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.
The most likely reason is that the outline of the device is more distinct and identifiable in the marketing with them on. Without them it is just a black rectangle with a logo.
Straight up just a Switch attached to a head strap. Hilarious. Also, I’m positive people would pay legit money for a game that lets them put AC furniture in their house with AR.
I think I am one of the few who did not like the Radahn fight. Him and the fire giant just felt gimmicky to me. I have beat him before the difficulty was fixed, in NG+, and now since the difficulty was fixed. Felt the same in every case (other than how hard the first fight was).
I remember when he was harder. Day 1, he was like a level 90 boss because of a bug when he was meant to be a level 60 one. Beat him before they fixed it; now he feels too easy. lol
Don’t multiplayer PC games have anti cheat software that is malware-esque and often times root level? I seem to see folks pissed about all the anti cheat software on PC all the time
Point being, don’t you get fucked to play online one way or the other anymore?
PC players have the choice to install that software when they install the game. It’s easy to know which games use DRM and invasive keenel level anti cheats. Console players have no idea how much personal info they are leaking to a broader audience and their 800 corporate friends.
But my point is, if you want to play said game onlline, you have to give up your privacy in unknown ways, too. There’s no way to know what Denuvo or whatever is sending off to their 800 corporate friends or what they’re collecting while you play, either.
I always gamed predominantly on PC but this generation I did the maths as PC parts had become over-inflated so decided to give console a try. I still think it was a decent decision for this generation…
Game Pass can be had waaaaaay cheaper than that and you can get it all back and more in rewards points.
I spent £450ish on the console at launch including controller and a game. Equivalent GPU was £500 or more at the time.
Spent £150ish on Game Pass sub from November 2020 to July 2026 which has allowed me to play countless games I never would have bought outright.
I’ve made over £700 back in vouchers with over 2 years left to accumulate more. Spent half of it on games, and controllers, headset, etc. all of which I can use on my PC. Plan on saving the remaining vouchers to put towards my next PC build.
This is without mentioning other console benefits like low maintenance, Quick Resume and the fact I can use one copy of a game to play with two players online.
That’s why I mentioned those other console exclusive features. Anyway the original point was about cost and I think the Series X was the best value for money at launch this gen…
Half the price of building a similar PC at launch.
Rewards are higher on console so recoup the cost more than PC.
I use Game Pass on both PC and Xbox with a single account to play multiplayer so cheaper on that front.
We’re half way through the generation now though. PC parts have got cheaper, Game Pass Ultimate conversion ratio has dropped and rewards are drying up so probably wouldn’t advocate it anymore. PC likely to be better value next gen.
youtu.be
Gorące