This should be illegal, companies should be forced to open-source games (or at least provide the code to people who bought it) if they decide to discontinue it, so people can preserve it on their own.
This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.
Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.
This is also the reason I'm all open source. Not just games, but seeing someone abandon a program hurts. Or just wanting to make a change on your own to suit your needs. I don't have any big fancy programs, but I at least put my code openly on github.com for that reason. Both my "big" ones are just me using another program and realizing I could make something that worked better for me. At like 100x the time investment, but programming is fun.
Looking at the retro computer scene should make anyone a diehard open source fanatic, it's god awful how much retro stuff relies on a single guy happening to find an old disc in their basement and upload it to the internet, and a lot of the time that never happened and so the software is just lost forever and the only way hardware can be used is by people writing their own software completely from scratch and sharing it with others.
And of course if they then don't make it open source that's extra fun.
"The doting husband has gained thousands of followers on Instagram by sharing insights into his life with Miku, but things took an unexpected turn during the pandemic when Gatebox announced it was discontinuing its service for Miku."
this is why I have trust issues with proprietary software
hmm not sure if that would work as the model that he was using would be different from what's available so he'd probably notice some differences which might cause a mix of uncanny valley and surrealism/suspension of disbelief where the two are noticably not the same
plus using a chat-only model would be real tragic as it's a significant downgrade from what they already had
his story actually feels like a Romeo and Juliet situation
Next thing you know, he doesn't read the fine print, ther "brain" is internet connected and, sooner or later, he won't have a Miku talking back to him again
Game preservation is dying because of DRM. You want games you can still play in 10 years, pirate that sht and donate to those keeping up the good art of game cracking. It's either that or buying remakes a decade later that are just thinly reskinned. I can live with sht like denuvo since newer games just remove it after a year and then I can buy it. Storefronts like uplay or egs that are dependent on a malignant profit only entity are at best mid-term rentals and at worst spyware you have to pay for the privilege to use.
Furthermore, if you don't want to pirate: Buy your games on GoG. They are DRM free and you don't need the launcher to play (GoG Galaxy is amazing though btw)
And then what? Corporations will just slap a disclaimer on their products informing you of said condition and that you need to agree, understand and accept these terms and conditions and call it a day.
And then products without that label would gain at least a little a bit of market share. Most people still buy inefficient fridges because they are shinier, but at least a few read those yellow labels mandated by law and choose the more efficient ones.
That's the horrible thing about online services. You never really own it, it can be taken away from you at any time. If you want to preserve something, you need physical and/or offline access.
I believe the founder and first queen of Carthage said that if we don't learn to circumvent that, we deserve nothing more than we get. She went on to claim that nothing we have is truly ours.
Is it just me or was that Phoenician quite a bit ahead of her time?
Archival is extremely important and one of the side effects of copyright schemes is that they limit its viability. The less access people have, the more likely some work becomes lost forever. I've seen it a few times already, with recent work, but in one or two hundred years we're talking about libraries of art that could have been preserved but are just gone.
Closed source software, that's actually distributed to people, has all kinds of problems beyond that too. Tons has been written about that, but from an artistic perspective, I think the biggest loss is that people can't legally expand the original work. Giant franchises with a central cultural presence get walled off and usually just go through a huge creative decline, which is crazy because there's millions of people preoccupied with the concepts from the franchise who are barred from using them to express themselves. With software in specific, if it's open source you can modify it, fix it, expand it, maintain it, whatever - there's all these great resources they could use, but we won't let them.
It's pretty insane. At first I thought damn, from now on our culture will be so thoroughly documented that future historians will struggle to parse it all, but now I can't trust anything to last for 5 years and I can't have copies of it, either.
Piracy shmiracy, some random dude's homegrown server is not an archive, and anything that fails without electricity to power it is not a copy.
Partner found out about the unity crap when a bunch of steam library games published updates about changes in development, at least one of which stated they're transitioning from free to paid
This is why I always look for cartridge-based Switch ports of games I play, so they’ll be mine long after the online play ceases, they can no longer be legally purchased and my current device reaches the end of its product life. It also helps that game cards last longer than optical discs
The updates are still annoying but yeah it's better than nothing. Of course there are some releases with the complete games all patched but those are rare and usually special/limited editions.
the problem is that we've allowed this to happen. all mobile games function this way, the "rug" can be pulled at any time. all that money you spent on gacha pulls, was it worth it?
the problem goes back innocuously to MMO subscriptions, i think. which had a valid reason for existing, but an MMO can be "rug pulled" at any time as well, thankfully most of the greats have stayed up (wow, ffxi, eq) but ONE DAY they will be gone forever, relegated to private servers only.
I concur
Buyer should not gain rights to product, so they should not be allowed to profit from it, but they should be able to preserve it, unless the license that you actually buy had a time limitation, but that should be clearly stated when you buy it that you only buy access to it to (at least) X amount of time like you have with online subscriptions.
Unless we sell less of it than the arbitrary sales number we used a bunch of estimated pseudo math on to ultimately guess. Because if we sell less than that number we pulled out of our rectums with a faulty Excel sheet, we'll just shut the thing down immediately. Because, you know... fuck you.
It's developed by Facebook, but it's not one of those in-browser games you might be thinking of. "Meta Quest" is their VR platform. So, while the quality might be similar, you do need to buy rather expensive gear to play this particular game...
Yup. They're complaining about a Facebook game. No fucking shit that company will unceremoniously end support. Everyone who bought into Zuck's vision deserves what they're getting.
If people stopped renting games developers would start selling them again. Until then, the incentive is for them to keep pulling this nonsense.
There's a difference between a game having online elements, such as a MMO, and games that require a connection just so they can keep charging you. Even in the first case though, you should own the client, and ideally it either has a single player mode, or the developer releases the code for a basic server when they shut it down.
That's why I stated that it should be illegal to promise product while selling a undefined time limited license, there should be a clear minimum time stated when you "buy a subscription" for (single player?) games.
Fair, stating a time-to-live when you're paying might make some people think twice. At this point though, I think people need to just not be paying unless they get to keep it permanently. Paying for access to the online portion is fine, but the rest should keep working and you should be able to get your data out of the developer's system.
I read more, and I changed my mind. I think it's fair to require games to state a minimum time frame of support. Like say, a year. And if they cancel the game before then, you get a full refund including microtransactions etc.
A message from Meta Quest with a picture of quadrupedal orange alien with purple spots down its spine and large green eyes named Bogo from the Oculus Quest experience of the same name. Below the image is the text:
"Hi Kolorafa,
We are reaching out to let you know that Bogo will no longer be supported as of Friday, March 15, 2024. You may continue to wave at, pet, and feed Bogo on your Quest device until 11:59 PM PT on that date.
We admit we've gotten attached to the little guy too! There's still time to grab that just-slightly-out-of-reach fruit one last time. Bogo will appreciate it. And so will we. 🐾 🎆
Thanks,
The Meta Quest team"
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
I appreciate the sentiment around preservation, but there's an argument to be made that if you make something, you should get to decide if you want to destroy it. Banksy did something like this recently by destroying one of his pieces of art when it went up for auction.
@Kushan so you're saying they should be able to take your money and then destroy what you bought with out any sort of warning or compensation right? I strongly disagree with you if that's what you're saying.
No no, not at all - I agree with you, if you sell something to someone you shouldn't be able to just take it back arbitrarily.
However, OP is talking about forcing companies to open source something they created - and while I love open source and am a big supporter of it, I don't think that's necessarily right either.
I don't believe in that at all, human lives and the feelings associated with them are finite, the appreciation of art lasts as long as the canvas does which can be hundreds to thousands of years depending on what it is. The feelings they feel as the artist aren't significant on that time-frame and whatever respect I have for them is irrelevant in that context. I believe in preservation even against the will of creators because it benefits future generations, for the same reason historical knowledge does and their feelings today do not.
People have told me I'd feel different if it was my art but not really (I find that argument incredibly presumptuous and condescending which is why I'm acknowledging them here before anyone has the chance to make them as some kind of comeback), I recognize the value of art and the fact that just like these other artists I won't be around forever either.
The Banksy example is also bad because they didn't take anything away from anyone, just sold something that would change form after sale. And they knew that this stunt would only increase the art's value going in.
I agree with your sentiment that a creator should have control over their work. However. I do feel that an art piece which can only exist in one form is different from commercial mass media. Mainly because you start getting in to an "original vs a copy" territory. While I believe an owner of something should have control over copyrights...once someone legally owns a "copy" of something that copy should be theirs since the owner made the mass media thing for the public to consume I believe the public should, at some point, have a say in the future trajectory of the product, after all it is still the public who "decide" if a product is good and will be remembered, and they even "decide" the value of the product as well.
Art is usually only made for a select few to own...it is "artisanal"...meanwhile video games are made for a much larger group...
Moshi moshi, mr publisher? That book I released a year ago? Yeah, I want all copies destroyed. Yes, I mean ALL of them, including copies currently in possession of people who bought it legally.
Edit2: Jesus people, please engage with the actual argument... not some strawman argument I didn't make.
I must be missing something here.
Company buys land, designs and builds theme park
Company operates theme park.
Theme park isn't profitable.
Company closes theme park
???
Company must give away designs and schematics to theme park rides for free so people can build theme park themselves that might be in direct competition with new theme park company is trying to build???
Edit: I do think that abandonware should be opensourced at some point... but I don't understand this level of entitlement.
Good analogy. The battle shouldn't be about forcing abandonware to be opensource. We should focus on DRM, it makes games almost impossible to play when servers shut down.
OP should have compared it to other medias such as movies. When you buy a box copy, you expect it to work long after the authors/studios/etc. are gone.
The issue is about the lack of legal ways to play older games as time moves on. It will only grow bigger in the next few years with even more games relying on DRM and online servers.
Online only play models are difficult for the consumer. I personally don't play that many online only games for partly this reason... and partly because I don't play many online games at all.