• JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    5 months ago

    Their fault. I remember a time when publishers allowed for people to run their own dedicated servers, for FPS at least. They could have modified that existing model, but instead they took that ability away from the user whilst almost simultaneously making excuses about the problem they created.

    If their servers can’t run forever, give us dedicated servers on a larger scale FFS!

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Here is a completely noncontributory comment.

    I stumbled across a copy of a physical book from the author of the comic this is from. I wondered to myself if this meme is in it.

    It is.

  • Akatsuki Levi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    “They can’t run servers forever!” Open source the server then Let people who want to play it run it themselves then

    EDIT: typo

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I remember being able to run a private World of Warcraft server on my computer back in like, 2009. Surely if WoW can be reverse-engineered, so can many other titles.

      But yes, it would obviously be better if they’d just open-source it.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    “Stop Killing Games” is literally a way to force companies to let you host your own servers. That’s the intention. The company loses nothing, they can wash their hands and move on.

    In fact, they can even continue to sell games without servers.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    I feel like wayyy too many engineer minds lean back on “too vague” without understanding how many judgment calls judges make in cases every day. It’s not uncommon for them to have to decide what someone’s intent or knowledge was when taking a certain action.

    • Limonene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Software engineer here. I find the petition to be very specific, and totally feasible.

      Anyway, this isn’t a true referendum where its text would become immediate law as soon as it passes. It’s a petition that would be presented to legislators who would write the actual law. The petition doesn’t need to be written in legalese.

      (Also: if the customer paid them even one cent, then they DO owe the customer something. Also: They should be forced to release the server software when they shut down the servers.)

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      That’s someone who shouldn’t be a judge, that’s what a jury or maybe even mediators would be for. A judge is black and white, and shouldn’t judge on anything they aren’t 100% educated on.

  • Mandy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    If two guys and a basement can run the guild wars 1 servers for next to nothing (their words) than yes, company’s very much could run their servers forever.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Because it would almost certainly not happen in reality. The server being released means everyone could spin up one for free. You wouldn’t be able to monetize it to any significant degree.

      If you want to be generous toward Thor, he is a security expert trained to focus on any hypothetical risks, however unlikely. If you don’t, he is a game developer with monetary interest in this not passing and vast experience conning people.

      • kazaika@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It may be true that it may not actually happen. However:

        • I have elaborated on monetization in another long comment.
        • it cannot be wrong to have monetary interest in your product.
        • A law (which is the goal afaik) needs to account for unlikely scenarios, thats why its usually so hard to make new ones

        I am not against leaving games playable, but the fact that people like the game means that the devs did a good job and their fate needs to be accounted for. Devs who make good games are not an enemy

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          it cannot be wrong to have monetary interest in your product

          There is nothing wrong with making money off the games you make. But once you are done doing that, you shouldn’t be allowed to just wipe the thing people paid you for.

    • cm0002@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      If a game has reached EoL then they’re just being straight greedy worrying about someone else making a little money off it. Running a public server costs money too.

      And again, nobody said they have to release a ready to go and fully functioning standalone binaries. Just the documentation on how it works as a bare minimum would go EXTREMELY far for the open source community and then the whole “ThEY DiDnt MaKE anY ConTrIBuTIOns” goes up in smoke

      • kazaika@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Stop killing games said that games need to be kept in a functioning state afaik. That means exactly that. I am very for modding games but modding a game does not entitle me to the original creators intellectual property, but merely the part j have added.

        Also what documentation? :)

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      One thing that would go against monetization of servers after hostility to get the original to go down would be that anyone could spin up a free one in competition. Once the server binaries are available to everyone, anyone can run a server. Why would someone pay for something they can get for free?

      • kazaika@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        This still doesn’t cover for the abuse of studios which is the main concern here, after all making games harder to kill off shouldn’t come with making the production or maintenance more risky or significantly mor expensive. A malicious party trying to kill a game because they dont like it or part of the community is still a valid motive.

        Regarding your Question, minecraft servers are a good example of this: there are many servers out there which monetise in game resources or grind shorteners for real world money. I dont think that it is a stretch to say that a non sandbox game could be adjusted to work in such fashion. Also the point is not that there are other options, but that someone may easily make money with stuff the dont own and have never contributed to in its making.

        At the end of the day all of us still want new games to be made. Therefore we need to accept that the people making them need to be able to have a steady income doing their job. Monetising ones own creation is, and should be, well within your rights. Even if some of us dont like it providing a platform in form of a game, as a service / with ever fresh content can be a valid value proposition and there are many studios out there doing this successfully while being well respected, think of Deep rock galactic or path of exile.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You can abuse studios right now. This would not change that. It would not make maintenance risky or more expensive.

          It provides an extremely theoretical motive for people to do the abuse, that is unlikely to materialize in reality.

          And if you want to be theoretical, it removes ideological reasons for abuse. Right now, if you dislike an online game, and got the studio shut down, the game would be gone. With this initiative, it would survive removing the motivation to try in the first place.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            It provides an extremely theoretical motive for people to do the abuse, that is unlikely to materialize in reality.

            Yeah, this whole argument seems like a theoretical spurious hypothetical.

            The dude in the video is acting like this is completely legal too, when all of the abuse is already illegal and the authorities just cannot prevent it because of the scale and size of the Internet combined with their own ineptitude.

            If I’m in the business generally of blowing up and attacking company servers, why would I suddenly want to pivot to hosting monetized game servers? That’s an entirely different business. The whole thing strikes me as “OH NOES SOMEBODY MIGHT MAKE SOME MONEY OFF OF MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES!!!”.

            Centralized, proprietary servers for games other than subscription MMO games are complete and utter bullshit. Either make the game a subscription and keep all of it server-side, or allow people to host the servers and stop acting like assholes.