Technically 100% do, games that require the Internet require the Internet, which means by design you’re relying on someone else hosting servers which means it may not be available, 50, 100, or even more years into the future. That’s not the case with single-player/offline-available games.
As the graph breaks down, some games are patched by companies to allow them to function offline or to enable self-hosted servers. Mostly its fan efforts to reverse engineer the server code, though.
The point of the stop killing games campaign is to legislate by law that going forward, developers/publishers would have to account for a way to allow the player to host a server or patch the game to run offline when they become unprofitable and are shut down.
This is true. I’ve been grieving the loss of Isekai Demon Waifu, which shut down only a few days ago on the 19th of this month. I had been playing it over 3 years, and had unlocked most of the girls, become the #1 on my server, and had grown attached to seeing my harem girls every night when I play the game before bed. I missed the server shutdown notification and I was messed up the next day. It hit me hard.
I hope there is another harem game with succubi and monster girls. IDW had a lot of charm. The music, art style, aesthetic. Amazing monster girls. I’m going to miss seeing Ephinas, Fiadum, Hastia, Scardia, Palotti, Ymir, and all the others.
It doesn’t seem fair that we can spend years of our life, hundreds or even thousands of dollars, make a game experience part of our lives, and then one day it just goes poof and it’s all gone. Part of you vanishes in that moment. It’s like a bandaid being ripped off a wound, or a light in your life going out. Because someone else decided it cost too much to keep a server running?
They should be required to transition the game into an offline mode!
You paid this money knowing you do not have the ability to run the game. Why does the developer have the obligation to change the user agreement you signed off on when you created your account? You chose to play a game that you cannot run yourself.
That’s weasel speak. Hiding behind a user agreement is a pathetic excuse for bad behavior on the part of the developer. The developer decides what is in that agreement. It can be changed at any time, and 'but you agreed to this" is a poor excuse for laziness and disrespect for the community that supported them for so many years.
Transitioning the game into an offline mode could be done with some development time spent on a final update. Take out the multiplayer stuff, let the game run offline, and put the game up for sale as an idler for like $5 or $10. It might not make much money but it lets players continue to play a game that they love. It shows that you as a developer care about your product and the customers who have supported you for so long.
That’s the point of agreements though. If you buy a game and don’t like the agreement you should be allowed to return it. If they change the agreement you should be allowed to return it. Agreements aren’t inherently a bad thing. There just hasn’t been enough backlash about bad agreements or the business models they create.
They should be required to transition the game into an offline mode!
Seems to me like this would be good business sense too. Wouldn’t people be more likely to buy their next online game if you felt there was a good chance you could keep playing it after a few years? Instead they’re going to get a reputation for making products with a short shelf life.
…Dead games, which means no one on Earth can currently play the game. It’s not possible…
…At-risk games, which means these games are currently working, but they’re designed in such a way that the second the publisher ends support, they will become dead games without some sort of intervention…
…Dev Preserved, which means the game would have died, but the publisher or developer implemented some sort of endof life plan, so now the game is safe…
…Fan Preserved, where the publisher did nothing or practically nothing to save the game, but fans managed to either hack it to remove dependencies or reverse engineer a server emulator so that the game was saved in spite of the publisher actions.
The demo is pretty solid and I’m going to give it a shot once it starts going on sale and hopefully gets past the launch glitches and received a few patches.
No game is worth it on day one anyways, so many greedy publishers putting out unfinished slop and making the devs fix it post release.
Such an amazing game. I’m not into RPGs but somehow got convinced to play this.
I don’t understand how I even had the energy to play 100+ hrs next to work. I often played until 2 am on weekdays, or woke up earlier to play.
I understand the complaints of the gameplay or controls, but the story and the characters are what makes this game special. It’s a journey I will never forget, some memories and feelings from it will stay with me forever
The controls I thought were really easy but I played on PC so I could swing the mouse around and I don’t need to looks at the keyboard to hit almost any key. So for me I thought it was real easy to control contrary to what I read online
Then I played on a console and then I understood the hate for Witcher 3 controls. I remember it feeling very heavy. Weird to control the camera and Geralt
That’s why the first thing I do when I buy a new game is to turn off the internet and boot the game. If it doesn’t boot or work offline, I refund it. And I just don’t buy games that have Denuvo.
This is why it is so important to find exploits for current gen consoles. It is not about piracy, it is about preservation. You don’t own a game that requires the internet, or a fucking download code Nintendo.
A PS3 with Evilnat custom firmware is truly a thing of beauty. A great era for videogame creativity and experimentation, when F2P was just a twinkle in Tim Sweeney’s eye.
i buy physical because i genuinely think nintendo is one of the last good game devs remaining. but switch 2 is just download cards. i will not be purchasing it.
Not in 10+ years when you can't download the rest of the game from the servers because they don't put the whole game on the cartridge anymore. Not to mention patches and DLC aren't on the cartridge either.
have you seen any of their pokemon releases the past years? its actually embarassing how bad the games are in terms of quality and polish, for a game that is the biggest IP in the world.
they do own the pokemon IP though, so even though they dont develop the game, i’d argue its still their fault if the game turns out ass. its time they put some stress on gamefreak to do better.
AFAIK, most PS3 (and even PS4) / Xbox 360 games will play and function with just the disc, an internet connection will just let them download updates to the game.
It was PS5 and Xbox One where the discs became glorified physical download codes, and did not actually contain the entire game.
I bought the early access, it’s pretty fun with a bit of jank, but the jank is minimal - it’s worth a purchase I think, especially if you like elder scroll type games
youtube.com
Aktywne