to require that *any* digital good to which your access can be revoked must be described as a "rental" or "subscription" with the term of access clearly spelled out. Require publishers to commit to support for a known length of time, or issue prorated refunds if they fail to meet that promise. This would also address the issue of people losing access to digital movies they thought they purchased. If Sony knows it's going to lose streaming rights to a film on a certain date, you should know that before you hand over your money; otherwise you don't really know what you're getting.

Don't you have better things to do, Jensen?

That might be true if both prices and supply weren't artificially fixed by a cartel. Note that there are even fewer major DRAM manufacturers now than there were then, so it's much easier to ensure everyone's in on the collusion. See also Gamer's Nexus coverage.

No lessons were learned from the last time. The Samsung manager that went to prison got a promotion after being released. This Micron deal is absolutely them holding their customers over a barrel using limited supply to demand locked-in price deals. If you don't sign up, you go to the back of the line. "It'd be a shame if you couldn't buy RAM for that device you're making."

This is not true for games that provide a dedicated server software you can run. Games like Counter-Strike, which is 26 years old and still averages about 8,000 players, do exactly that. Although Valve provides an in-game server browser that queries a central server, you can directly connect by IP address to play online multiplayer without any help from Valve. Minecraft and many other popular games use this model. One of the things the SKG community would like is for publishers to provide some pathway to this capability to keep games playable. "Online multi-player" is not synonymous with "publisher-managed multiplayer"; it never has been and should never be taken that there's only one way to do it. For some games (such as those where match-making among a very large number of players is important) it makes sense, but is not necessary for all.

This is where it gets complicated - the SKG movement cites the game The Crew as an animus, where an online game that could have been playable offline was disabled by the publisher, despite them having developed code to make that possible (but not enabling it). Since it was shut down, the community has written software to make it playable again. One of my racing games, Dirt Rally 2.0, even in the single-player campaign mode, requires a constant internet connection, and will kick you out of your race event if it loses that connection for any reason. There's no good reason for that. Once Codemasters shuts down the server, the single-player campaign will be unplayable.

As for games developed for significantly older systems, emulation makes that a lot easier than keeping antique hardware operational. My favorite racing game of all time, Whiplash, was released in 1995 and works great in Dosbox on the Steam Deck. I still play it regularly. It took some effort, but not much - DOSBox is a well-supported and documented program - and now that it works I don't have to mess with it, and the configuration I made is portable: I can just copy the directory to another machine and play it there. My Steam Deck has games on it originally developed for the Atari 2600, Sega Genesis, DOS, and Windows in addition to the native Linux programs.

Except when it's not. It's not always clear at the time of purchase that the publisher has the ability to shut down the game at some unspecified future date. So "just saying no" requires some knowledge of the future that may not be available. In addition, on platforms like Steam, publishers can push updates that you *must* install to continue playing which remove features or add an online requirement that didn't exist when you purchased it, leading to it being disabled remotely when the publisher eventually shuts down the servers. The TOS/EULA generally require that you agree to all future updates to the TOS/EULA without notice or ability to opt out, so the consumer really doesn't have any actual rights to the games they "purchase" in this system.

Even if the outcome of Stop Killing Games isn't legislation that requires publishers to create tools or release code, an acceptable outcome (IMHO) would be regulation that requires transparency, labeling, and prohibits what's effectively sabotage so the consumer can make an informed decision and have some guarantee they get what they actually paid for. If a digital storefront carried a disclaimer that said "This game requires an online connection to the publisher's server to run. The publisher has not guaranteed the server's operability for any length of time" then a user would at least have the opportunity to consider that risk when purchasing. Additionally, if a regulation prevented publishers from deploying an end-of-life update (a "time-bomb") that didn't exist when purchased, that would also protect consumers without harming publishers. So there are some easy approaches here which don't burden publishers.

Personally, I'd like to see a law that stipulates that any digital good to which your access can be removed by the publisher must be described as either a "rental" or "subscription", with the length of the term clearly spelled out, with penalties for revoking access before the end of the term. That way, you can know exactly what you're getting, for how long, and can count on it being there; and publishers can't trick you into thinking you're "purchasing" something you aren't. As much as I love Steam, I'm aware this would include the entire Steam library. The most obvious downside to me is that this would likely lead to the normalization of the idea that you don't own your video games in general.

I'm HODLing my 100 Trillion ZWL. It'll bounce back any day now, you'll see!

Once when my daughter was 4, I told her that she'd had enough screen time and needed to turn off the tablet, and her rebuttal was, "but my brains aren't rotted yet!"

Agreed. Consumers focusing primarily (or exclusively) on upfront purchase are missing the bigger picture, and have contributed to a lot of the problems we're dealing with now. See also: Framework.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can install Windows on the Steam Deck and Linux will not be involved in any way. Here are Valve's instructions for how to do so: Steam Deck Windows Resources

Sometimes Windows plays better with multimonitor setups, so that might be a way for you to fix those issues. I personally haven't had any of the problems you describe, and I use Valve's dock with my 4K TV and a Anker USB-C hub thingy connected to the KVM on my desktop and both continue to work fine; but that doesn't mean others haven't had issues. I have a first-gen LCD Deck.

Isn't "the ability to govern, audit, and mitigate risk" a big reason to use open-source software over proprietary? I though the point of the move was to eliminate dependence on opaque softare from US-based (and potentially US gov-compromised) companies. It sounds like they're advocating for the EU's actions here.

The distribution of the mass can absolutely make one feel heavier or lighter, depending on which muscles in your hand are doing more/less work. And probably the moment of inertia as well.

Nintendo claims the Switch 2 is 1.18 lbs, or 536 grams. Valve says the Deck OLED is 640 grams (which oughta be light enough for everybody), so they're pretty close. My Deck LCD is apparently 669, so it has some nice heft to it (a little more than I'd prefer, TBH).

Nearly all AAA/AA battery needs in our house for the last 15+ years have been met by the same rotating selection of maybe 30 eneloops (plus a few energizers) that's gradually grown over that time. I have a Rosewill smart charger that intelligently detects when a battery is done charging, and a dumb energizer one that just dumps current into whatever for when the Rosewill charger can't see a totally dead one. The idea of discarding a battery after a single use just seems so weird now.

When it's warm, because according the Property of Ones, a one that is not cold is scarcely a one at all.

You mean there are 10s of us