Anthem kept the servers going longer, it got some updates and EA even promised an entire rework akin to No Man’s Sky, but EA being EA they never delivered it and just cancelled everything lol.
Neither did Hello games when they continued to work on NMS, it didn’t have any monetization beyond buying the game, but they still did it in the end and it paid off.
That’s what killed it for me. I really enjoyed the Lawbreakers beta, but paying $30 for a game that would either die at a fixed price or quickly shift to F2P made no sense.
You know what f2p means to me? It means you can play the game for free but the experience is guaranteed to be miserable because you’re going to have relentless ads crammed down your throat for skins and other bullshit I couldn’t give a single fuck about, and no matter how much you pay it never stops.
So if it’s between that and just paying $30 for the game, I’ll take the $30 every time. I avoid f2p games like the plague.
It was originally advertised as f2p, at some point they changed their minds and decided to charge for it, clearly it didn’t go well since people already associated it with free.
I long for a moneyless, classless game in this genre where the incentives are community thriving, trust, pleasure, and all the other aspects that make life worth worth living outside of capitalism.
I think Sim Ant technically meets these conditions.
Just imagine how much worse it would have been for sony with Concord in the EU if this law were reality. Flop a game, a live service game no less and then they would have to leave it in a playable state for like a couple hundred people that ever played it in the EU. I don’t know how this law would work in this case. Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?
It’s really ambiguous how it would or how it would be revised work for games that are multiplayer only.
Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?
Sort of. The Idea is that people should be able to run their own servers, but developers wouldn’t need to give out their code. All you need is the server binary. After all server software is just that software, just like the client and they don’t need to give out the source code for that for you to run the game. Alternatively they could patch the game so it’s peer-to-peer. (and yes in this case that would be unreasonable as the game is not successful enough to even break even)
The initiative is so ambiguous (to the extend that it is - I’d argue that it’s a lot clearer than many people claim) because it’s not actually legal text. It’s not supposed to be. All it should do is describe the problem and explain why the problem falls under EU jurisdiction. Everything else is supposed to be handled by EU lawmakers after the initiative has met it’s signature goal.
I think the idea is more that if this were in place companies like Sony would be more incentivized to make sure they release games worth buying and playing, because if they didn’t then they would have the financial burden of keeping them alive.
Side note: it doesn’t require constant support from the developers. Just update it so players can run local servers, then it would technically still be playable. Of course I’m not a game dev so I’m sure thats more complicated than I’m making it sound, so that’s again why they should focus on making games that are good to begin with.
I think in Sony’s case a reasonable alternative is to just refund, which is what they’re doing anyways. There’s no way a full refund would not be considered a true option, so I think the Concord side is a bit irrelevant to the primary issue of server owners shutting down servers for old games and keeping the money.
Literally how would this change anything? Nobody played the game because it’s bad. Everyone who bought it got a refund. Why would you want a law forcing them to give people a game they don’t want?
Off the top of my head not really, but I just woke up
But there’s this magic way to learn about stuff called “looking it up” you can try! I recommend the people the post is talking about, you’re obviously really poorly informed on the topic
This is so important to you that the government must be petitioned to act but you don’t have a single example? Did you purchase Concord? Have you ever purchased a game that no longer works? Why do you think you have the right to tell the devs what they should be doing if you didn’t buy their game?
This is so important to you that the government must be petitioned to act but you don’t have a single example?
Yup, that’s exactly what I said, nailed it!
Did you purchase Concord?
No, irrelevant anyway
Have you ever purchased a game that no longer works?
Yes. Multiple, even!
Why do you think you have the right to tell the devs what they should be doing if you didn’t buy their game?
Because nobody should have the ability to take a paid-for product and make it no longer work after the fact. That flat-out _shouldn’t be an options for anyone
You should really inform yourself on this topic, it’s super clear you’ve got no idea what youre on about
Best we got is a new Skyrim version. What do you mean you don’t want to buy the game you already own again? We made 20 different versions, all just for you to buy!
Or kill it completely. The only reason I’ve held off signing this is that the wording is so vague that it could work in favor of gaming companies. I’d rather not see that.
It’s not supposed to be a finished law at this point. The main take from the initiative is that digital games have a massive issue with anti-consumer practices, and that consumers demand something to be done about it.
Companies can completely erase the idea of ownership. If everything is subscription-based, they can simply stop the subscription and have no further obligations.
Or Europe just gets completely locked out of functionality, as already happens in some European countries.
Of course good things can come from this, but I’ve read here several times that this just isn’t a good proposition and might just lead to the anti-consumer practices disappearing in a negative way too.
EU is way too large of a market to “lock out.” Didn’t happen with Apple, for example.
For subscription hell, we’re deeper into it than is healthy, but I don’t expect it to take over because of this. Steam, which is the biggest, most profitable platform out there doesn’t even offer a subscription and shouldn’t be hurt by this. For competitors, trying to suddenly force everyone into a subscription would lose a lot of business.
Edit: Anyway, doing nothing about it is a guaranteed bad outcome.
I’m really happy that the one time I got to visit the UK was during Liz Truss’ time in office. It was wild seeing the protestors, and when I landed back at home I heard she was gone.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne