Ross is right, if you don't propose an alternative and don't actually try to do anything to bring that alternative to the public, why don't you just fuck off?
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
150 points (93.1% liked)
Games
31804 readers
1248 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I think the most realistic alternative is to just have an 'earliest end-of-life date' plainly visible at the time of purchase. Keeping these games online forever isn't feasible, but shutting down something people paid for with the expectation of continuous service isn't good either. Just make it clear how long the developers WILL support the game for, at the very minimum, and let people make their decision based on that. And mandate refunds for any live service game that doesn't last as long as promised.
The "buy" button (or any similar verbiage) needs to go away (unless the provider intends for it to be available forever) and replaced with "rent for x years".
"Stop Killing Games: Sign the petition or fuck off!"
At least you're honest about not wanting a conversation and just wanting signatures.
Wtf are you talking about? He specifically says that he wants to have a conversation with people that will give constructive criticism, not someone that's just complaining and not giving any solutions or alternatives to solve the problem.
Alternatives would be boycotts directed at the worst offenders and a law that ensures service games are clearly labeled so consumers can make an informed choice instead of banned outright. I'm going to get downvoted and told to fuck off because I'm wrong regardless of what I say unless it's "I 100% support this".
Boycotts are fickle things, sometimes gathering a following big enough to make a corporation cave, but many other times, not getting any steam at all.
And even if a boycott is successful against one company, it doesn't mean they won't try the same thing again, or try their usual 'do something extreme, then walk it back to where you originally wanted it' two-step, which is generally very effective at getting what they want. They know how to manipulate the public to their desires, they have whole divisions dedicated to that (though sometimes even they get caught unawares). If we went this route, the issue is that this tactic is done frequently enough that people would likely get boycott fatigue. "Ugh, another campaign? Another publisher screwing us? I just can't anymore."
At least against corporations, actual consumer protection law is a much more reliable long-term solution to an enemy that will try every tactic to avoid real, effective change in favor of the consumer.
First off, thanks for a response that isn't filled with hate! It's been rare when I've made posts about this topic. I appreciate it!
If we went this route, the issue is that this tactic is done frequently enough that people would likely get boycott fatigue. "Ugh, another campaign? Another publisher screwing us? I just can't anymore."
Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I'd appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer. They've got The Crew but what other games? If it's really just The Crew then the issue is with Ubisoft, not the gaming industry. A big list would make it clear this is an industry wide issue that needs to be addressed.
I'm also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers. Cigarettes literally kill consumers, but total bans on them are rare. Instead, consumers are given a very clear message when buying cigarettes. It's up to the consumer to decide if they're alright with it. Are service games worse than cigarettes?
Now a practice doesn't need to kill people before a law bans it. Recently there have been laws enacted so that if a company sells a subscription online they must allow for cancellation of that subscription online. Frequently, companies would require people to call a customer service line to cancel a subscription, but that could be a huge hassle to do! It's clear that companies do this only to try and screw over customers and there's no reason it should exist as a practice, so banning it makes sense. Are live service games the same? They definitely could be, but I also think there are legitimate reasons to sell games as a service. Instead of banning it completely, why not just ensure service games come with a clear label like cigarettes. A note that access to the game is not permanent and the company can revoke it in the future. If someone doesn't like that, they don't need to play it.
Ive seen two arguments against "why not just let consumers decide for themselves?" The idea that consumers don't have a choice. All companies will eventually sell their games in this way and consumers won't be able to avoid it even if they wanted to. I would agree if the gaming industry was a monopoly and gamers really didn't have any choice, but that's not the case at all. Gaming is probably one of the most competitive industries in the modern world thanks to how easy it is for anyone to make a game and sell it worldwide. Gamers have enough choice that I don't see the "monopoly" argument as persuasive as it is in something like the right to repair movement.
The other argument seems to be "games are art and must be protected" but that leaves the realm of consumer protection and enters philosophy. There aren't laws mandating the protection of other forms of art so I'm doubtful any government would enact such a law. Also, personally have to disagree. I'm in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever. Focus on enjoying your life, as temporary as it is, instead of being down that it is temporary. I think games can be enjoyed in the same way. Of course, if a company is purposefully making it temporary to try and make a few extra bucks, that's shitty and should be called out, but we've gone back to consumer protection instead of philosophy.
Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I’d appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer.
Before Ross started this campaign, he'd been steadily creating a video series dedicated to cataloging games that are killed for the past 8 years, called Dead Game News. Here's a link to a playlist of the series, and you can see the titles of the games that have been killed in the title of the episodes. The Crew is certainly not alone, it was chosen to be a centerpiece of the campaign because it had so many people who owned it, having a fairly high profile shutdown, and being a super clear-cut example of a publisher actively disabling a game that clearly didn't need to be.
I’m also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers.
Instead of banning it completely,
I want to point out that outright banning live service games has never been suggested or wanted in this campaign. The proposed solution is to make it a legal requirement to have an end-of-life plan for live service games that are not subscription based. This would effectively mean the publisher/developer would need to account for the need to make the game playable after they decide to end support from the beginning of development, and make choices that would make that possible (choosing software and licenses that won't conflict with an End-of-Life). Alternatively, they could either make it not require a central server at all, or make it subscription based.
While the game is supported, they would still be able to run it however they please, their profit model would not be banned, the only thing that changes is what happens when the game is no longer profitable enough to support.
I’m in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever.
There's nothing wrong with that, but many people have the philosophy of preserving our history, so as to learn from it, and for future generations to experience. I personally am very grateful that I can read the thoughts of someone who lived a thousand years before me in a book, thanks to fanatical archivists who preserved it. It's the closest any of us can come to experiencing a time machine, the very concept can fill one with awe. Nothing will last forever, but I and many others derive meaning and value from keeping history alive for future generations to learn from, to enjoy, to ponder. Us preserving things in our corner does not disturb someone else from living with impermanence, it is only there for those who wish to partake.
There’s a few listed here:
https://delistedgames.com/extinct-list/
But the problem is usually much larger where a game requires you to login to play even the single player component but is unable to do so with entire services going down, such as gamespy or others, more on that here:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefunctOnlineVideoGames
The list grows ever larger and even some online game news publications have their own lists, small example below:
https://kotaku.com/dead-games-2023-delisted-servers-offline-1850083031
There’s quite a few others, but I do agree with the point that there should be an aggregate for all of these, that could be presented as a universal list that hopefully stops growing in the coming years.
There’s also the problem of “going digital”. Previously you’d have at least the physical disks/mediums of the game in your possession but with the ever growing digital only culture, the moment a game gets delisted and you can no longer download it, that is it. Cult classic or not.
P.S - Nintendo seems to have liked your Buddhist idea of impermanence and has done that to Super Mario 35, existed for a total of 6 months. Personally, I would’ve liked to at least try it seeing how it hasn’t been all that long ago.
Thanks for the lists! Delistedgames seems to focus more on games that aren't sold anymore rather than shutdown. For example, they list Grand Theft Auto IV as a delisted game because they only sell Grand Theft Auto IV: Complete Edition now.
Weird that TVTropes seems to have a better list of games that not only aren't sold anymore but don't work even if you bought them. It's an interesting list. I feel bad for all the people who played Family Guy Online for the 8 months it existed in 2012!
The Kotaku list is nice too but they do note that some of the games are still playable single player. It's only the online multiplayer that's not going to work since the servers are shutting down. I'm not sure how I feel about that one. Is it still killing a game if single player modes still work?
Unfortunately, boycotts and labels are not enough. I wish we didn't have to involve the government in this, believe me. There are dozens of different dark patterns and malicious compliance that companies apply to trick customers into buying things. You might be someone informed enough that would not fall for those tricks, but there a lot of people that would benefit from a law that prevents companies from doing that in the first place (children, people with mental disorders like gambling addiction, etc).
Signed this few days a go.
Many games already do this and I would like to give honorary mention to NeocoreGames who have done this to their Van Helsing and most recently with Warhammer Inquisitor. Latter one just recently got offline support with all past seasons playable.
I dont think its unreasonable to require even live services or mmos to have robust end-of-life plan that quarantees customers that the game will remain playable in some form or another.
I do not think developers should be compelled to add single player modes to multiplayer games, but I do think that server software should be open sourced as a multiplayer game is shuttered. I believe the studio is entitled to royalties if a server host is profiting from their discontinued game, but I also think that servers for discontinued games should be allowed to be run as nonprofit, charging only as much as necessary to keep the server active and healthy, and not be charged royalties.
I say this having not watched any discussion on the topic, nor knowing anything about how any of this works.
This is about starting a conversation, so hopefully we can have a conversation. I don't disagree with consumer protection nor do I want to protect billion dollar corporations. I just don't think that signing petitions to create new laws isn't the best way to go about this. Law changes come with all kinds of side effects. Anti-abortion laws have caused lots of issues that even pro-life supporters aren't happy with. I think it's much better to directly bring concerns to the companies that are causing the issue. I really do think it's only a handful of corporations pulling these anti-consumer shenanigans and I think they should be called out directly.
He makes it clear that this wouldn't affect most games, since most games aren't sold as a service, and even those that are often do have a way to continue to run after the service ends. So this initiative is quite literally aimed at a specific style of game that he doesn't like and fears will become more common. He's afraid selling games as a service is too profitable and companies will start selling all games in this way even if there's no need. To the question about "why not boycott companies selling games this way?" he explains boycotts don't work. But when Bud Light ran a pro LGBT ad, so many bigots switched beer that Bud Light had to apologize and fire their executives. It fell from #1 beer to #3 and the parent company is now switching their flagship beer from Bud Light to Michelob. Boycotts work. The fact that gamers can't stop themselves from buying a single game shows they don't actually care. It's way easier to sign a petition then it is to not play the newest Ubisoft release. If 1,000,000 people didn't buy the newest Ubisoft game, they would change course. Helldivers said everyone would need a PSN account to play the game on PC and it got so much backlash that the company changed course in a few days. Companies absolutely listen to their customers.
This is my issue with the direction this is heading. The question is "I am a developer with an online-only game. What will happen if this initiative passes?". The response is "Shut down your game and never make another online-only game ever again". He spends a lot of time talking about how games are works of art that need to be preserved for the sake of humanity and the good of consumers, and then he tells devs to shutdown their game and never make another one. This isn't preservation of games anymore than an anti-abortion law is preservation of life. Anti-abortion supporters don't actually care about life, they care about restricting choice because they don't think the choice is ethical. It's like saying any company that sells a movie must ensure the purchaser can watch that movie forever and when told that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for movie theatres and streaming services to run, respond by saying "Oh well! Who cares about theatres and streaming services? Those shouldn't exist anyways! They're unethical and anti-consumer!" Nobody supports a company selling you a licence to watch a movie on a specific date and time...unless it's a movie theatre. Sometimes, what sounds anti-consumer, isn't actually anti-consumer, and a broad law could take away something that people actually like as collateral damage.
Creating a law to change how companies operate brings up a lot of issues and questions. This video explaining all the issues and questions is 40 minutes long and often says there's no clear answers to the questions and concerns since no actual law exists yet. I honestly think that the better way of handling this is an awareness campaign (like is currently happening, keep the conversation going!) and boycott against the worst offenders, not a petition to create a new law. Even if this did get 1,000,000 signatures, I don't think that any government would pass a law that consumers actually like. No government is keen on messing with multi-billion dollar a year industries. I do think that if 1,000,000 people told Ubisoft or EA or any company to do a specific thing with a specific game or they won't buy it, they would make the change.
even those that are often do have a way to continue to run after the service ends
I'm going to guess you use a different definition than the rest of do if you came to this conclusion. Even still, we've got an enormous graveyard of games rendered nonfunctional once the servers were taken offline, and we can objectively measure those and see no way it's going to slow down. Sony's about to push out Concord this month. The two RTS games pushing themselves most as successors to StarCraft are both online-only. All three of these games will be completely unplayable and lost to time in just a few short years.
To the question about “why not boycott companies selling games this way?” he explains boycotts don’t work. But when Bud Light ran a pro LGBT ad, so many bigots switched beer that Bud Light had to apologize and fire their executives. It fell from #1 beer to #3 and the parent company is now switching their flagship beer from Bud Light to Michelob. Boycotts work.
I agree with you. A lot of people don't realize the power they have in the marketplace. Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is very obfuscated. Why would they tell you clearly that the game is going to stop functioning at some point in the future if they don't have to? It would be terrible for business. They'll put it in their EULAs, the things you only see after you've already purchased the game, and declining it means you can't use the thing you bought. It might be in some small italics text on the store page that's difficult to find. But if you're looking at Diablo IV next to Titan Quest II, you as the consumer have very little indication that one of those games will live forever while the other lives on borrowed time.
Plus, yes, games are art that are worth preserving.
Helldivers said everyone would need a PSN account to play the game on PC and it got so much backlash that the company changed course in a few days.
It's worth noting that, because this game can't exist offline, this is a change they could impose on you after you've already bought it.
The response is “Shut down your game and never make another online-only game ever again”. He spends a lot of time talking about how games are works of art that need to be preserved for the sake of humanity and the good of consumers, and then he tells devs to shutdown their game and never make another one.
There was a gaming VPN program called Tunngle that I would use when Hamachi would fail me. It was surely collecting untold quantities of my personal data without my knowledge. When the GDPR passed, Tunngle decided to just close up shop rather than finding another way forward. That was a casualty of consumer protections, but it doesn't mean that consumers aren't worth protecting. He acknowledges the very real scenario that this is a non-starter for a lot of current games' business models, and they'll sooner shut down than comply, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth making sure that people get what they expect to receive when they pay for a game: actual ownership.
This isn’t preservation of games anymore than...
I'm not touching that metaphor for all sorts of reasons that could derail this discussion, but yes, requiring that a game remains playable after the servers are shut down is preservation. Requiring them to put a label on it, like a surgeon general's warning on a pack of cigarettes, describing exactly what it is they're selling to me; that would be consumer protection. I'll still happily take the preservation as one step further than that.
I honestly think that the better way of handling this is an awareness campaign (like is currently happening, keep the conversation going!) and boycott against the worst offenders, not a petition to create a new law.
Awareness is a huge problem, because, much like I stated earlier, games aren't even required to inform me that I wouldn't want to buy them, and it takes me a lot of work to find that out.
If a free market solution (which I like and prefer, by the way) was going to solve this, it would have done it by now.
I think it's much better to directly bring concerns to the companies that are causing the issue
We have. Unsurprisingly, they've made it abundantly clear that they don't care.