If 1 million people sign a petition, a ban on rendering multiplayer games unplayable has a chance to become law in Europe
If 1 million people sign a petition, a ban on rendering multiplayer games unplayable has a chance to become law in Europe
A European initiative is now underway for videogame preservation and consumer protections against publishers "killing games."
A European initiative is now underway for videogame preservation and consumer protections against publishers "killing games."
well, while i understand sunsetting old online multiplayer games because hosting game servers is a non zero cost, i can't understand the need for singleplayer games to be always connected and rendering them unplayable
The company wouldn't be required to keep their servers online, just to allow other people to host their own. So it has 0 ongoing cost and maybe few hours of coding during game development.
I can't understand the "need" for the server to be hosted by the company. Our computers are just as good.
Well look at gta online, moders and hackers have so much more power when the session isn't run by the company. it alao allows them to find exploits much easier if the server tools are available to run locally. Also If you don't want people being able to give themselves all the weapons and money and mess up your game that means game states can't transfer between servers which means you could invest weeks in a campaign only to have the server close.
I prefer locally hosted stuff but there are obvious benefits which draw game companies to choosing to control the hosting process
Looking at you hitman...
I could see this leading to standardizing and outsourcing multiplayer services, which would be interesting.
That being said, before that happens, as a developer I'd be like: here's a zip file with all of our proprietary stuff ripped out. Have fun spending the next few months getting it to work well. Congratulations, you're now supporting a game that did poorly enough for us to drop it.
But seriously, go sign it. Long term it should be a good thing.
Have fun spending the next few months getting it to work well.
judging by some fan mods out there, i think many people would genuinely have a blast doing this (and do a much better job than the original developers)
Oh, it would be super fun if you're into the game, as long as it doesn't become a job, which it might.
Sweats in GameSpy
Honestly, it would probably lead to the major distributors also having control over that... So I guess one more yacht for Gaben?
Kinda funny that people on this platform consider that centralization of the service would be a good thing.
On one hand, I'd love to see drop in replacements for steam services, especially something that could be selfhosted. On the other hand, if steam services ever goes down, there are metric megatons of reasons to reverse engineer a solution. The centralisation could end up being standardisation.
I was thinking more of an open API of how the game interacts with multiplayer services, so that in theory anyone could setup a server, or server services. In practice I completely agree with you though. Nobody wants to do the whole "Oh wait, you're on that server? I have an account with that other server" thing. Steam, or some other party, would just become the defacto place.
The proposal is precisely about not letting your snake ass do that, since it would be no different than spinning a private server, customers shouldn't have to learn how to analyse network packages and break DRM just to play a game they paid for because you turned off your server.
Either sell it as a subscription or sell it as packaged product, not both.
I'm old enough to remember when dedicated servers were the norm.
Oh sweet times before the matchmaking
Just signed it. Took 10 seconds with my ID-Card.
While this would be great for those "online needed to play" games, wouldn't this also lead to companies preferring subscription models?
I'd assume it's easier to not include multiplayer in the "base" game and just charge a monthly subscription for the online part. Now the proposed law wouldn't apply, since the customer only paid for the base game.
It's pretty obvious what the intention of the writers of the proposal is, but I feel like it could have an opposite effect and push even more to the "games as a service" model those greedy publishers so desperately want.
The problem is that a lot of companies are already launching dead-on-arrival live service games, so unless they're willing to make something unique, all they will do is saturate the market further and keep burning money. I don't think this law would change those incentives much if at all.
The reality is GaaS is exteremely hard to success. Every one success GaaS, there are probably 20 or 50 failed one that we even never heard.
Hey players! Our multiplayer AAA title “craftshootteams” isn’t doing well and we’re prohibited by law from switching it off. But not to worry, with our ad supported €99.99 per month premium package you can keep access to your loot, high score and kudos thanks to our partners Evilcorp and DataSeller who will transfer over to their servers. You just need to install their “SocialMedialSlurper” anti cheat client with full root access to continue.
Nice write-up, but really not helpful since it has nothing at all to do with what is actually proposed in the initiative.
If the price is too high on an already unprofitable game it's still just going to lose money. It would probably be cheaper to just let the community run servers for them.
The current language in this proposal is far too vague and has the potential to do more harm than good...I would hold off on signing this until a better proposal is made
Care to explain your point with some detail?
If this fails, I doubt we'll see a second proposal. So I think it would be fair to measure any arguments you make as why no action is better than the proposal.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this petition doesn't decide the wording of any law just ensures it is brought to attention of EU lawmakers and discussed right?
If the petition hits it target, the politicians are forced to discuss it which would include agreeing workable language. It would not automatically become the law with the proposed language.
Wouldn’t they just not release the games instead?
That would cut them off from a huge market. Just look at bad actors like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. They comply with EU laws, since losing the market would hurt them too much financially.
I don’t feel like reading the article, but I’m guessing if they want to release a multiplayer game that you have to pay for, and they want to shut down their servers (making the game unplayable), maybe they would be required to release their server software so people can host themselves.