310
2024 was the year gamers really started pushing back on the erosion of game ownership
(www.pcgamer.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
310 points (98.1% liked)
Games
16961 readers
275 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure who expected an online game to exist forever. Not the first time the lights have been shut off like this.
Everything needed to run the game online exists player side. There are many games where people run their own servers because of this, even in WoW. They are literally taking things to disable this ability from what they purchased.
And blizzard never supported people running private servers, and yet here they are so what's the difference? I dont see why this game got so much more attention. Is it just pulling the game to sell the next one? Its scummy but its their right to pull their own product if they want to, and noone has to buy the new one.
They did, but that was 9 years ago, so you might not remember. However it was not as popular a movement yet, so they didn't get the same backlash as people are getting almost 10 years later, when everyone is sick of this. You are right, they can pull their own product if they want to, now. The goal is to make it so they can't just do that if they want to, anymore.
If you are referring to blizzard and private servers 9 years ago, you might mean classic servers but blizzard still sends out legal cease and desists to private server owners. You still cannot host a private server on american soil without blizzard stopping you. If thats not what you meant then thats my bad though.
I also fully expect ubisoft to release "the crew remastered" at some point too, once its clear they can make a profit off doing so, just like blizzard did.
I mean they started shutting it down 9 years ago, it isn't new, so it isn't really news now
Point was, this is about making it so they don't have the option to do this anymore, with the legal system.
I dont think its fair that is imposed on creators of video games. Is there some clause where this only applies to the developers we all dont like? I think its too much to mandate, although making voices heard about this is important in influencing developers to choose to not kill their games. I think a law is too far.
They will just have to stick to advertised timelines, and allow people to use that software, as they please, after they stop supporting it. I do not see how this is unfair.
I dont see how turning off servers is preventing people from using it how they please. Those with the game files are free to do whatever they want with it.
they aren't just turning the servers off, while there is part of the suit due to advertised promise vs what happened, the second point is they literally pushed an update that made running the software on your own, private, server, impossible. The point is that the game companies are making it so you are not able to do what you want with it. This is just one suit that is fighting for structures that protect you owning what you buy. It is multifaceted, from right to repair, to right to use software you purchase in any personal way you like. there is a broad, multi-industry, movement to make all products a "service". Software was one of the first, and currently the largest, set of industries that do this. From single player video games needing to contact a company server just to start, to features of your car, house, and appliances requiring continuous payment schemes, where they can just deny access, even though you paid for them. It has gone on for along time, and now the mainstream population is being affected, and some are fighting back.
I am clearly on the side of you own what you pay for. They don't owe you servers, updates, etc. They owe you being able to do those things, for your own purposes (ie not commercial), and not disabling everything when they no longer feel like putting resources into it.
It's also not some unknown black magic to make online games exist forever. We know how to do it.
What online games have existed forever without needing the community to reverse engineer it?
Quake is one of the oldest ones out there. Any game where you can host the server yourself can exist forever. It used to be very common that the server code was provided to you with your copy of the game.
I was referring to live service games like MMOs but thats sort of a good example. Should mmo developers release games with the server code so people can just use their own instead?
Most developers release server code when its a benefit for them and their userbase. Most developers won't when its a benefit for their userbase but not themselves.
The stop canceling games movement is overly broad. Also, how is the crew the game everyones going to bat for? Did noone know of ubisoft before they bought the game? Stop buying ubisoft.
Live service games are just about defined by not releasing their servers. Just because they don't, it doesn't mean they shouldn't. With any luck, a court somewhere will decide that reasonable consumers cannot adequately tell the difference between a game with an expiration date, like the Crew, and a game that will last.
Theres no assumption even physical games will last. Physical copies degrade and are not produced anymore, and companies stop providing servers to download games from as well.
Could you explain why anyone would have an expectation the game they bought would work forever?
Because the copy of Mario they bought 40 years ago still works, as does the copy of Quake they bought 30 years ago.
So the average user, who we are talking about, is the type of person to keep NES carts in working order for 40 years, or to somehow keep their quake CD working for 30 years? And the NES itself surely still works on top of that.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but quake won't run on modern OSs without an emulator, so I dont know how that helps.
Quake is open source and has about a thousand different ways to run on modern computers, but it will also still run on the computer you ran it on in the 90s. I'd assume the average person expects to put the video game in their console and be able to play the video game. The Crew doesn't function at all when you do that right now, due to no fault of the customer to take care of the thing they bought.
I won't fact check you that quake apparently runs on native windows 10/11, but even so I dont think anyone expected the game to exist or run forever.
I guess I'm the weird one but I expect MMOs to have a shelf life, and a short one at that. Thats one of the downsides of that game type.
I dont think the argument that peoples expectations were broken is valid. I might agree that people didnt expect the game to be removed from their libraries, but thats what happens in any software store when something becomes unlisted. They didnt remove it from peoples computers, just removed the download.
Deceptive, maybe I suppose if ubisoft implied the game would work offline, or if it had ever worked offline.
I also dont think someone discovering a developer/tester "offline mode" means much of anything.