You're viewing a single thread.
Glad we preserved another game from the flash era.
While maybe not effecting games like this, for all EU citizens, consider taking part of the petition to have companies stop killing paid and free to play games. So companies can't take down more games where you paid for content. More info here : https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
Ah, yes, the "force companies to either bleed money supporting dead games or make them give up the rights to the source code" initiative
Making a "allow 3rd party servers" update and a basic server application wouldn't hurt an indie studio much. For beheamoths it isn't even a drop in the ocean.
How about release server side source code so people can self host it, or better yet, make lan patch when game is "dead"
Lan patches cost money to make, big money if the game was originally massive multiplayer. Since the game is at EOL it cannot generate any profits, meaning any money spent on development of such lan patches is going to just burn a hole in the company's budget.
Releasing server side source code opens up a route for abusing the game studio making the game. Since if some 3rd part wants to profit off of running private servers of that game, all they have to do is make a flood of bots in-game and on the game's communication platforms (eg discord servers, communities on Reddit or even Lemmy), which is not that hard to do nowadays, especially if you're a corporation. This coupled with finding as many in-game exploits as possible can drive up costs enough to bankrupt the studio, forcing them to release server side source code, which the corpos can then grab and monetize the crap out of. Since the bot flood can be made nigh untraceable by having them operate out of an unfriendly state (say, Russia or China), and there's no studio acquisition necessary to get server side code, this would be a perfect extortion method that'd fly under the radar of antitrust legislation
Since the game is at EOL it cannot generate any profits
Releasing server side source code opens up a route for abusing the game studio making the game
If, as you said, as the game is EOL it doesn't make profits, then it can't cause losses either. Otherwise it'd have to be kept alive.
Since if some 3rd part wants to profit off of running private servers of that game, all they have to do is make a flood of bots in-game and on the game's communication platforms (eg discord servers, communities on Reddit or even Lemmy)
Uh... If they're 3rd-party servers then hosting isn't paid for by the publisher. Additionally, game publishers don't pay for hosting of Discord/Reddit/Lemmy communities. And even if they did if the game is EOL they'd axe that too if it induces any cost.
This coupled with finding as many in-game exploits as possible can drive up costs enough to bankrupt the studio.
It absolutely can't. The game is DEAD. It causes no profits or losses. Nothing aboit the game matters to the publisher anymore except for brand/reputation for a possible sequel.
forcing them to release server side source code, which the corpos can then grab and monetize the crap out of
Nothing explicitly forces release of source code, any reasonable server application wpuld suffice, open-source or otherwise.
The "corpos" usually make the games. The monetization concern is minimal since a server for a game isn't anything a corporation couldn't make on its own if it wanted, nor is it something groundbreaking.
Since the bot flood can be made nigh untraceable by having them operate out of an unfriendly state (say, Russia or China)
The bots would attack servers nit owned or operated by/for the publisher.
and there's no studio acquisition necessary to get server side code, this would be a perfect extortion method that'd fly under the radar of antitrust legislation
What does any of this have to do with antitrust legislation? If anything, this would curb the publisher's monopoly over the game servers although that in and of itself isn't even an illegal monopoly.
If, as you said, as the game is EOL it doesn't make profits, then it can't cause losses either. Otherwise it'd have to be kept alive.
I mixed up words, what I meant was that the company could be harassed before it'd go bankrupt and EOL the game
Uh... If they're 3rd-party servers then hosting isn't paid for by the publisher. Additionally, game publishers don't pay for hosting of Discord/Reddit/ Lemmy communities. And even if they did if the game is EOL they'd axe that too if it induces any COst.
Now you misunderstood the statement. When the game is still hosted by the original devs/publishers, in-game bots would 1) tank the user experience (imagine tf2 but like half a year after launch) 2) put strain on the servers, the ones that still belong to the devs/publisher While that is going on, bots spamming media related to the game would tank engagement (who would want to play a game filled with bots that also has like no public community around it that isn't ruined by other bots). All that would make the revenue crash, and turn the game into a huge financial burden, causing the eventual drop of support/bankruptcy
I won't pick the rest of the comment apart, since you didn't quite get how this extortion scheme works (partly due to my poor explanation, but still)
Is such a strategy really feasible? Adding legislation that a game has to be made operable in a reasonable manner after the publisher discontinues support for it in no way influences this strategy.
If someone wanted to do such elaborate botnet defamation attacks in hopes of getting the game playable on 3rd party servers they could've done that already without legislation.
Bots making the game unplayable is a problem, but opening the servers in general would help the problem as private servers can implement harsher requirements for players than official ones usually do, opting to rather make a huge bot-filled cesspool as you've already said.
However, this proposal isn't a general "all games must have FOSS self-hostable servers" proposal. It's just a "if you kill a game it still has to be alive afterwards" proposal. Whether publishers open servers or not before they shut theirs down is their decision without the proposal as much as it is with it.
Better stop making assumptions and start reading. It's about companies providing an offline patch or tools to host a private server. Not giving up source code or running servers indefinitely. For example "The Crew" had a hidden offline mode which got patched out after lunch. Forza horizon 4 always had an offline mode an will continue to run after the server shut down.
Image buying a car that said it requires connection to the manufactures server to drive. Without a date when this connection or manufacture will be abandon. After 5 years the connection is discontinued to deminish costs and you can't use that car anymore. Doesn't it sound a bit scammy for you?
"No, it's not about this thing, it's about the same thing but worded differently" "Providing the offline patch" is precisely what I meant when I was talking about bleeding money, since, again, for online only live service games, the offline patch would take a LOT of work to implement, with no return on investment since this is an EOL game. Who's gonna be paying for that? The underpaid game devs?
And as for tools for hosting private servers, that will allow someone else to come in and harass the game with bots (both in-game and in the community) and exploits to drive up maintenance costs, forcing the studio to shut down and allowing the offender to take the tools, open and monetize the private servers.
As perfect as this initiative may seem in theory, in practice it creates a lot of dangerous scenarios for developers
Also, about the car: when you're paying to play a live service game, you are not purchasing a copy of the game, you are either leasing or purchasing a license to that game, and that licence can be revoked under the terms described in the ToS
Then they will have to stop calling it "buying" and "purchasing" and also explicitly state when exactly will the service expire.
"Stop calling it buying" now that's a good start. Clearly showing the player at the time of buying that the license will expire at EOL is a great way to set expectations properly
As for the exact time the license may expire: that would vary greatly based on the amount of concurrent players and the revenue the game generates, so the best estimate we can really have is whether or not the game generates enough money to continue supporting it (running servers costs money after all)
Overall, clearly setting expectations is the goal that this initiative should have been gunning for, but unfortunately that wouldn't make as much of a sensation in the news
You sure talk a lot for a guy who didn't read the text of the initiative.