Stop Killing Games has Reached 1,000,000 Signatures.

Plies said:
The end of live service games.
Click to expand...
That would be great, but no. Not even remotely.
Just read the FAQ of the initiative if the main initiative itself is too much word salad for you.

The goals of the initiative would be borderline free for any publisher/dev to implement and only take effect AFTER end-of-life (when all the cash cows have been milked dry).
 
TheSHEEEP said:
The goals of the initiative would be borderline free for any publisher/dev to implement and only take effect AFTER end-of-life (when all the cash cows have been milked dry).
Click to expand...

If the publisher thought it was worth the effort to do that... they would keep the servers up.
 
asdasdasdbb said:
If the publisher thought it was worth the effort to do that... they would keep the servers up.
Click to expand...

They only need to LEAVE the game with some form of playable state. Community will take it from here.

Gran Turismo was mentioned by me many times now, game required online connection to play (like GT7 now), only thing they did was to patch out this requirement. Now they don't have to pay for servers and people can still play the game.
 
asdasdasdbb said:
I think the point is they are typically shutting down the servers at the point where there isn't one.
Click to expand...
Right, and that's where they would (if the initiative eventually leads to laws) have to spend some miniscule amount of money to wrap a package for the remainders of the community/players to host it themselves.
Or some other way to enable "reasonable" playing, even if offline.
An investment absurdly tiny compared to what they raked in while the game was live. I wouldn't even count in millions, tbh.

Of course, if it was a law, they'd know this would happen eventually and would likely already have something in place for that.
 
Respectfully my European brothers and sisters....get you asses over there and sign the petition.

Aerith Gainsborough Please GIF by PlayStationDE
 
Jinzo Prime said:
Not by the EU, not yet.

But I'm still not convinced this will work out as positively has people are hoping it will.
Click to expand...
If there is one thing we know is that EU do not like it when companies break EU rules/regulations/laws.

And as I was reminded earlier in the thread EU have already ruled that Software be it Program or Games is considered a Good in EU, and thus companies can not take it away from the customer.

Maybe this initiative will remind EU, and also show that companies don't follow that rule/regulation.

Also don't even know if its already been mentioned in this thread, but Ubisoft have or will release an Offline patch for "The Crew 2" and "The Crew Motorfest".
So in a way It's already affecting game development.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
In an article I read, game companies were bringing up points that killing a game permanently is needed for a couple reasons (not related to server costs):

1. Privacy issues. If a game goes offline and people still have code in the game to show leaderboards then hackers might be able to get people's data.

2. Which leads to liability issues. If the above happens, they dont want to get involved with lawyers and costs to cover something they said they cut the cord.

However, I dont see how #1 cant be solved. Just make an offline version people can play with bots or solo mode only with zero data and leaderboards about other people. But if #1 is kept in the game, they do have a point. Even if they said in the Terms of Service..... Here's an offline mode. We arent held responsible anymore..... something dumb will happen and some gamers will still try suing the company. And the company has to go through the wringer defending themselves.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
1. Privacy issues. If a game goes offline and people still have code in the game to show leaderboards then hackers might be able to get people's data.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as you wrote yourself, this is pure BS.
Even if that was somehow the idea of the initiative (it is not), if hackers can gain access to people's data via leaderboard, they can do so regardless of who hosts it. Or rather, whoever hosts it would be responsible - but that's not the dev/publisher anymore past end-of-life.

BUT: Nobody demands live data be kept around past end-of-life. I mean, if the dev/publisher wanted to go that extra mile, I doubt anyone would complain, but that is in no way part of the "reasonably playable after end-of-life" idea.


StreetsofBeige said:
2. Which leads to liability issues. If the above happens, they dont want to get involved with lawyers and costs to cover something they said they cut the cord.
Click to expand...
Very obviously, there cannot be liability of the original publisher/dev past delivery of the end-of-life "update" (in whatever way, shape or form).
One thing that will have to be determined further down the line in this, is what would be an acceptable state for that update/version. I'm sure this is where most actual legalese would come in.
There would also have to be some kind of authority to determine if that end-of-life update ticks all boxes it would need to.

Personally, I'd expect something as "low" as an offline mode, without any direct server code*. Maybe the odd goodwill dev/publisher will deliver server executables, but probably rare. But that's all speculation.

Either way, the main point is no liability past end-of-life (other than delivering a way to play, even if just offline).

*For pure online games such as MMOs, this would likely translate into the client running some kind of local-only server mocking actual server-replies/commands. This is a standard method for developers already in application testing, including games.
So don't let any fool tell you this would not be possible. It is very possible, and fairly easy to boot.

StreetsofBeige said:
And the company has to go through the wringer defending themselves.
Click to expand...
Oh no.
Poor company.
I hope they can use all the GaaS money to dry their tears. Maybe fire some people so the execs can remain overpaid, now that's a novel idea!

More seriously, though: Very likely, this entire process would need to take input from all parties to get a law that would exclude possibilities of "frivolous" lawsuits. I expect one major point will be the "no liability" I mentioned before.
 
Last edited:
One thing I feel like many people forget:
The actual developers are very likely to be in favor of this. Not the suits, mind you, I'm talking about the ones actually creating the game.
Nobody wants to see their work get lost forever (usually). I'm quite certain most devs would actually be eager to spend a little bit of time at the end of their game's life to work on some form of the game that will remain playable "forever", even if in a lesser form.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
However, I dont see how #1 cant be solved. Just make an offline version people can play with bots or solo mode only with zero data and leaderboards about other people. But if #1 is kept in the game, they do have a point. Even if they said in the Terms of Service..... Here's an offline mode. We arent held responsible anymore..... something dumb will happen and some gamers will still try suing the company. And the company has to go through the wringer defending themselves.
Click to expand...
The simplest way would be to delete online user data and force people to make new offline profiles. Bam, no privacy concerns.
 
FoxMcChief said:
People think something will change?

Trying Not To Laugh Rooster Teeth GIF by Achievement Hunter
Click to expand...
Did you see what ended up happening with The Crew?

Doing nothing and complain is easy. Now we can say that we tried, and also show what the general consumers think about products. This might be the first time it gets this big, but it sure won't be the last.
 
GudOlRub said:
If the pics I saw were real and not edited then his code is also nothing to be talked about to put it in polite terms. I've never watched him so I don't know exactly the type of stream he does but if it's supposed to be educational and some of you specifically want to learn how to code then please GET THE FUCK OUT, do not watch this dude.
I'm not a game developer but as a software developer in general I did not like what I saw very much.

And I know this looks like it but I'm not even trying to shit on the dude, supposedly he came from QA so it's not like we can expect senior level coding skills, it's pretty good already that he can code and create an actual game imo.
It's just that for other people to learn how to code he's really not the person to watch I think.

But if he streams just for fun and people enjoy it then that's cool.
Click to expand...
I've heard it elsewhere, too, that his code isn't something you'd want to learn from. And yeah, he comes from QA AFAIK. To his defense, he don't teach how to code, he tries to encourage people to start coding, to start developing their games, to encourage them not to doubt yourself and to start somewhere, even if it's "just" design documents and no code at all.

As with most people, he's ambivalent and did, in my opinion, a huge fuck up. But I don't think he deserves death threats and being SWATed in the past over internet drama. No one does.

Anyways, maybe he'll some day get his ego in check and be a bit more humble.
 
Mithos said:
And as I was reminded earlier in the thread EU have already ruled that Software be it Program or Games is considered a Good in EU, and thus companies can not take it away from the customer.
Click to expand...
It just stop working
And per law companies obliged to make software work only for 2 years since day of purchase, same as warranty for other goods.
 
Mithos said:
People also need to keep in mind that it could take YEARS for the EU Commission to come to a decision when it comes to what needs to be done legally, and then YEARS again for all member states to implement the laws to abide with the EU laws created, and even after that it could be YEARS again before games would need to follow them, if they want them available/accessible in any EU country.
Click to expand...
That's the nature of things. It's better to plant a tree today than to mourn not having planted it twenty years ago.
 
I want to think we're entering a new era of pro-consumerism. You got big pro-consumer advocates like Asmongold who draw in a huge audience/following with his voice and opinions. People like him are definitely having a major disruptive impact on the industry as we speak. AAA pubs no longer have control over the information flow and we're seeing that unfold live. We've reached a point where they aren't in a position to tell consumers/gamers off and eat whatever they serve with a "they'll buy it anyway" mentality. Especially, after how they've been treating and neglecting core gamers for the better part of a decade.
 
Last edited:
Felessan said:
It just stop working
And per law companies obliged to make software work only for 2 years since day of purchase, same as warranty for other goods.
Click to expand...
Thats in regards to bugs and overall functionality. It doesn't adresses cases specifically related to whats essentially planned obsolescence.

Also, already by these terms, a game like The Crew already broke the law as it was delisted only a few months before shutting down servers, only offering refunds to people who bought a few months before the annoucement. By this law, they should've refunded everyone who bought the game since march 2022.
 
Last edited:
Hypereides said:
I want to think we're entering a new era of pro-consumerism. You got huge pro-consumer advocates like Asmongold who draw in a huge audience/following with his voice and opinions. People like him are definitely having a major disruptive impact on the industry as we speak. AAA pubs no longer have control over the information flow and we're seeing that unfold live. We've reached a point where they aren't a position to tell consumers/gamers off and eat whatever they serve since with a "they'll buy it anyway" mentality. Especially, after how they've been treating and neglecting core gamers for the better part of a decade.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say we are at that age yet.
It feels more like poeple are beginning to take notice at how far corps have pushed in the past decade.

Going all the way back to the beginning with horse armour DLC with Elder Scrolls. People scoffed whilst others warned about a slippery slope. Now were at a point where the damage has been done.
But the initial cut is still their and won't heal. All people can do is try and stop making it worse.

It's still taking people a long time to realise that corps aren't on their side.
People still defend Apple products like it's 2012. Today people are fine with Nintendo's practices.
 
All it would take is to just do an offline conversion, like SE did with Final Fantasy Dimensions 2. Name the price (hopefully inexpensive), anyone who already spent that amount or more during the live service run is good to go, the rest can pay the remaining difference.
 
Guilty_AI said:
Thats in regards to bugs and overall functionality. It doesn't adresses cases specifically related to whats essentially planned obsolescence.
Click to expand...
Law doesn't mention reason, it only states that company is obliged to maintain software bought for 2 years in working state or refund.
Like it's not uncommon practice in goods to engineer products with limited lifetime, with that "planned obsolence" built-in in product. And if this limited lifetime is longer than warranty period - it's legal.
This is explicitly difference between legislation that define rules and some wishfull thinking "company should owe gamers"

Guilty_AI said:
Also, already by these terms, a game like The Crew already broke the law as it was delisted only a few months before shutting down servers, only offering refunds to people who bought a few months before the annoucement. By this law, they should've refunded everyone who bought the game since march 2022.
Click to expand...
Yes, they should
And people in EU have right to claim it
 
If it's anything like local petitions (here you can get something discussed in parliament with 40k signatures), they won't do jack with it.
I signed it, but just putting something on the table doesn't mean it'll become law. Actually I don't even know what happens now that the required amount is reached.
 
it's naive and will never work.
Only thing that might work is people buying physical games.... which will never happen
 
rofif said:
it's naive and will never work.
Only thing that might work is people buying physical games.... which will never happen
Click to expand...

They are making less physical releases so even if people wanted to buy them they have less choice - then they will say that consumers prefer digital...

Physical version won't help your game if publisher decides to kill the servers - like with The Crew.
 
Bojji said:
They are making less physical releases so even if people wanted to buy them they have less choice - then they will say that consumers prefer digital...

Physical version won't help your game if publisher decides to kill the servers - like with The Crew.
Click to expand...
yeah it's unfair game. Sometimes physical release is delayed or hard to find.
I don't mind digital on pc because you can access files and cdkey stores
but on console, only way to own a game is on disc.... and to buy it cheaper.
DS2 is 92$ on psn and I bought 70 in retail.

But yeah. if servers die, some games die.
69+16% of physical games on ps5 don't require any download (that 16% might be better with download)
3JDQiXC.png

So the number is going down for sure.
But once you download, 94% of games will work offline just with the game installed and disc in (like hogwarts legacy. It's not on the disc, but you download it and it does not check with the server)
 
Last edited:
spons said:
If it's anything like local petitions (here you can get something discussed in parliament with 40k signatures), they won't do jack with it.
I signed it, but just putting something on the table doesn't mean it'll become law. Actually I don't even know what happens now that the required amount is reached.
Click to expand...

EU initivates are nothing like other ones i.e the UKs which are just token debates. THere's only been a handful of these to actually reach the threshold and go to the EU and most if not all of them influenced some change in EU legislation.
 
TheSHEEEP said:
Oh no.
Poor company.
Click to expand...
Are there provisions to exempt indies from this? I mean, I can get on board with that eyeroll if we're talking about EA or Ubisoft, but is that the way you feel about indie developers too? It's wildly immature to assume these guys are just rolling in dough and swimming in a vault with Scrooge McDuck in every instance. Just off the top of my head, Ghost Ship Games and Fatshark would have major exposure under rules like this. Probably enough to not even release Deep Rock Galactic and Darktide. Neither of those are going to work with a simple server executable. Hunt Showdown and GTFO are also good examples. Too complex for a simple server exe drop, but not big enough to have that corporate pocket depth to pay for such an undertaking.

Scumbag AAA is going to do scumbag things regardless of your petition. If anyone is going to be put out by it, it will be the indies who actually succeed against the odds.
 
Last edited:
simpatico said:
Are there provisions to exempt indies from this? I mean, I can get on board with that eyeroll if we're talking about EA or Ubisoft, but is that the way you feel about indie developers too? It's wildly immature to assume these guys are just rolling in dough and swimming in a vault with Scrooge McDuck in every instance. Just off the top of my head, Ghost Ship Games and Fatshark would have major exposure under rules like this. Probably enough to not even release Deep Rock Galactic and Darktide. Neither of those are going to work with a simple server executable. Hunt Showdown and GTFO are also good examples. Too complex for a simple server exe drop, but not big enough to have that corporate pocket depth to pay for such an undertaking.

Scumbag AAA is going to do scumbag things regardless of your petition. If anyone is going to be put out by it, it will be the indies who actually succeed against the odds.
Click to expand...

There's no excuse for any developer to not provide documentation and the libraries for third party hosting.

Games like DRG use peer to peer connections anyway so they're covered already.
 
simpatico said:
It's wildly immature to assume these guys are just rolling in dough and swimming in a vault with Scrooge McDuck in every instance. Just off the top of my head, Ghost Ship Games and Fatshark would have major exposure under rules like this.
Click to expand...
No exceptions.

It is irrelevant how big they are or how much dough they are swimming in.
Ghost Ship Games from what I know would be the first to jump on board of the initiative.
Fatshark has about 180-200 devs. Indie my ass. But any company, indie or not, capable of running GaaS, has the pittance amount of resources required to ensure players will be able to play it (again, in some form).

This isn't some gigantic budget needed - they literally only need to either enable offline play (which any game can already do, eg via running their own local test server, how do you think they test their own games internally?) or hand over the server executables and maybe a "manual".
Done. Wouldn't even scratch on a budget of a million.

Also, hell, Deep Rock can ALREADY be played solo - that's all that would be asked (though, of course, providing even more would be welcome).
Sure, in that solo mode you are still technically online, but that could very easily be mocked locally (which is a process they will already do for internal testing).

simpatico said:
Probably enough to not even release Deep Rock Galactic and Darktide.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, a cost factor increasing the entire development by way, way, WAY less than 1% of any given online game would not make or break anything.
Source: I've been working as a backend software developer for over 15 years and have a background in game development, I can estimate costs quite well at this point and more importantly: I know that this would actually be very easy to do compared to the complexity of developing the entire game & server structure.
Besides, all of this would be known before development even starts (the initiative is not retroactive, laws generally cannot be), it wouldn't be some "sudden" cost factor, but an abysmally small amount of work to be happening at the end of life.
This has nothing to do with costs, it's simply to get suits to do the right thing, even if it would cost them 0.000001% of profit.

simpatico said:
Too complex for a simple server exe drop, but not big enough to have that corporate pocket depth to pay for such an undertaking.
Click to expand...
Please refrain from talking about software development processes or costs.
You are so far off here that you are making an absolute donkey of yourself.
 
Last edited:
TheSHEEEP said:
No exceptions.

It is irrelevant how big they are or how much dough they are swimming in.
Ghost Ship Games from what I know would be the first to jump on board of the initiative.
Fatshark has about 180-200 devs. Any company, indie or not, capable of running GaaS, has the pittance amount of resources required to ensure players will be able to play it (again, in some form).

This isn't some gigantic budget needed - they literally only need to either enable offline play (which any game can already do, eg via running their own local test server, how do you think they test their own games internally?) or hand over the server executables.
Done. Wouldn't even scratch on a budget of a million.

Also, hell, Deep Rock can ALREADY be played solo - that's all that would be asked (though, of course, providing even more would be welcome).
Sure, in that solo mode you are still technically online, but that could very easily be mocked locally (which is a process they will already do for internal testing).


Bullshit, a cost factor increasing the entire development by way, way, WAY less than 1% of any given online game would not make or break anything.
(source: I've been working as a backend software developer for over 15 years, I can estimate costs quite well at this point and more importantly: I know that this would actually be very easy to do compared to the complexity of developing the entire game & server structure)


Please refrain from talking about software development processes or costs.
You are so far off here that you are making an absolute donkey of yourself.
Click to expand...
How does a game like WoW get to be exempt from this, but GaaS does not?
 
simpatico said:
How does a game like WoW get to be exempt from this, but GaaS does not?
Click to expand...
I edited my post to include the answer, so you probably missed it, and I'll repeat:

All of this would be known before development even starts (the initiative is not retroactive, laws generally cannot be), it wouldn't be some "sudden" cost factor, but an abysmally small amount of work to be happening at the end of life.
This has nothing to do with costs, it's simply to get suits to do the right thing, even if it would cost them 0.000001% of profit.

If a new WoW was to be developed AFTER the initiative has lead to a law, THEN it would have to oblige.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ubisoft’s CEO fights back against Stop Killing Games initiative
46
416
kpopSuperstar replied
Oblivion Remastered has reached 9 million players in 3 months
31
77
analog_future replied
Splitgate 2 has reached over 1 million downloads
5
329
havoc00 replied
Xbox Game Pass has reached more than 35 million subscribers
News Platform  2 3 4 5
215
3K
StueyDuck replied
Ubisoft's Updated EULA Demands Users to 'destroy' Games They Stop Supporting
2 3
114
1K
IbizaPocholo replied
Top Bottom