Support NeoGAF

[RodriGames40]

The corporate shills better give up already. We are playing our games forever.

 

[simpatico]

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.

Lets pretend this law was in place before WoW released. What degree of functionality would it have to retain to be compliant with this?

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Lets pretend this law was in place before WoW released. What degree of functionality would it have to retain to be compliant with this?

Not totally clear at this point.
The initiative asks for nothing more than an end-of-life plan for a game for AFTER the dev/publisher has taken it offline.

In what form exactly is then up for the EU Commission to determine.
The initiative itself is vague on purpose here:

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.

"Reasonably functional"
Now, that sounds vague, but it answers a lot, actually.
Is it reasonable to expect publishers to keep hosting all online functionality on their servers AFTER they take a game offline? No.
Is it reasonable to expect players' data to still be available after the servers by the publisher are gone? No.

So, in the end, the most likely scenarios will be providing players with means to host themselves (even if that means local only) or to make the game playable offline and merely mock server functionality.
At least that's how I see it and how Ross himself explained in some videos, too.

That's not optimal, but in the case of an "officially" dead game, it is reasonable - and obviously much better than the current "nothing at all, ever again".

In the case of WoW, my personal minimal expectation here would be a kind of single player mode without any of the multiplayer features.
Hopeful expectation would be a means to host actual servers myself. Database schemas, API documentation, etc, optimally server executables themselves (though that might not be feasable in all cases).

 

[simpatico]

(though that might not be feasable in all cases).

Therein lies the problem. If these things aren't crystal clear it's going to end up causing confusion and hurting more than it helps. I have yet to see anyone strongly in favor of this give an explanation of what it would look it in a GaaS. They all just defer to the EU Commission, like they're capable of understanding it and providing a nuanced solution that doesn't end up hurting more than it helps.

I think we've got early 00s PC FPS games covered. Just release the server code and hope that some fan pays out of pocket to host a server forever. (For offline play, IDK if there will be some way to measure if AI bots are "good enough" to be complaint or if pubs can totally just half ass AI bots to be complaint. That's a whole thread of its own). Where do consoles fit in? If this was in place during the PS3 era, would Sony be compelled to keep PS3 PSN active for a game like MAG or Unreal Tournament 3? Or would they be forced to give access to their back-end server code for someone else to host?

I agree with the sentiment, obviously, but it's too messy and governments are too stupid to make any kind of legislation help more than hurt. Can't stress how bad of an idea it is to invite government regulation into your hobby.