No, the point of the Stop Killing Games initiative is to make games buy once, be playable forever somehow. If a game releases that is dependent on server infrastructure, the studio should have an end of life plan. That could look like many things, including releasing the tools necessary for anyone else to spin up a server.
Yeah, but that doesn’t actually include games like, say, World of Warcraft. You can only buy monthly subscription. You are told it will run out in a month and you will need to pay again to play. It’s not the greatest model, but it’s not the same things as games where you pay once, without being told the game is going to shut down or when, then it suddenly becomes unplayable at a random time when the publisher decides to kill it.
Paying once and having the game shut down a year later, and paying the same price but a little once a month and having the game shut down a year later is the same. I don’t get this thinking at all.
The WoW example is a little different from a subscription standpoint in that the server is a arguably major part of the game itself. The content you see, your character’s data, world events, etc. all happen server-side. WoW is a lot more than just some netcode to get clients talking in a one-shot.
That being said, if Blizzard were to sunset WoW, then it should also be required to provide a way to self-host a server and a client update to connect to third party servers without needing to modify game files.
I’m not even saying they need to open-source it or make it free, just make a server application available.
Stop Killing Games initiative has been targeting what they consider a winnable legal case, not necessarily the best ethical one. So, as the other poster said, they are not targeting subscription based games as much or at all on the basis that those are up front about the fact that your access is lost without a subscription.
I do, personally, wish to see all games playable forever but I fully understand why they are strategizing the way that they are.
In the second case the publisher is upfront about it and you are told this is how it will work when you pay. The first case is basically fraud, where you’re paying for something on the assumption you’ll be able to keep it and then it gets destroyed.
In the end it boils down to which practice can be reasonably attacked on legal grounds, not necessarily how predatory it is.
That isn’t the point of the initiative. No where do they say it should be buy once and playable forever. They just want you to be wanted to play the game forever if the developers decide not to continue the service.
How do your two sentences not contradict each other? What do you think end of life plan means? Stop Killing Games explicitly wants games to be playable forever.
No, all games should release server binaries (and the game for free if it’s a subscription model) after they close down. Same for free-to-play or whatever, we should have the right to archive games.
Yeah that’s not how online games work though. Servers cost money, probably way more than you would expect, which is why online games used to use monthly subscriptions until people decided they didn’t like that so they moved to free-to-play with micro transactions instead. Guild Wars 2 is a good example of how an MMO can be run without needing a monthly sub by making everyone by each individual expansion, in the beginning you even had to buy the content for each story patch but the newer patch content is free with the expansion afaik. Online games don’t have to be predatory with their pricing but they do need to make a lot of money to keep the lights on.
I think the point is more that when they decide they don’t want to run the servers anymore they should have to release the server code or in some other way allow the server to be run locally so that the game isn’t useless.
Also, until about 15 years ago, it was completely expected that you would buy a software once and they would still run their servers. That’s why windows used to cost like $350 in mid 2000s dollars, you could still reasonably expect to get online updates for it years later.
People already pay that much just as a subscription. Given that that $350 came with like 10 years of support; Yes I honestly think that people would pay a couple hundred dollars for a game like RuneScape or something that came with a 10 year guarantee.
But those studios could still provide tools necessary to keep the games playable after they no longer want to support it.
No one is asking for laws that force studios to foot the bill for indefinite support. But games don’t have to built in such a way that access can be entirely removed at the whim of a dev or publisher.
Lots of MMOs have private servers already. It’s not a revolutionary ask.
It’s not up to me to pay extra for servers, they should take the costs of them into account when deciding to make an online game.
Games like World of Warcraft make you pay for DLC and a subscription, which is ridiculous. OSRS just asks for a monthly subscription, is that a model I want to see expanded? Absolutely fucking not. On topic though, games with that model should still have to release the entire game for free after they close the official servers.
So do you think people would happily pay possibly hundreds of dollars upfront to play an MMO to “account for server costs”? Players have to pay extra no matter what, if the customer isn’t paying for the server costs who is? You also have to keep in mind that WoW expansions are massive compared to most OSRS updates and are released on a fairly short schedule, that kind of dev cycle takes a lot of money to maintain.
Thats not a business model we want to encourage.
Games should be buy once, play forever.
Unless they have servers or update or any kind of labor/cost behind them.
Single player locally hosted games sgould be buy once and never again, and most are. I not actually sure i know of one that isn’t.
No, the point of the Stop Killing Games initiative is to make games buy once, be playable forever somehow. If a game releases that is dependent on server infrastructure, the studio should have an end of life plan. That could look like many things, including releasing the tools necessary for anyone else to spin up a server.
Yeah, but that doesn’t actually include games like, say, World of Warcraft. You can only buy monthly subscription. You are told it will run out in a month and you will need to pay again to play. It’s not the greatest model, but it’s not the same things as games where you pay once, without being told the game is going to shut down or when, then it suddenly becomes unplayable at a random time when the publisher decides to kill it.
Paying once and having the game shut down a year later, and paying the same price but a little once a month and having the game shut down a year later is the same. I don’t get this thinking at all.
The WoW example is a little different from a subscription standpoint in that the server is a arguably major part of the game itself. The content you see, your character’s data, world events, etc. all happen server-side. WoW is a lot more than just some netcode to get clients talking in a one-shot.
That being said, if Blizzard were to sunset WoW, then it should also be required to provide a way to self-host a server and a client update to connect to third party servers without needing to modify game files.
I’m not even saying they need to open-source it or make it free, just make a server application available.
Stop Killing Games initiative has been targeting what they consider a winnable legal case, not necessarily the best ethical one. So, as the other poster said, they are not targeting subscription based games as much or at all on the basis that those are up front about the fact that your access is lost without a subscription.
I do, personally, wish to see all games playable forever but I fully understand why they are strategizing the way that they are.
In the second case the publisher is upfront about it and you are told this is how it will work when you pay. The first case is basically fraud, where you’re paying for something on the assumption you’ll be able to keep it and then it gets destroyed.
In the end it boils down to which practice can be reasonably attacked on legal grounds, not necessarily how predatory it is.
Fair point, I didn’t think of it from that view point.
That isn’t the point of the initiative. No where do they say it should be buy once and playable forever. They just want you to be wanted to play the game forever if the developers decide not to continue the service.
How do your two sentences not contradict each other? What do you think end of life plan means? Stop Killing Games explicitly wants games to be playable forever.
No, all games should release server binaries (and the game for free if it’s a subscription model) after they close down. Same for free-to-play or whatever, we should have the right to archive games.
I agree
Can you even play Minecraft locally if Microsoft shuts down their authentication servers nowadays ?
Yes
Yes you just don’t have a skin in game, that already happens if you try to play without an internet connection
Yeah that’s not how online games work though. Servers cost money, probably way more than you would expect, which is why online games used to use monthly subscriptions until people decided they didn’t like that so they moved to free-to-play with micro transactions instead. Guild Wars 2 is a good example of how an MMO can be run without needing a monthly sub by making everyone by each individual expansion, in the beginning you even had to buy the content for each story patch but the newer patch content is free with the expansion afaik. Online games don’t have to be predatory with their pricing but they do need to make a lot of money to keep the lights on.
I think the point is more that when they decide they don’t want to run the servers anymore they should have to release the server code or in some other way allow the server to be run locally so that the game isn’t useless.
Also, until about 15 years ago, it was completely expected that you would buy a software once and they would still run their servers. That’s why windows used to cost like $350 in mid 2000s dollars, you could still reasonably expect to get online updates for it years later.
Yeah but do you think people will pay $350 up front for a video game?
People already pay that much just as a subscription. Given that that $350 came with like 10 years of support; Yes I honestly think that people would pay a couple hundred dollars for a game like RuneScape or something that came with a 10 year guarantee.
But those studios could still provide tools necessary to keep the games playable after they no longer want to support it.
No one is asking for laws that force studios to foot the bill for indefinite support. But games don’t have to built in such a way that access can be entirely removed at the whim of a dev or publisher.
Lots of MMOs have private servers already. It’s not a revolutionary ask.
Yeah nah I support private servers
It’s not up to me to pay extra for servers, they should take the costs of them into account when deciding to make an online game.
Games like World of Warcraft make you pay for DLC and a subscription, which is ridiculous. OSRS just asks for a monthly subscription, is that a model I want to see expanded? Absolutely fucking not. On topic though, games with that model should still have to release the entire game for free after they close the official servers.
So do you think people would happily pay possibly hundreds of dollars upfront to play an MMO to “account for server costs”? Players have to pay extra no matter what, if the customer isn’t paying for the server costs who is? You also have to keep in mind that WoW expansions are massive compared to most OSRS updates and are released on a fairly short schedule, that kind of dev cycle takes a lot of money to maintain.