We've all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection and a couple of years later the publisher decided they're done with it and shut it down leaving you with a broken game. Annoying.
Very annoying. It repeatedly happens, mostly AAA publishers that do it and their games are often quite expensive too. One of the most recent is The Crew from Ubisoft, a game that until late December last year cost £25.99. The developers at Ubisoft Ivory Tower announced on December 14th that as of March 31st, 2024 the servers would be shut down and so it will no longer be playable for anyone. The Crew 2 is still online, and Ubisoft are about to launch The Crew Motorfest on Steam on April 18th.
So now YouTuber Ross Scott of Accursed Farms, has launched the Stop Killing Games campaign to try and better highlight the issue. As noted on the campaign website: "An increasing number of videogames are sold as goods, but designed to be completely unplayable for everyone as soon as support ends. The legality of this practice is untested worldwide, and many governments do not have clear laws regarding these actions. It is our goal to have authorities examine this behavior and hopefully end it, as it is an assault on both consumer rights and preservation of media. We are pursuing this in two ways:"
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
It's definitely an interesting and often frustrating issue, especially for games that could seemingly continue to let you play offline without too much trouble. It's a complicated issue though, and the campaign might not end up going anywhere, but it's certainly going to be interesting to watch.
Unquestionably a campaign I can get behind though, because I've said for years it's a really poor situation for consumers to have your purchase suddenly stop working forever that you've not just put money into but often a ton of your time. It's a question of preservation too, the games are just — gone. I miss the days where you could just host your own server.
What are your thoughts?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
Quoting: slackSorry, I see it differently. It's one thing what you think you're buying and another thing what you're paying for. In my opinion, you can never buy a game because it will always be the property of its creator.In my opinion, that's utter nonsense, and also rapidly becomes incoherent if one starts to compare it with one's ideas about various other kinds of things you buy that have creators. If I buy an item of clothing directly from the person who designed and sewed it, who certainly "created" it and put their artistic talent into designing it, so that it embodies their "intellectual property", does that mean that (unlike if I buy a cheap shirt made in a sweatshop to old designs) they can come by my place and repossess it? No. So how is the video game different conceptually?
The difference with video games is all about what sellers are able to do, not with ethical differences in the nature of purchase. Then they come up with excuses to justify the bad behaviour they've discovered they are capable of with a digital good that can communicate on the internet.
7 Likes, Who?
In my opinion, when a developer does not want to offer support for a particular video game of theirs any more, they should release the source code if possible, especially if the game is a hit.
If the game is a hit, I believe releasing its source code basically guarantees it will live on as long as it has a dedicated cult following.
If the game is a hit, I believe releasing its source code basically guarantees it will live on as long as it has a dedicated cult following.
3 Likes, Who?
Caldathras Apr 3
QuoteWe've all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection and a couple of years later the publisher decided they're done with it and shut it down leaving you with a broken game.
Not to sound like a GOG fanboy, but this is often where GOG steps in. They convince the developer/publisher to drop the always-online DRM on a single-player game and put it back on the market (the "compromise" being that any multiplayer components are usually disabled
).Quoting: CatKillerFull automatic refunds for every copy when a company kills the game is much simpler, and removes most of the financial incentive for that undesirable behaviour.
Love the simplicity of this idea. I suspect the end result would be that, rather than having to refund all purchasers of the game, the developer/publisher will simply remove any DRM that will kill single-player gameplay. The game is still playable, so no refunds required ...
4 Likes, Who?
I also agree that we need to preserve the Multiplayer servers.
What if an MMORPG like Everquest,World of Warcraft or Guildwars is no longer profitable and servers go down?
What if a franchise is no longer interesting for the owner like Robin Hood the Legend of Sherwood?
What if the hardware is no longer sold like a Super Nintendo or Megadrive?
It wouldnt hurt the owner of the material to release sourcecode, schematics, assets ,server side binaries, level editors, tools , source of the tools and so on to make it possible to archive it for the future.
Books, Films , art, is preserved in museums and special archives too.
Even Companies like GoG or Blizzard themselfes have to reverse engineer games because only binaries are left and the rest long lost.
Last edited by tpau on 3 April 2024 at 6:34 pm UTC
What if an MMORPG like Everquest,World of Warcraft or Guildwars is no longer profitable and servers go down?
What if a franchise is no longer interesting for the owner like Robin Hood the Legend of Sherwood?
What if the hardware is no longer sold like a Super Nintendo or Megadrive?
It wouldnt hurt the owner of the material to release sourcecode, schematics, assets ,server side binaries, level editors, tools , source of the tools and so on to make it possible to archive it for the future.
Books, Films , art, is preserved in museums and special archives too.
Even Companies like GoG or Blizzard themselfes have to reverse engineer games because only binaries are left and the rest long lost.
Last edited by tpau on 3 April 2024 at 6:34 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
Philadelphus Apr 3
Quoting: CatKillerFull automatic refunds for every copy when a company kills the game is much simpler, and removes most of the financial incentive for that undesirable behaviour (you've still given them an interest-free loan, after all).I immediately see some loopholes that would have to be addressed; what does it mean to "kill" a game? Yes, taking down all the servers of a game where players can't host servers would be killing it, no question there. What about leaving exactly one server (that can handle, say, 12 players max) online? Not technically killing it, even though the other (say) 49,988 people who bought the game can't play it if the server is full.
Not that I'm against game preservation — I'm all for it, and best of luck to Ross — I just think it's complicated.
I guess I'm more in the open-sourcing camp.
2 Likes, Who?
On that specific topic and the video, I think the effort, as commendable as it is, it's prematurely dead, at least in France, I'm from there, and I'll tell you, we still have at the same time the "games turns people into terrorist" cliché and "game industry is the future of our economy" when french devs or esport team wins a prize or raise money for charity on the same mainstream media.
Yes our customer rights, and customer right observation associations are strong, no the justice still doesn't understand what games are, what's at stake and how heavy the game industry is, they just don't care much.
Finally, if (and that's a big if) things move a bit, I'm pretty confident it'll backfire, sure you'll be able to launch your game offline but it will miss features, content or might even soft lock, and at the slightest OS/driver major change it will break. In the end it might come down to the community to mod the game to fix it, as it always has been.
I'd really like to believe we could coerce the industry into better practices, but I don't think that will happen, not until individuals (sharing our values) in said studios will be able unionize, raise their voice, be heard and circumvent sales and marketing departments. And that's a battle to be fought in every studio.
Random thoughts on that topic.
Exclusively multiplayer games, MMO's, battle royales, moba's..
Wouldn't they'd immediately loose their appeal ? But sure, we should still always be able to host a private server and have some fun among friends.
But in the end, that's where preservation would end up the costliest, MMO publisher won't spend the slightest cent for the devs to either release a commercial customer solution or even open sourcing the whole thing.
As players we perceive games as art, they are merely cash machines to most publishers.
Indies will go the preservation route but indies are mostly able to fund offline single-players.
Finally, I initially drafted huge pseudo philosophical paragraphs, but I'll just ask directly, what are your opinions about loss ?
It's somehow both the most tragic and beautiful thing. You might react virulently to that statement, I get it, loss is tough, that's why.
But have we collectively decided yet to archive and digitize every single bit of our existences from now on ?
As an example, I can barely play my most favourite game ever, maybe 'cause I'm depressed, but more specifically I think it's because I used to play it in a very specific setting that's long gone and forever lost.
Yes our customer rights, and customer right observation associations are strong, no the justice still doesn't understand what games are, what's at stake and how heavy the game industry is, they just don't care much.
Finally, if (and that's a big if) things move a bit, I'm pretty confident it'll backfire, sure you'll be able to launch your game offline but it will miss features, content or might even soft lock, and at the slightest OS/driver major change it will break. In the end it might come down to the community to mod the game to fix it, as it always has been.
I'd really like to believe we could coerce the industry into better practices, but I don't think that will happen, not until individuals (sharing our values) in said studios will be able unionize, raise their voice, be heard and circumvent sales and marketing departments. And that's a battle to be fought in every studio.
Random thoughts on that topic.
Exclusively multiplayer games, MMO's, battle royales, moba's..
Wouldn't they'd immediately loose their appeal ? But sure, we should still always be able to host a private server and have some fun among friends.
But in the end, that's where preservation would end up the costliest, MMO publisher won't spend the slightest cent for the devs to either release a commercial customer solution or even open sourcing the whole thing.
As players we perceive games as art, they are merely cash machines to most publishers.
Indies will go the preservation route but indies are mostly able to fund offline single-players.
Finally, I initially drafted huge pseudo philosophical paragraphs, but I'll just ask directly, what are your opinions about loss ?
It's somehow both the most tragic and beautiful thing. You might react virulently to that statement, I get it, loss is tough, that's why.
But have we collectively decided yet to archive and digitize every single bit of our existences from now on ?
As an example, I can barely play my most favourite game ever, maybe 'cause I'm depressed, but more specifically I think it's because I used to play it in a very specific setting that's long gone and forever lost.
1 Likes, Who?
StoneColdSpider Apr 3
I always knew Gordon Freeman would be on our side..........
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: a0kamiExclusively multiplayer games, MMO's, battle royales, moba's..
Wouldn't they'd immediately loose their appeal ? But sure, we should still always be able to host a private server and have some fun among friends.
But in the end, that's where preservation would end up the costliest, MMO publisher won't spend the slightest cent for the devs to either release a commercial customer solution or even open sourcing the whole thing.
As players we perceive games as art, they are merely cash machines to most publishers.
Indies will go the preservation route but indies are mostly able to fund offline single-players.
The FAQ to the project covers that. There have been MMO games that have been kept online, maybe you can't keep the same number of players or will lose some features but smaller server is still better than no server, etc etc.
QuoteFinally, I initially drafted huge pseudo philosophical paragraphs, but I'll just ask directly, what are your opinions about loss ?
It's somehow both the most tragic and beautiful thing. You might react virulently to that statement, I get it, loss is tough, that's why.
But have we collectively decided yet to archive and digitize every single bit of our existences from now on ?
As an example, I can barely play my most favourite game ever, maybe 'cause I'm depressed, but more specifically I think it's because I used to play it in a very specific setting that's long gone and forever lost.
I think this is something that people involved with actual preservation initiatives, archivists, curators, libraries and so on have dealt with for a long time. Because it is not possible to preserve everything, so everything that is preserved is what someone chose to put effort into preserving. The reasons for that can vary wildly, but the more meaningful something is and for more people, the more likely it becomes that someone will preserve it. And while computers and the internet make it seemingly very easy for a lot of people to make and distribute copies, over longer time scales digital media is just less durable, requires more maintenance, tech changes more often... and we might actually lose more than we did in terms of books and tapes and films (and that is even without DRM and planned obsolescence).
The problem in this case is who controls our shared cultural experiences. Because something can be extremely meaningful to a lot of people that would like to keep it, but it is entirely controlled by a company that won't do it - or might even hinder their independent efforts. The power imbalance means that the interests of a few matter while that of thousands does not. And people get understandably upset about their own powerlessness, about the control others have over their memory, over their culture, over their lives. And in particular regarding companies, the value of something as a commodity - as a product that can be sold - is rarely equal to its cultural significance.
It is the same as when a platform like yahoo answers decide to erase their entire archives. It is not that nothing should be lost... but that people can't choose what to keep, it is entirely up to the platform "owner". Even though the contents are the shared experiences and memories of many people, those people are not part of the decision process, and their desires are ignored.
But in this case worse, as the destruction can affect all extant copies even in personal archives! And the time scales involved are so short that it is not just memories.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: eldakingThere has to be a way I can "like" this more than once.Quoting: a0kamiExclusively multiplayer games, MMO's, battle royales, moba's..
Wouldn't they'd immediately loose their appeal ? But sure, we should still always be able to host a private server and have some fun among friends.
But in the end, that's where preservation would end up the costliest, MMO publisher won't spend the slightest cent for the devs to either release a commercial customer solution or even open sourcing the whole thing.
As players we perceive games as art, they are merely cash machines to most publishers.
Indies will go the preservation route but indies are mostly able to fund offline single-players.
The FAQ to the project covers that. There have been MMO games that have been kept online, maybe you can't keep the same number of players or will lose some features but smaller server is still better than no server, etc etc.
QuoteFinally, I initially drafted huge pseudo philosophical paragraphs, but I'll just ask directly, what are your opinions about loss ?
It's somehow both the most tragic and beautiful thing. You might react virulently to that statement, I get it, loss is tough, that's why.
But have we collectively decided yet to archive and digitize every single bit of our existences from now on ?
As an example, I can barely play my most favourite game ever, maybe 'cause I'm depressed, but more specifically I think it's because I used to play it in a very specific setting that's long gone and forever lost.
I think this is something that people involved with actual preservation initiatives, archivists, curators, libraries and so on have dealt with for a long time. Because it is not possible to preserve everything, so everything that is preserved is what someone chose to put effort into preserving. The reasons for that can vary wildly, but the more meaningful something is and for more people, the more likely it becomes that someone will preserve it. And while computers and the internet make it seemingly very easy for a lot of people to make and distribute copies, over longer time scales digital media is just less durable, requires more maintenance, tech changes more often... and we might actually lose more than we did in terms of books and tapes and films (and that is even without DRM and planned obsolescence).
The problem in this case is who controls our shared cultural experiences. Because something can be extremely meaningful to a lot of people that would like to keep it, but it is entirely controlled by a company that won't do it - or might even hinder their independent efforts. The power imbalance means that the interests of a few matter while that of thousands does not. And people get understandably upset about their own powerlessness, about the control others have over their memory, over their culture, over their lives. And in particular regarding companies, the value of something as a commodity - as a product that can be sold - is rarely equal to its cultural significance.
It is the same as when a platform like yahoo answers decide to erase their entire archives. It is not that nothing should be lost... but that people can't choose what to keep, it is entirely up to the platform "owner". Even though the contents are the shared experiences and memories of many people, those people are not part of the decision process, and their desires are ignored.
But in this case worse, as the destruction can affect all extant copies even in personal archives! And the time scales involved are so short that it is not just memories.
0 Likes
ElectricPrism Apr 3
I was gifted a "Smart Mug". (No physical buttons of any kind to control cup temperature. Instead it required a Bluetooth connection and a Phone App)
I politely told them I wouldn't really use it. How much was it?
USD $100-200.
[Que Ejecting Coffee From Mouth.jpg]
It was still returnable, so I told them to return it and keep the money -- they put it towards a new cellphone that broke that week.
You couldn't pay me to make this nightmare tech part of my existence. Life is already miserable enough without the implications of always on invisible tech tracking every time you want to use a toilet, a cup, or whatever else.
We used to call this shit fucking creepy, and people who peddled it creepy.
Edit: Imagine a world with a "Smart Shower" designed to give you your water ration -- complete with IoT Camera and Motion Sensor -- just to turn on and off the water and totally not to collect data on your junk and sell you penis pills lmao.
Last edited by ElectricPrism on 3 April 2024 at 10:59 pm UTC
I politely told them I wouldn't really use it. How much was it?
USD $100-200.
[Que Ejecting Coffee From Mouth.jpg]
It was still returnable, so I told them to return it and keep the money -- they put it towards a new cellphone that broke that week.
You couldn't pay me to make this nightmare tech part of my existence. Life is already miserable enough without the implications of always on invisible tech tracking every time you want to use a toilet, a cup, or whatever else.
We used to call this shit fucking creepy, and people who peddled it creepy.
Edit: Imagine a world with a "Smart Shower" designed to give you your water ration -- complete with IoT Camera and Motion Sensor -- just to turn on and off the water and totally not to collect data on your junk and sell you penis pills lmao.
Last edited by ElectricPrism on 3 April 2024 at 10:59 pm UTC
6 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me