Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games

[Armadillo]

Doubt anything would happen, but if it does, the companies did it to themselves.

They used to release server files, it wasn't a special thing, it was expected. Games like Battlefield 2 can still be revived and played long after EA has forgotten about it because server files were released for anyone to host their own. You can still run a quake 3 server and the list goes on for old games.

That all ended because you can't shut down the servers and force people onto the next game or push micro transactions if players can host their own servers.

 

[Rroff]

I simply don't buy any future products by a developer/publisher who simply sunset games with no possible way to play them in future. I don't expect ongoing support but in most cases it is possible to release enough files that the community can get those games up and running again worst case, most single player games at most just stripping out DRM would be enough, online games can be a bit more complicated but often it is possible to provide the dedicated server.

I appreciate for some games like City of Heroes it can be a bit complicated especially with regards to the database but people have managed to resurrect it once the source became available albeit not via official mechanisms.

 

[Moobert]

Im in the same boat, actively choose to stay away from companies that have questionable practices.

 

[Haggisman]

Im in the same boat, actively choose to stay away from companies that have questionable practices.

This is pretty easy anyway, since it's inevitably the same companies who release the same rehashed "new" of games which are really just a slightly updated/reskinned iterations of the game they release every year (Assassin's Creed/Far Cry/COD/Battlefield/Need for Speed anyone?)

 

[RavenLunatic]

100,000 votes achieved Parliament will consider this for a debate!

 

[meths]

Isn't this all a bit pointless because what's to stop the publishers simply amending the EULA to include a clause stating that they reserve the right to close servers after x number of years?

 

[RavenLunatic]

Isn't this all a bit pointless because what's to stop the publishers simply amending the EULA to include a clause stating that they reserve the right to close servers after x number of years?

While it might not be the spirit of the petition it would at least provide some transparency when buying (leasing) games.

 

[Gray2233]

Isn't this all a bit pointless because what's to stop the publishers simply amending the EULA to include a clause stating that they reserve the right to close servers after x number of years?

A EULA does not supersede the law, and while the UK based petition seems a bit iffy from a wording perspective it's part of a larger initiative targeting the USA and EU currently.

Ultimately, people aren't asking for unending company support for whichever game they happen to buy. They're asking that for games which are reliant on servers for online play, to be made playable after official servers have shut down. This could be done quite simply by the company in question enabling user hosted/managed servers to be set up (at least upon the product reaching EoL), that was the absolute norm anyway for 90% of games on PC. The current "matchmaking" in many games where you're reliant on the dev/publisher to set up matches for you is an awful modern trend that leaked over from consoles, made worse by the fact half the time you're being directly connected/P2P to another internet pleb anyway and there is no dedicated server.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

‘back in the day’ games were still reliant on a centralised register of 3rd party games servers to connect to which was supplied by the developer or a 3rd party like games spy.

While it was possible to connect directly via an IP address, these games still tended to die once that central server went down because the player base just moved on or had already moved on.

I’m not sure directly connecting via IP addresses is particularly user friendly for your modern gamer. Back in the day online gaming was pretty much just nerds.

 

[Gray2233]

‘back in the day’ games were still reliant on a centralised register of 3rd party games servers to connect to which was supplied by the developer or a 3rd party like games spy.

Funny you should mention GameSpy, given it started life as a fan project to help manage Quake mods and user servers beyond what was available officially.

GameSpy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1996 release of id Software's video game Quake, one of the first 3D multiplayer action games to allow play over the Internet, furthered the concept of players creating and releasing "mods" or modifications of games. Mark Surfas saw the need for hosting and distribution of these mods and created PlanetQuake, a Quake-related hosting and news site. The massive success of mods catapulted PlanetQuake to huge traffic and a central position in the burgeoning game website scene.

Quake also marked the beginning of the Internet multiplayer real-time action game scene. However, finding a Quake server on the Internet proved difficult, as players could only share IP addresses of known servers between themselves or post them on websites. To solve this problem, a team of three programmers (consisting of Joe "QSpy" Powell, Tim Cook, and Jack "morbid" Matthews) formed Spy Software and created QSpy (or QuakeSpy). This allowed the listing and searching of Quake servers available across the Internet.

It's also worth noting that many games which ended up with GameSpy support didn't require GameSpy for multi, there were often other options such as direct IP, the entire Dawn of War 1 series comes to mind.

There have been many other similar services over the years which streamlined user server hosting and browsing, there's actually one or two still knocking around such as GameRanger that do this for people wanting to play older games.

Whether it's "user friendly" to average users or not doesn't really matter, the ability to continue playing given how driven communities can be is. If a game is still popular it'll have community guides, support, and systems built to replace old infrastructure, which will in turn streamline things for the less tech savvy.

 

[meths]

A EULA does not supersede the law, and while the UK based petition seems a bit iffy from a wording perspective it's part of a larger initiative targeting the USA and EU currently.

Ultimately, people aren't asking for unending company support for whichever game they happen to buy. They're asking that for games which are reliant on servers for online play, to be made playable after official servers have shut down. This could be done quite simply by the company in question enabling user hosted/managed servers to be set up (at least upon the product reaching EoL), that was the absolute norm anyway for 90% of games on PC. The current "matchmaking" in many games where you're reliant on the dev/publisher to set up matches for you is an awful modern trend that leaked over from consoles, made worse by the fact half the time you're being directly connected/P2P to another internet pleb anyway and there is no dedicated server.

I get that is doesn't supersede the law but if the publisher simply states that this game will stop working after x amount of time then as far as the contract between them and the consumer is concerned, the product is as described and the consumer entered into the contract knowingly.

It's not as if people will stop buying the games e.g. Bungie kept ripping content from Destiny 2 but each expansion everybody just buys it again, even though they know that some of it will go when the next one comes out.

 

[Gray2233]

It's not as if people will stop buying the games e.g. Bungie kept ripping content from Destiny 2 but each expansion everybody just buys it again, even though they know that some of it will go when the next one comes out.

Perhaps, but that's also at least partially why some sort of law protecting old content would be nice, Destiny 2 is riddled with content that was made unavailable.

They've also been seeing hefty player population decline year after year, even if they're still making revenue I doubt it's meeting long term projections and that matters for a company like that, the mass layoffs they've implemented are probably related to the trend.

 

[bigmike20vt]

It's not as if people will stop buying the games e.g. Bungie kept ripping content from Destiny 2 but each expansion everybody just buys it again, even though they know that some of it will go when the next one comes out.

*some* people will. I bought destiny 2 and some DLC. played a bit then learned they had vaulted most of my content (but with a tease of maybe they would bring it back in the future - for a fee of course -
that was the last time I paid a penny to bungie. the fact that a section of the fans defend this practice and are aggressive against anyone who questions it frankly blows my mind.

 

[Haggisman]

‘back in the day’ games were still reliant on a centralised register of 3rd party games servers to connect to which was supplied by the developer or a 3rd party like games spy.

While it was possible to connect directly via an IP address, these games still tended to die once that central server went down because the player base just moved on or had already moved on.

I’m not sure directly connecting via IP addresses is particularly user friendly for your modern gamer. Back in the day online gaming was pretty much just nerds.

While mostly I agree with you re. solely online/multiplayer games, the bigger issue is the shutting down of single player games with "online elements" (or even those which simply "phone home" e.g. for DRM). I seem to remember that the big one which kicked this all off was Ubisoft shutting down servers for "The Crew", a driving game which was perfectly possible to play entirely solo without ever needing to interact with another player.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Oh I totally agree, I was merely pointing out this isn’t new but it’s certainly got worse.

 

[Silent Bob]

Working for a software development company (we don't make games though) I see both sides of the argument. If a game is so reliant on online services that it can't function standalone I think the expectation of pay once play forever doesn't work. I don't think it's fair for the publisher to sell a game for a one off fee. Then if the game is very successful be stuck with the server hosting costs for what could be decades without any additional income for it. This shouldn't apply for single player games which really shouldn't need any online services though.

I think some franchises are becoming more like a hosted service and should be priced as such. Rather than having a high up front payment to cover the running costs until the publisher decides it's not economically viable to keep it going.

 

[deviation]

I just saw this on Gamer's Nexus.

Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games

Looks like something worth supporting.

Signed

 

[mid_gen]

I appreciate this but what I don't see people understanding is that it doesn't have to be all of it, it can just be the server side stuff that is being taken away.

The server stuff is quite likely to contain code that can’t be open sourced. It’s not that simple unfortunately. They could potentially release the API spec but in games that leaves a massive amount of functionality to be rebuilt, as servers aren’t just noddy CRUD engines like enterprise software.

 

[Zefan]

The server stuff is quite likely to contain code that can’t be open sourced. It’s not that simple unfortunately. They could potentially release the API spec but in games that leaves a massive amount of functionality to be rebuilt, as servers aren’t just noddy CRUD engines like enterprise software.

I suppose so, but who said it had to be open sourced?

 

[arknor]

The server stuff is quite likely to contain code that can’t be open sourced. It’s not that simple unfortunately. They could potentially release the API spec but in games that leaves a massive amount of functionality to be rebuilt, as servers aren’t just noddy CRUD engines like enterprise software.

are you aware that people reverse engineered the server protocol for even WOW?

if they allowed it people could do their own servers, but then that's a game stealing from their player base. omg they ain;'t buying the new 80$ titles.

old games are bad for the stock price, we gotta close em down and keep the shareholders happy.