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, 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.