"but black dynamite!....... i sell drugs to the community!"
I think people are overestimating what this petition is going to do. It will likely just end up in a response from the EU listing pros and cons but effectively saying "can't really do anything about it, sorry!". It's still good, even MMOs have server software gaming companies could release if legislation forced them instead of causing fandoms to die. Games are culture. They may also be entertainment, but that's culture as well. But I wouldn't hold out hope.
Well when the choice is anti consumer, too fucking bad.
It needs way more people, because I guess a lot of people from all over the world used VPNs to sign the petition and will get nullified.
So if you planned to do it, don't, you will hurt your goals more than you're doing an good.
Uh, yeah, that's the point of all regulations. To make you not pick bad things.
This is just pure fabricated bullshit. They themselves started limiting options. Remember the old days where you could host your own server with basically any game? They took that away, not us. So they themselves are 100% responsible for this 'uprising'. Besides they could just provide/open-source the backend and disable drm. Hardly any work at all.
But of course it's not about that. They just try to hide behind this 'limits options' argument. But they simply don't want you to be able to play their old games. They want you to buy their latest CoD 42.
Developer choice, ha-ha, very funny. I am not familiar with the industry and still feel safe to bet most of them (edit: actual software developers making games) just want to get enough money for doing what they can do without too much stress/disgust and also most of them don't have a desire to see their work die just because some manager decided it is time to make some other games instead
This initiative sure would make things more complicated for the game publishers, yes.
Because they're currently not doing the bare minimum.
If they weren't so accustomed to not doing the bare minimum, maybe they would have different opinions! Just saying.
Edit: Just signed the petition. Didn't think this was necessary before because, as soon as I heard of it, Finland was already top of the list percentage wise. But I did sign it, just for the hell yeah of it.
Whenever a large games company talks about "developer choice" you know they're referring to one of a few things:
- Think of the shareholders!
- Think of the rich CEO who adds zero value to the company!
- The people don't know what they want and therefore we need to tell them exactly what they want and need!
"curtail developer choice" is such a weak argument because you could equally apply it to literally every piece of regulation ever passed. Of course it curtails choice, that's almost the dictionary definition of an industry regulation.
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.
they say "developer choice" because they know those words have positive connotations but what they mean is "publisher greed"
When you work hard to create a consumer economy, the first rule is, don't piss off the consumers!
Corporate jargon translation:
"It's going to limit innovation" = "We won't be able to use those new ways of ripping off our customers anymore"
"Developers" are the ones who are passionate about the games they make, and definitely don't want their games dead.
"Corporations" are the ones who only want to profit from selling the game, and then ditch it once it's no longer lucrative enough.
Keep signing it! Don't stop!
Yeah, because the choices they have now is working great for quality games...
Yes, it curtails you from making absurd choices about how to fuck customers out of the money they paid for your games
Choice to do what?
These are their two points:
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.
I feel like the first is fair enough at the moment, but with accompanying laws it could be resolved. Eg once a developer enacts an end of life plan, their legal culpability is removed. Plus give the right tools for moderation and the community can take care of it.
Second is just a cop out I think. "Many titles are designed from the ground up to be online only" - that's the whole point. It's not retroactive, so you don't need to redesign an existing game. But going forward you would need to plan for the eventual end of life. Developers have chimed in that it can be done.
Even if this would be true (which it isn’t, it’s made up bullshit): I do not give a crap.
No, I do not care about the publisher.
No, I do not care about the studio.
No, I do not care about the developer anymore too.
I do not give a single fuck about any of them anymore. I want to own the game I buy. I don’t want anyone being able to pull the plug. I also want to own the hardware or console I buy. I am ready to watch their existence to crumble as long as I get what I want.
These people lied and conned this hobby of mine into monetised shite. I hope a lot of them somehow crash and burn. Would laugh and dance when they croak. I can play Factorio and Terraria until the heat death of the universe. Your new Assassins Blood Pack: Revenge of the Fortnite 2 Deluxe Bundle MMO-Life Service Definitive Expansion Season Pass DLC Dark of the Moon Surprise Mechanic won’t be missed anyway.
We saw the depths a nepo baby from Blizzard would go for this initiative to fail, can't imagine what could happen with a body comprised of people from the biggest worms in the industry (Epic, EA, Activision, Microsoft, Ubi et al.)
Good. Your choices are bad
1.2 million as of now. So fucking proud to be European.
You are being stopped from stopping people playing their games.
That's a double negative bruh, as in, it reduces overrall limitations in the world for what people are allowed to do.
Lol publishers curtail developer choice, gtfo
Muh business model :'(
Oh no?! It developer's choices vs purchaser's options. Who will win, it's a mystery only time can solve. Just kidding, we all know who the courts will side with, as it is never "the people".
So, a shitton of game developers just got laid off from Microsoft, another in a string of "restructuring" nonsense that's been rampant in the industry.
That's a lot of people with gaming expertise who could be put to work helping companies transition their games to single player experiences or at least making them accessible to customers after support stops. If the EU ends up pushing this forward, there's a decent business opportunity in there.
