• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    The original article completely misrepresents the initiative:

    We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.

    Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.

    Stop Killing Games is not trying to force companies to provide private servers or anything like that, but leave the game in a playable state after shutting off servers. This can mean:

    • provide alternatives to any online-only content
    • make the game P2P if it requires multiplayer (no server needed, each client is a server)
    • gracefully degrading the client experience when there’s no server

    Of course, releasing server code is an option.

    The expectation is:

    • if it’s a subscription game, I get access for whatever period I pay for
    • if it’s F2P, go nuts and break it whenever you want; there is the issue of I shame purchases, so that depends on how it’s advertised
    • if it’s a purchased game, it should still work after support ends

    That didn’t restrict design decisions, it just places a requirement when the game is discontinued. If companies know this going in, they can plan ahead for their exit, just like we expect for mining companies (they’re expected to fill in holes and make it look nice once they’re done).

    I argue Stop Killing Games doesn’t go far enough, and if it’s pissing off the games industry as well, then that means it strikes a good balance.

    • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah… The abstract (sorry, will read article a bit later) is bunch of nonsense to me (in respect to what is written, no offense to you):

      • online experience commercially viable? The fuck they are talking about? Yeah, I know what is meant, but they would get fucking F in school for expressing thoughts in such a nonsensical way

      • protections against illegal content would not exist on private servers? Really? Like only your company’s servers can run that? What, you write them in machine code directly? Or is it all done manually? Anyhow, just release source code and it will be up to community to find a way to make it run

    • Natanael@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      And “would leave rights holders liable” is completely false, no game would have offline modes if it did

      • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The argument there is if a game is left online with no studio to care for it then they believe they would be liable for community content.

        I don’t think it applies to offline games at all.

        • Bravo@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If server code is released such that people can run private servers after the official servers are shut down, then legally the people running the servers should be the ones liable for illegal activity that happens on them.