Support NeoGAF

[simpatico]

The law doesn't deal in absolutes and this is not a new concept, many older games function in this exact same way.
Once the tools stop working due to problems with modern operating systems and such? The community steps in and fixes it, no one ever demanded that companies fix 20 year old games that don't work on Windows 11 anymore. Hell many of those companies already ceased to exist altogether.

You're creating absurd scenarios when all this initiative is trying to do is to start a conversation that would help curtailing planned obsolescence in videogames.

That makes it worse! If you want to make a law like that palatable for investment, there needs to be crystal clear language on how long the servers need to be accessible. If you want to invest a bunch of money into a game, you're going to want to avoid this kind of exposure.

When you talk about older games, that's almost apples and oranges to what we expect out of a modern online game. A quake server is a far cry from what a GaaS has to do to keep the lights on. Destiny would not get made in this climate. Helldiver 2 would not get made in this climate. Plenty more in the same boat. Very different than leaving some server code so people can play Half Life 2 deathmatch at a LAN party.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Right, but we could just not buy those games instead of getting a lumbering bureaucracy involved.

Clearly, that isn't working and it is making games worse for everyone, not only those poor suckers fully into the GaaS crap (unfortunately). It also makes game preservation completely impossible (at least in a legal way...).

Gotta be realistic about what would actually happen. Online games aren't going to go extinct over night, but people will be a lot more gun shy about putting a ton of money into them. Especially smaller publishers. You're asking for never ending risk exposure. The poor lads at Zipper would still be patching MAG, despite only 9 people being online (5 of which are lawyer interns waiting for it to blip out).

READ THE FAQ
You are being as annoyingly obtuse as PirateSoftware.

Nobody is demanding support after the game's services have ended. Just a way for gamers to play the game on their own, at the point of time when the service is ended.
That can be in the form of "here's the server software, go run your own".
It can be in the form of supplying local server executables.
It can be in the form of open sourcing parts of the software.
It can take literally any shape or form, most of which would be a drop in the bucket of earnings generated by running the game in the first place as well as involving a teeny tiny amount of work ONE TIME.
There is no risk for the developer/publisher.
There is no maintenance for the developer/publisher.
All that is asked is a way for gamers to do it themselves once the game's official time is over, and once that is delivered, publishers/devs can wash their hands of it.

 

[GudOlRub]

That makes it worse! If you want to make a law like that palatable for investment, there needs to be crystal clear language on how long the servers need to be accessible.

Why would that be? Companies should be able to have the servers running for as long as they want, be that 10 years or 10 weeks. It wouldn't make any sense to keep Concord servers running for longer than they did would it?
Read the FAQ man, you're making so many absurd assumptions...

 

[simpatico]

Nobody is demanding support after the game's services have ended. Just a way for gamers to play the game on their own, at the point of time when the service is ended.
That can be in the form of "here's the server software, go run your own".
It can be in the form of supplying local server executables.
It can be in the form of open sourcing parts of the software.
It can take literally any shape or form, most of which would be a drop in the bucket of earnings generated by running the game in the first place as well as involving teeny tiny amounts of work.
There is no risk for the developer/publisher.
There is no maintenance for the developer/publisher.
All that is asked is a way for gamers to do it themselves once the game's official time is over, and once that is delivered, publishers/devs can wash their hands of it.

That's no small amount of work. More so when they have to commit to providing it before they even know if the game is successful. Far more than just a "server exectuable". That wouldn't quite get the job done for a game like Destiny. You'd have to make a whole suite of tools and figure out how to train these random, future gamers how to use them. Big difference from the tools you'd make to get that job done internally while the game is actually being played. At that point, why not just invest in getting some phone games made? The people paying for these games to be made don't give a shit what the game is, they just want more dollars out than they put in. If you add this kind of liability to it, they'll find another way to make money. It's a childish request.

Care to ballpark what Ubi would have to pay per player to keep The Crew running right now? How many players do you think there would be?

 

[Guilty_AI]

That makes it worse! If you want to make a law like that palatable for investment, there needs to be crystal clear language on how long the servers need to be accessible.

Then do it. What they can't do is sell a game and say "yeah we can pull the plug whenever we feel like. Your money if that happens tomorrow? Fuck you, it's mine now"

 

[Jinzo Prime]

I think if companies are forced to keep maintaining online services for games, there will be far less online games being made, and even more layoffs in the industry. Fortnite will have never have compitition.

 

[simpatico]

Why would that be? Companies should be able to have the servers running for as long as they want, be that 10 years or 10 weeks. It wouldn't make any sense to keep Concord servers running for longer than they did would it?
Read the FAQ man, you're making so many absurd assumptions...

The FAQ reads like it was written by an intrepid 16 year old. Completely unrealistic when it comes to modern games. Maybe it would be reasonable if it was written in 2004 and was talking about games like Quake and Medal of Honor.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

Care to ballpark what Ubi would have to pay per player to keep The Crew running right now? How many players do you think there would be?

Care to explain why a game with a Single Player mode had to be Online only?
Ubi wouldnt have to run any servers if they didnt do this BS to begin with!

 

[TintoConCasera]

I think if companies are forced to keep maintaining online services for games, there will be far less online games being made, and even more layoffs in the industry. Fortnite will have never have compitition.

There could still be tons of multiplayer games. You just have to design them in a way that a central server isn't needed, or make it simple enough so anyone could host the server in their own machine.

Hell, we currently have 2 "dead" games that were revived thanks to people putting them on private servers, Dragon's Dogma Online and Monster Hunter Frontier.

 

[simpatico]

Then do it. What they can't do is sell a game and say "yeah we can pull the plug whenever we feel like. Your money if that happens tomorrow? Fuck you, it's mine now"

Isn't "well don't make the game at all" very close to me just saying "don't buy the game if you don't have confidence in it"? In both cases you're not forced to buy or play the affected titles.

There could still be tons of multiplayer games. You just have to design them in a way that a central server isn't needed, or make it simple enough so anyone could host the server in their own machine.

Hell, we currently have 2 "dead" games that were revived thanks to people putting them on private servers, Dragon's Dogma Online and Monster Hunter Frontier.

So the scope of online games will be greatly diminished to avoid legal exposure down the road. That's going to help. Power to the Gamers!

 

[Jinzo Prime]

When this shit hits, I'm going to have a laugh and a shot of whiskey, this is going to be hilarious.

 

[TintoConCasera]

So the scope of online games will be greatly diminished to avoid legal exposure down the road. That's going to help. Power to the Gamers!

Why has the scope have to be simpler? Take a game like the Division and explain to me why it needs to be connected to a central server.

To read mission data? To read weapons data? Why can't all that stuff be distributed as an update patch that becomes part of the game's code instead of relying on a server just to read a bunch of .json files? Makes no sense.

If some dude can run an MMO like DDON in his own machine, then anything could go.

 

[Guilty_AI]

That's no small amount of work. More so when they have to commit to providing it before they even know if the game is successful. Far more than just a "server exectuable". That wouldn't quite get the job done for a game like Destiny. You'd have to make a whole suite of tools and figure out how to train these random, future gamers how to use them. Big difference from the tools you'd make to get that job done internally while the game is actually being played. At that point, why not just invest in getting some phone games made? The people paying for these games to be made don't give a shit what the game is, they just want more dollars out than they put in. If you add this kind of liability to it, they'll find another way to make money. It's a childish request.

Care to ballpark what Ubi would have to pay per player to keep The Crew running right now? How many players do you think there would be?

You're making a big deal out of nothing. Even in a situation in which it's absolutely impossible to give up tools in order to keep the game running, the companies would still have the alternative of simply making it clear what the "rental" terms are, aka giving the player an exact date of when the "service" he paid for ends.

Isn't "well don't make the game at all" very close to me just saying "don't buy the game if you don't have confidence in it"? In both cases you're not forced to buy or play the affected titles.

Consumer laws exist for a reason, all this campaign is doing is pointing out how some game companies are breaching them

So the scope of online games will be greatly diminished to avoid legal exposure down the road. That's going to help. Power to the Gamers!

Like i said above, just adjust the business model for something that doesn't mislead the consumer and giver clear terms. For example, FFXIV and WoW would not be affected by anything here because they fit very well the definition of a service, with upfront and clear terms for the paying costumer.

Will they lose players for making it clear no one is buying anything and giving an expiration date? Probably, but that's just a consequence of having an honest transaction.

 

[GudOlRub]

Lmao, it's like speaking to a wall.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Just like online games have evolved to what they are today, they would evolve to some other architecture that would allow them to be compliant with such new rules.
Once again I'll give GDPR as an example, you had dumbasses screaming out of their lungs that it would be the end of the internet as we know it, what happened in the end? Companies adapted and made it work.
I really can't understand it

 

[simpatico]

Trying to imagine the guy who woke up today, only to be completely dejected by the fact that he cannot play a special offline version of The Crew. He walks past his shelf full of modern, active games disinterested. Looks up to the sky and asks why God would allow this to happen to him. Then it hits him "I'm going to get the government and lawyers involved. Quick! To the FAQ machine!". He rushes over to his word processor machine from 1988. While waiting for the hard drive to spool up he makes a cup of coffee and starts doing hand yoga to prepare for furious typing. One the hard drive has spooled up and the monitor has warmed up, the typing begins. He is a valiant knight. His sword? Bureaucracy. His damsel? Consumer rights! Once the word processing is complete, he sends it over to his dot matrix printer via serial bus. "Gamer oppression stops today" he remarks. Quickly looking over his iron-clad FAQ and finding no stone left unturned, he decides to share it with the world. Once every few centuries we get a man of his worth. Ghandi, Einstein, Plato etc. The ones who make the world a better place for us all.

 

[simpatico]

Lmao, it's like speaking to a wall.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Just like online games have evolved to what they are today, they would evolve to some other architecture that would allow them to be compliant with such new rules.
Once again I'll give GDPR as an example, you had dumbasses screaming out of their lungs that it would be the end of the internet as we know it, what happened in the end? Companies adapted and made it work.
I really can't understand it

But those were evolved through passion and the desire to share art. Now you're asking them to be designed through the lens of legal exposure and multi-country bureaucratic compliance.

Let look at MAG for an example. What would Sony and Zipper have to do to make this game compliant with your laws?

 

[SomeGit]

Lmao, it's like speaking to a wall.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Just like online games have evolved to what they are today, they would evolve to some other architecture that would allow them to be compliant with such new rules.
Once again I'll give GDPR as an example, you had dumbasses screaming out of their lungs that it would be the end of the internet as we know it, what happened in the end? Companies adapted and made it work.
I really can't understand it

It's the "greedy" gamers that want to keep playing the games they bought, the audacity.

 

[Sanepar]

First you need to stop fanboys. There were many here cheering Activision acquisition.

 

[Bojji]

 

[nikolino840]

why someome want to own the crew...is like saying that i want to own redfall lol

 

[Guilty_AI]

Trying to imagine the guy who woke up today, only to be completely dejected by the fact that he cannot play a special offline version of The Crew. He walks past his shelf full of modern, active games disinterested. Looks up to the sky and asks why God would allow this to happen to him. Then it hits him "I'm going to get the government and lawyers involved. Quick! To the FAQ machine!". He rushes over to his word processor machine from 1988. While waiting for the hard drive to spool up he makes a cup of coffee and starts doing hand yoga to prepare for furious typing. One the hard drive has spooled up and the monitor has warmed up, the typing begins. He is a valiant knight. His sword? Bureaucracy. His damsel? Consumer rights! Once the word processing is complete, he sends it over to his dot matrix printer via serial bus. "Gamer oppression stops today" he remarks. Quickly looking over his iron-clad FAQ and finding no stone left unturned, he decides to share it with the world. Once every few centuries we get a man of his worth. Ghandi, Einstein, Plato etc. The ones who make the world a better place for us all.

At this point you should just admit you're Pirate Software's alt, you're using the same ad-hominem nonsensical arguments he used.

"oH hE jUsT wOkE uP oNe DaY aNd" Blah blah blah, he has been talking about this for years. Here's a video he made on the subject full 5 years before he launched this campaign




And a video he made on the The Crew 6 years prior

 

[Mithos]

Soon...

Edit:
It HAS passed a million now, but page not loading..
You can see the official tracker here: https://stop-killing-games.keep-track.xyz/

 

[TintoConCasera]

Trying to imagine the guy who woke up today, only to be completely dejected by the fact that he cannot play a special offline version of The Crew. He walks past his shelf full of modern, active games disinterested. Looks up to the sky and asks why God would allow this to happen to him. Then it hits him "I'm going to get the government and lawyers involved. Quick! To the FAQ machine!". He rushes over to his word processor machine from 1988. While waiting for the hard drive to spool up he makes a cup of coffee and starts doing hand yoga to prepare for furious typing. One the hard drive has spooled up and the monitor has warmed up, the typing begins. He is a valiant knight. His sword? Bureaucracy. His damsel? Consumer rights! Once the word processing is complete, he sends it over to his dot matrix printer via serial bus. "Gamer oppression stops today" he remarks. Quickly looking over his iron-clad FAQ and finding no stone left unturned, he decides to share it with the world. Once every few centuries we get a man of his worth. Ghandi, Einstein, Plato etc. The ones who make the world a better place for us all.

If I pay for a product I should be able to use the product. You are defending companies being able to take away the product from you without giving back any of the money you paid for it.

You might think some dude waking up and wanting to play The Crew is silly. I think that a guy waking up and wanting to defend corporations being able to do whatever they want is way, way sillier.

 

[GudOlRub]

But those were evolved through passion and the desire to share art. Now you're asking them to be designed through the lens of legal exposure and multi-country bureaucratic compliance.

Let look at MAG for an example. What would Sony and Zipper have to do to make this game compliant with your laws?

Depends on "my" laws, this initiative is not law, it's just a request for the EU to take a look into the matter. The EU will then have to talk with all the interested parties, will have to talk with professionals who understand the matter and only then will they create legislation IF they deem it necessary to uphold consumer rights.
As for the rest of your question it's simply absurd, I don't know what kind of argument you're trying to win by asking that but it's certainly not this one.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

But those were evolved through passion and the desire to share art. Now you're asking them to be designed through the lens of legal exposure and multi-country bureaucratic compliance.
Let look at MAG for an example. What would Sony and Zipper have to do to make this game compliant with your laws?

You dont get it, do you?
This isnt any law, this is the start of a conversation, a door opener, it will now be discussed seriously and checked from every angle before it ever becomes a law.
And how this will end up is not some predefined thing that is set by this initiative alone!

 

[Mithos]

Lets hope for a million more...

 

[simpatico]

Depends on "my" laws, this initiative is not law, it's just a request for the EU to take a look into the matter. The EU will then have to talk with all the interested parties, will have to talk with professionals who understand the matter and only then will they create legislation IF they deem it necessary to uphold consumer rights.
As for the rest of your question it's simply absurd, I don't know what kind of argument you're trying to win by asking that but it's certainly not this one.

So, looking at MAG. Help me understand. What would have to be done to it to comply with what you're demanding? Truly curious because I don't see any coherent suggestions on specifics. Just a blanket "I own my video game and should be able to play it foreverrrr".

 

[GudOlRub]

So, looking at MAG. Help me understand. What would have to be done to it to comply with what you're demanding? Truly curious because I don't see any coherent suggestions on specifics. Just a blanket "I own my video game and should be able to play it foreverrrr".

Lmao, keep it up buddy. I'm sure you'll reach a constructive conclusion eventually.

 

[simpatico]

Lmao, keep it up buddy. I'm sure you'll reach a constructive conclusion eventually.

No one can give any specifics on how to make these games compliant. He said WoW was exempt because it's clearly a service. The Crew was always marketed as online only, but somehow it's not a service? Does that mean an additional line of text in the fine print or a small monthly fee would make it exempt?

Take the easy own and spell out how MAG can adhere to this without any crazy costs incurred that would scare off investors. I'll look foolish for asking if it is really that intuitive.

 

[Mithos]

So, looking at MAG. Help me understand. What would have to be done to it to comply with what you're demanding? Truly curious because I don't see any coherent suggestions on specifics. Just a blanket "I own my video game and should be able to play it foreverrrr".

Nothing, since it released years and years ago and any laws that might be put in place would only apply to an eventual MAG2.

MAG2 however might need to have a patch ready to make everything available "offline" in a LAN env, or Peer2Peer, or maybe the law will say it needs to release enough info that "community" can build the servers needed to run the game, in the event the developer/publisher of said game shuts it down.

We don't know, because that's for the European politicians and lawmakers to figure out.

 

[simpatico]

Nothing, since its released years and years ago and any laws that might be put in place would only apply to an eventual MAG2.

MAG2 however might need to have a patch ready to make everything available "offline" in a LAN env, or Peer2Peer, or maybe the law will say it needs to release enough info that "community" can build the servers needed to run the game, in the event the developer/publisher of said game shuts it down.

We don't know, becasue that's for the European politicians and lawmakers to figure out.

Right I'm not asking them to go back and patch MAG, just if it was released today. A game with the same design doc and scope.

If it's a console game, does that mean Sony and Nintendo will have to distribute software tools to the public to run servers? That's assuming no special hardware would be needed outside of a PC. But if it is just a PC, they're gonna have to test that server suite on a variety of systems.

If you remember how MAG launched, it felt a bit rough. Implementing, testing and validating LAN and P2P support surely wouldn't made things smoother. Hell MAG is an easy one. We could have gone a lot harder by throwing out something like Helldivers 2, where the constant updates are pretty much the whole game. Anything with a persistent world would be in trouble.

Also curious how WoW gets an exemption and clearly online only games like The Crew would not. Is it just the monthly fee?

 

[nowhat]

Take the easy own and spell out how MAG can adhere to this without any crazy costs incurred that would scare off investors. I'll look foolish for asking if it is really that intuitive.

The thing is, now that we're beyond 1M, the EU commission should/will take the wheel. And they employ a fuckton of lawyers. So, if this will go forward, it will be formulated in such a weapon-grade legalese that few companies will dare to object. What the eventual formulation will be, we'll just have to wait.

 

[Clear]

No one can give any specifics on how to make these games compliant. He said WoW was exempt because it's clearly a service. The Crew was always marketed as online only, but somehow it's not a service? Does that mean an additional line of text in the fine print or a small monthly fee would make it exempt?

Take the easy own and spell out how MAG can adhere to this without any crazy costs incurred that would scare off investors. I'll look foolish for asking if it is really that intuitive.

Exactly. The reason why this is a total non-starter in a legal sense is because the parameters of the complaint are way too fuzzy to ever resolve in any sort of meaningful legislation.

It wouldn't surprise me if they kick the tyres a bit because its easy money to sit on a committee and indulge in fruitless discussion, but its going to go precisely nowhere because what's being asked for is so generic, and the way it intersects with pre-existing laws is mind-bogglingly complex.

If anything comes out of it, its going to be so neutered and specific in application it'll be incredibly easy for producers to work around. And work around it they will in some shape or fashion.

The saddest part of it for me is its yet another case of people asking the state to do their thinking for them.

 

[GudOlRub]

The complaint is supposed to be fuzzy, no one expects 1 million EU residents to be experts on the matter and deliver an absolute answer, hence why the FAQ doesn't give any concrete solutions to the problem.
The purpose of this is to point out the problem, for the people to say "Hey, I have an issue with this, I want to keep playing the games I bought after the servers shut down, please look into it" and reaching 1 million signatures makes the EU legaly obliged to analize it and discuss it. The EU are the ones responsible for speaking with experts and come up with legislation if they deem it necessary according to the investigation they made.

You people demanding that this initiative and its supporters give all the answers immediately so that the EU can legislate based on it are simply trying to strawman your way out of this because god knows why.

 

[Clear]

You people demanding that this initiative and its supporters give all the answers immediately so that the EU can legislate based on it are simply trying to strawman your way out of this because god knows why.

Noone is expecting answers. All that's being requested is that actual intelligent questions are asked and requests made, not vague, woolly bullshit like "stop killing games".

I mean here's a really fucking obvious point to consider; If you wanted to create a test case as an example of the problem that needs to be solved, you'd centre it around something like "The Crew".

That would at least set a focal point for discussion, and proceed from there eliminating titles that deviate too far from the specific problems of that example.

This is supposed to be a matter of law, you can't treat it like a loose discussion on fucking social media! The real world doesn't work like that.

 

[[Sigma]]

Damn that shit re-ignited and blew up hella fast. What like almost 600k signatures in a few weeks? lol.

 

[simpatico]

The complaint is supposed to be fuzzy, no one expects 1 million EU residents to be experts on the matter and deliver an absolute answer, hence why the FAQ doesn't give any concrete solutions to the problem.
The purpose of this is to point out the problem, for the people to say "Hey, I have an issue with this, I want to keep playing the games I bought after the servers shut down, please look into it" and reaching 1 million signatures makes the EU legaly obliged to analize it and discuss it. The EU are the ones responsible for speaking with experts and come up with legislation if they deem it necessary according to the investigation they made.

You people demanding that this initiative and its supporters give all the answers immediately so that the EU can legislate based on it are simply trying to strawman your way out of this because god knows why.

Has the EU been doing a pretty good job so far? Last I heard they were telling pensioners that importing hundreds of thousands of migrants was needed to keep their pensions funded and economy rolling. Just wondering what kind of baseline we're working with for the people asking this gov body to take action, and then not even have specifics for what actions should be take! Just simply "we trust you guys to figure it out in our best interest". Who would be the experts in MAG preservation you want them to be talking to and working with? What are these experts spending their time on today? Talk about strawman, I don't think your conception of what you're asking for could even stuff a pair of trousers with straw. But hey, fight the power! Power to the gamers. Come hell or highwater, we're going to play and offline version of The Crew. Arrowhead Games legal team is probably sweating bullets hoping Helldivers 3 makes it out before this stuff makes it onto paper.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Damn that shit re-ignited and blew up hella fast. What like almost 600k signatures in a few weeks? lol.

Half of those is probably just people who hate Pirate Software.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Has the EU been doing a pretty good job so far? Last I heard they were telling pensioners that importing hundreds of thousands of migrants was needed to keep their pensions funded and economy rolling. Just wondering what kind of baseline we're working with for the people asking this gov body to take action, and then not even have specifics for what actions should be take! Just simply "we trust you guys to figure it out in our best interest". Who would be the experts in MAG preservation you want them to be talking to and working with? What are these experts spending their time on today? Talk about strawman, I don't think your conception of what you're asking for could even stuff a pair of trousers with straw. But hey, fight the power! Power to the gamers. Come hell or highwater, we're going to play and offline version of The Crew. Arrowhead Games legal team is probably sweating bullets hoping Helldivers 3 makes it out before this stuff makes it onto paper.

Dude, the petition is for them to just look at the matter. This doesn't even guarantee anything, they can just take a look, decide there's nothing illegal about what game companies do and move on. Some of these petitions didn't even result in legislation, just follow-up actions.

In fact, the intended and likely result from this wouldn't even be to create legislation, it's for lawmakers to take a look at the practice of selling a game as a product - but it says in small letters it's actually a license that can be revoked whenever - and decide if that is law-compliant.

If you actually watched the videos, you'd know before this Ross contacted a whole bunch of different lawmakers from different countries, explaining this practice, to see if they could provide a definitive answer on whether this was legal. What he got was an amalgamation of mixed responses with some saying it was, other saying it wasn't, and the majority saying they didn't know.

 

[[Sigma]]

Half of those is probably just people who hate Pirate Software.

Could be. I mean, I don't like him neither though at the same time I don't hate him lol.

 

[simpatico]

Dude, the petition is for them to just look at the matter. This doesn't even guarantee anything, they can just take a look, decide there's nothing illegal about what game companies do and move on. Some of these petitions didn't even result in legislation, just follow-up actions.

In fact, the intended and likely result from this wouldn't even be to create legislation, it's for lawmakers to take a look at the practice of selling a game as a product - but it says in small letters it's actually a license that can be revoked whenever - and decide if that is law-compliant.

If you actually watched the videos, you'd know before this Ross contacted a whole bunch of different lawmakers from different countries, explaining this practice, to see if they could provide a definitive answer on whether this was legal. What he got was a whole bunch of mixed responses with some saying it was, other saying it wasn't, and the majority saying they didn't know.

I agree in principle. Don't get that lost here. Best case scenario of it actually coming to pass, with the governments that exist in the real world, just means a future where only AAA pubs can even risk making a persistent online game. It's just gonna lock out the small guys. I'm sympathetic to the meaning behind the petition, but in reality, we all just need to be more selective when we're buying games. Anyone reading this lives in a country where their government stopped acting in good faith a long time ago. It's time to stop giving them reasons to legislate. Especially in passion hobbies like gaming. You don't want them anywhere near it. Ready or Not is getting chewed by a certain segment of their fanbase because governments in countries they want to serve have draconian content laws. They adjusted their game to comply with these laws, that many of the fans complaining probably live in and voted for, and they're still getting roasted in every online arena. Just keep the gov out. Stop buying games you don't believe in.

 

[mèx]

Noone is expecting answers. All that's being requested is that actual intelligent questions are asked and requests made, not vague, woolly bullshit like "stop killing games".

I mean here's a really fucking obvious point to consider; If you wanted to create a test case as an example of the problem that needs to be solved, you'd centre it around something like "The Crew".

That would at least set a focal point for discussion, and proceed from there eliminating titles that deviate too far from the specific problems of that example.

This is supposed to be a matter of law, you can't treat it like a loose discussion on fucking social media! The real world doesn't work like that.

This example or an example for servers using a multi-tiered architecture with microservices has already been covered in one the latest videos posted by the guy running Stop Killing Games. I won't link it so you are finally going to put the effort to inform yourself. I informed myself on the bullshit spouted by PirataGame by watching his video, so if you want to engage in this conversation in good faith put some effort.

Has the EU been doing a pretty good job so far?

For sure they take better consumer-friendly decisions than the multi billion dollar corporations you are defending, in general. For how I don't like how the EU is structured, this is not up for discussion.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I agree in principle. Don't get that lost here. Best case scenario of it actually coming to pass, with the governments that exist in the real world, just means a future where only AAA pubs can even risk making a persistent online game. It's just gonna lock out the small guys. I'm sympathetic to the meaning behind the petition, but in reality, we all just need to be more selective when we're buying games. Anyone reading this lives in a country where their government stopped acting in good faith a long time ago. It's time to stop giving them reasons to legislate. Especially in passion hobbies like gaming. You don't want them anywhere near it. Ready or Not is getting chewed by a certain segment of their fanbase because governments in countries they want to serve have draconian content laws. They adjusted their game to comply with these laws, that many of the fans complaining probably live in and voted for, and they're still getting roasted in every online arena. Just keep the gov out. Stop buying games you don't believe in.

No small dev is ever going to make a persistent online game on the scale and complexity you're talking about regardless, so don't try to pull that.

Servers cost money, lots of money, i remember Palworld devs saying how their unexpected popularity actually brought a huge expense for them since the server plan they contracted wasn't for that scale of players, resulting in a larger bill than it would've been with a larger plan.

I understand being skeptical of government intervention, but this is actually one of the few cases where things are being done properly. It's an initiative spearheaded by someone who grew up in the medium, being supported by people from within the industry, rather than a bunch of boomer politicians shooting in the dark because they heard on TV about some 'videogames' where you gain points for running over old-ladies.

 

[mèx]

Lets hope for a million more...

Gotta keep going.

 

[Bojji]

The saddest part of it for me is its yet another case of people asking the state to do their thinking for them.

Oh yeah, how dare government tells corporations what to do! They only want to suck consumers dry and make them own nothing...

"Free market" fixing itself and consumers voting with their wallets are a myth and this was proven many times before, biggest players will do whatever they want and leave consumers with no choice (cartels). EU did few pro consumer things already (Apple...), I hope they won't stop.

 

[LordPezix]

I'm a little out of the loop on this so can someone clarify. Does this initiative want publishers or game companies to keep dead game servers live or just allow consumers to self host/play the product if the dev/publisher no longer wants to front the bill?

 

[Bojji]

I'm a little out of the loop on this so can someone clarify. Does this initiative want publishers or game companies to keep dead game servers live or just allow consumers to self host/play the product if the dev/publisher no longer wants to front the bill?

Second option for MP stuff. Biggest thing is to patch out online requirements from games that don't need it in the first place - like The Crew. Gran Turismo Sport had offline patch when servers were shutting down, this is how it should be done.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Care to ballpark what Ubi would have to pay per player to keep The Crew running right now? How many players do you think there would be?

Nobody is demanding that, Jesus!
I have no idea how you keep coming back to that thought.

What would have to be done to it to comply with what you're demanding? Truly curious because I don't see any coherent suggestions on specifics. Just a blanket "I own my video game and should be able to play it foreverrrr".

MANY people in this very thread have given you answers.
You just chose not to believe them or ignore them entirely, because you somehow want a step-by-step instruction? Again, this is not the point of the initiative - at least not at this stage.
As a software dev, let me tell you: All of this is resolvable with absolute minimal cost to devs/publishers.

At this point the only reasonable explanation left is that you are either trolling or you are two Thors in a trenchcoat.

Does this initiative want publishers or game companies to keep dead game servers live

No.

or just allow consumers to self host/play the product if the dev/publisher no longer wants to front the bill?

Yes, kind of. Give owners some way to play it in theory, even if that meant they'd have to host everything themselves (the gamers, that is).

 

[LordPezix]

Second option for MP stuff. Biggest thing is to patch out online requirements from games that don't need it in the first place - like The Crew. Gran Turismo Sport had offline patch when servers were shutting down, this is how it should be done.

Okay thank you for the clarification.

 

[bender]

Pirate Software being a massive cunt saved the day.