Short version: it’s a campaign to force publishers to provide some way to play online only games after they decide to shut down the servers. That or letting us know, by law, that games can be killed without repercussion. It’s not about forcing publishers to keep the servers alive forever if that’s what you’re wondering.
Long version: check out the official website for the Stop Killing Games campaign. It has FAQ with all the important info.
Unfortunately not, initiatives can only be signed by EU citizens. For this specific campaign you can help by spreading the word, besides that you can also check the “Take Action” tab on the site I linked previously - there are multiple campaigns started in various countries so you might be able to help with one of those.
Would this include the availability of playing single player offline games without the need to log in to different accounts and signing in to third party clients? That shit makes me completely crazy. I just want to build a pretty little city all by myself, why in the world would I need to be online and sign into shit for that.
Not really. This isn’t about completely preventing publishers from adding account systems etc. (even if that would be ideal), it’s about publishers removing your ability to play games after they the shut down the servers. The former would hopefully be a side effect of a potential law change/ruling but the main point is keeping games playable after the official support ends.
In your example it could be removal of the sign in requirement once the account system is down but not necessarily preventing them from existing in the first place.
Why not just expand on the winning formula for the original Arkham games? Do a forty year time skip and have the player as Terry instead of Bruce. Call it Beyond Arkham. It would probably print money if it’s as good as Knight or Origins, to say nothing of how much they would get if it was as good as Asylum or City.
Yes, but hiring some devs to modify the code to be run on a home server could be seen as an investment towards saving the cost of running the servers themselves.
If a company is going broke and cant afford to port the code to a home market, they could simply open source it, and let the fans do the work.
And as i mentioned to the other guy, i think this should be the law.
Worse, it might depend on licensed infrastructure. Maybe a company can stand giving away their proprietary server, but they can’t legally give away a library toolkit they purchased a $300,000 non-transferable license for. That kind of middleware is extremely common in the industry.
What you say is “easy” is great for a comment on Reddit or Lemmy but it doesn’t really provide anything to the actual problem.
The problem is that a company “just” doesn’t, why would they do this anyway? It would open their IP to be forked, modified and used for something else by someone else. That isn’t what they want you to do.
Since there is no incentive and no one is forcing them to do this they just keep doing whatever they want. It was mentioned in the video that there is absolutely no regulation or anything in that regard available ANYWHERE in the world, not even in the EU.
THIS is what the video and Ross Scott want to achieve, that there either will be regulations for it so that Game developers and Publishers can’t just create games with some mandatory server backend running that is shut down in a couple of years OR that there is at least some way of saying “well, we don’t care” so that the consumer can actually do anything about it on their own end.
So it is easy to say they “just” have to do X or Y but the past and the increasing games relying on things like this have shown that they won’t do anything about it because nothing is stopping them.
Don’t misunderstand me, I absolutely think there should be regulation over this. I’m saying ultimately if a company wants to discontinue a service they should be forced by law to release the server software. That way the player base can still use the product they paid money for.
I am really enjoying it. The emergent story-lines that have cropped up just from me doing stuff is great. Having to really focus my skill points into perks forces me to stick with a play style and the gunplay and upgrades are fantastic. I love just fucking off to some random corner of the galaxy and finding a whole entire storyline to explore. Yes, the lack of low orbit flying is glaring since I played a lot of NMS but the story telling here is top tier and I just keep wanting to go back and play. Even now, I am just writing this one comment and then I am off to betray the Crimson Fleet >:)
Devs need to chill with all these features. I was playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider and it runs at upscaled 4k60 and looks miles better than this one.
Of course, this is from a small studio and using nanite and lumen probably saved them a lot of time, but what good is that time saved if most PC gamers can’t play it and it abuses upscaling technology by running it at 720p and looking all fuzzy.
And before people start blaming Series S, even PS5 port struggles to run at 720p60 in this game as well as FFXVI, which is a PS5 exclusive. Jedi Survivor does the same and I can’t understand why do they think this is what we want from games in the current gen.
Its becuase they do not Balance Game Art and Graphics,Game Art gives games their Atmosohere and much more so it dies not look like a Unreal Asset Flip.
A Tool no matter how good is only as good as the wielder.
True. Though FFXVI, for example, has its own art style which looks pretty good, but whatever they’re doing with the tech is just too much for the PS5. Somewhere it feels like the devs overestimated the capabilities of these consoles.
I just .... stopped playing it halfway through. It's what the game seemed to want, so that's what I gave it. It didn't hurt that the mechanics were bad and it wasn't actually any fun to play.
There's just so much manipulation inherent in the game that its commentary feels cheap for me. It's like setting out a box of knives for your kids to play with and then scolding them when they do. Hey, asshole, you set up the box and put it out there. What did you expect?
It would be so much more meaningful if the player actually had choices within the game. As it was, I decided to go play something fun.
At least an option to disengage within the fiction would be appreciated. I'm not too keen on this idea that closing the game works as a conclusion. A closed book doesn't have a different story. It's not like Walker will leave his path if you are not playing it. Without a different resolution, even the guilt that they try to lay on the player can't stick as well.
Same. When I played, at a couple points I tried to go all the way back to the beginning, when it seemed like the initial mission Walker was assigned was in some way fulfilled or inviable. When the game had absolutely no response to that, it kinda detracted from my appreciation for the message of the game. For all that it has to say about hero fantasies and the player engaging in it, it doesn't have any alternative to that. It needs the player to commit the sins that it wants to denounce.
There are a few points I feel is pretty forced. Okay there is an hostage situation happening right now so I get it. They wanted to help.
But after they found out the hostage is dead and there are rogue elements, they should just turn back and report the findings to their superior so that they can decide whether to send reinforcements or not.
The Spec Op protagonists aren’t good soldiers. They ignored direct orders from their superior multiple times!
Server side anticheats need to be considered. Clientside has been annoying users far too much, and can be bypassed. A combination of both (and I’d like a less intrusive clientside one) would be better
youtu.be
Ważne