true, but i think this would be exceptionally difficult (if not impossible) to enforce.
ubisoft would surely be willing to spend an extra $500k on server hardware while developing a $25MM game, and subtlety bloat their server-side code so that they can say "this is the hardware we had to use to run it".
there are a million ways to slow down code/increase hardware requirements that look plausible.
The key is communication. If the company says the binary has a certain min. requirement, then the vast majority of people will accept that.
Of course there'll be idiots, but I doubt you'll see a stronger backlash than to a company shutting down the servers without any solution, like they can do now.
> But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs.
As far as I understand that situation is accepted by the initiative. The requirement is not that it works on any specific hardware or software stack, just that it can theoretically work.
> a binary that can be used to create cheats against the next version of the product
Anti-cheat solutions aren't required to be released, and if there are bugs in the server, they might even be found and patched by the community.
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.
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.
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.
The real question is how many other things it's missing.
Reading the process in TFA, it's very much dependent on the comprehensiveness of the testing framework. And apparently, the tests never built a lobby in the bottom left corner...
Anything else it didn't try, is probably also not documented and not implemented.
With the growing use of AI in reverse engineering, we might need to shift our goals to more strongly verifiable ones, such as matching decompilation.
Yeah the simulation also seems to have some bugs. I saw a person get stuck waiting for an elevator for hours when all the elevators were idle. He got more and more pissed off until he eventually despawned overnight.
I agree that you need to be able to produce source code that matches the original binary before you can start porting things.
Fluent means different things to different people (and in different languages!).
As I understand it, B2 means one has a solid, functional proficiency in the language. They conversate/listen/read/write in diverse situations, without needing to switch to a different language or to prepare in advance.
They're very likely, however, to make mistakes, say things in non-idiomatic ways etc. although this is expected to be minor enough to not affect the ability to understand them.
In order to get to C1 and above, one needs a deeper understanding of the language - phrases, idioms, connotations, registers, etc. and a broader set of situations they can handle, e.g., a philosophical discussion. An of course, errors are expected to be rarer.
So, literally speaking, B2 is rather fluent, since the language is "flowing" out of them and they're not stopping to think every other word (which is, as far as I understand, a common interpretation of flüssig in German).
But as "fluent" speakers should know, words come with expectations beyond the literal meaning :P
I'm back to searching for numbers that are palindromes both in decimal and in binary. [0]
I had an insight the other day, that as I fix the n least (and most, it's a palindrome!) significant decimal digits, I also fix the remainder from division in 5^n. Let's call it R. Since I also fix by that point a bunch of least (and most) significant bits, I can subtract how much they contribute mod 5^n from R, to get the remainder from division in 5^n of the still unknown bit. The thing is, maybe it's not possible to get this specific remainder with the unknown bits, because they're too few.
So, I can prepare in advance a table of size 5^n (for one or more ns) which tells me how many bits from the middle of the palindrome I need, to get a remainder of <index mod 5^n>.
Then when I get to the aforementioned situation, all I need to do is to compare the number in the table to number of unknown bits. If the number in the table is bigger, I can prune the entire subtree.
From a little bit of testing, this seems to work, and it seems to complement my current lookup tables and not prune the same branches. It won't make a huge difference, but every little bit helps.
The important thing, though, is that I'm just happy there are still algorithmic improvements! For a long while I've been only doing engineering improvements such as more efficient tables and porting to CUDA, but since the problem is exponential, real breakthroughs have to come from a better algorithm, and I almost gave up on finding one.
I did some manual golfing with nand2tetris assembly and developed similar hacks to the max() implementation, where one appropriates an arbitrary, conveniently placed, memory address.
After reading the article, though, I feel like I definitely need a superoptimiser, to see what could be improved :)
If the company puts an artificial proof of work demanding a rack of the latest data center GPUs, that should be illegal.
If the binary has the same hardware requirements that the company used when the service was up, I see it as totally fair.
reply