4 ms·

What happens when Activision decides its no longer worth keeping the server up? Or some other problem occurs keeping it from checking in, e.g. death of Nintendo

What happens when Activision decides its no longer worth keeping the server up? Or some other problem occurs keeping it from checking in, e.g. death of Nintendo Switch Online. I can still play Gameboy games I bought 20+ years ago with no problems besides maybe replacing the save battery and the occasional contact clean. Will I be able to do the same with Switch games I bought? For some titles that already seems to be a no.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
For the tiny tiny tiny fraction of users who will still be playing the game at that point, it will be a sad day. Most gamers do not make purchasing decisions based on something that might happen twenty years from now, since >99.9% of them will have moved on from the game by that point. > I can still play ... But do you? I mean, perhaps you do, but most folks don't. That's why I emphasized the question of harm a gamer is likely to suffer.
- Kalium 5y ago
  It's pretty rough for historians, archivists, and curators too. Can you imagine if books became unreadable twenty years after publication because >99.9% of readers will have moved on from the book by that point? Or if every painting, sculpture, photograph, or musical recording self-destructed in the same time period? At this point I think it's fair to say that games are cultural artifacts. We should be at least a token amount of interested in making it possible to preserve them.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I suppose. I can't say that the interests of these groups are particularly close to my heart. Certainly if I was a game dev I wouldn't be willing to pass up a chance to substantially increase revenue to make life easier for an archivist. To the extent that there is any value in the history of this game, I think most of it will be sufficiently captured in the large amount of video content being produced about it.
    - Kalium 5y ago
      There is, perhaps, room to question the tradeoff here. How sure are we that it was substantially increased revenue vs archivability? What if this sort of every-30-days check only increases costs without boosting revenue and hurting archivability? As is spelled out in context, this DRM check is not required for the game to function, and the ease with which it has been bypassed raises significant questions about how useful it is for boosting revenue. Indeed, DRM historically isn't noted for actually boosting revenue. Perhaps we are discussing a false belief here, similar to people who claim that end-to-end encryption enables drugs/guns/CSAM/money laundering. Both feel true and seem obviously true, but lots of truth-y and obvious things are false upon close examination. This does not diminish the sincerity of anyone's belief, only its factual basis. It may also be worth considering that videos about games as a substitute for the actual artifacts might be like keeping reviews of plays instead of preserving the text. Useful and important cultural artifacts and context, but perhaps not the same as having the originals. Video game museums exist today, and I found it fascinating to be able to play games from decades past.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        By all means, question the tradeoff. But unless you're in a position to decide policy I'm not sure what good it will do. > Indeed, DRM historically isn't noted for actually boosting revenue. By this are you referring to comments on sites like HN, by people who aren't in a position to know whether DRM is beneficial for the implementor? If you are I'd just encourage you to interrogate your sources a bit. It's entirely possible that game devs have been in the grips of a collective delusion for the last twenty-plus years that DRM is often profitable. But I would say that to me that doesn't seem to be the most likely explanation for why they keep using it. > It may also be worth considering ... Worth considering, perhaps. But, ultimately, not an idea that is all that compelling to me, and even less so (apparently) for the economic stakeholders in game development.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Do you increase revenue with hard DRM measures? I believe it depends. I did pass games because of their DRM requirements and that includes Blizzard for the last few years. They don't need my money as they were doing fine, but their obnoxious battle net certainly drove me away. Same is true with a lot of other developer specific platforms. I accept some because they provide added value, but the vast majority of DRM does not. On the other hand other services have proven that piracy is most often a service issue. There will still be piracy, but it is questionable if those users were able or willing to spend anything in the first place.
anthonypasq 5y ago
well the Diablo 2 servers have been online continuously for over 20 years already, so I'm not exactly sure this is a valid concern for the vast majority of people.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > I'm not exactly sure this is a valid concern for the vast majority of people If people do not note the reason for concern in being dependent from third party infrastructure for having a purchased good in working state, their societies have immense problems. > valid concern ... vast majority of people Absurd. The concern is valid irregardless of the individual.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

For the tiny tiny tiny fraction of users who will still be playing the game at that point, it will be a sad day. Most gamers do not make purchasing decisions based on something that might happen twenty years from now, since >99.9% of them will have moved on from the game by that point. > I can still play ... But do you? I mean, perhaps you do, but most folks don't. That's why I emphasized the question of harm a gamer is likely to suffer.

Kalium 5y ago
It's pretty rough for historians, archivists, and curators too. Can you imagine if books became unreadable twenty years after publication because >99.9% of readers will have moved on from the book by that point? Or if every painting, sculpture, photograph, or musical recording self-destructed in the same time period? At this point I think it's fair to say that games are cultural artifacts. We should be at least a token amount of interested in making it possible to preserve them.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I suppose. I can't say that the interests of these groups are particularly close to my heart. Certainly if I was a game dev I wouldn't be willing to pass up a chance to substantially increase revenue to make life easier for an archivist. To the extent that there is any value in the history of this game, I think most of it will be sufficiently captured in the large amount of video content being produced about it.
  - Kalium 5y ago
    There is, perhaps, room to question the tradeoff here. How sure are we that it was substantially increased revenue vs archivability? What if this sort of every-30-days check only increases costs without boosting revenue and hurting archivability? As is spelled out in context, this DRM check is not required for the game to function, and the ease with which it has been bypassed raises significant questions about how useful it is for boosting revenue. Indeed, DRM historically isn't noted for actually boosting revenue. Perhaps we are discussing a false belief here, similar to people who claim that end-to-end encryption enables drugs/guns/CSAM/money laundering. Both feel true and seem obviously true, but lots of truth-y and obvious things are false upon close examination. This does not diminish the sincerity of anyone's belief, only its factual basis. It may also be worth considering that videos about games as a substitute for the actual artifacts might be like keeping reviews of plays instead of preserving the text. Useful and important cultural artifacts and context, but perhaps not the same as having the originals. Video game museums exist today, and I found it fascinating to be able to play games from decades past.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      By all means, question the tradeoff. But unless you're in a position to decide policy I'm not sure what good it will do. > Indeed, DRM historically isn't noted for actually boosting revenue. By this are you referring to comments on sites like HN, by people who aren't in a position to know whether DRM is beneficial for the implementor? If you are I'd just encourage you to interrogate your sources a bit. It's entirely possible that game devs have been in the grips of a collective delusion for the last twenty-plus years that DRM is often profitable. But I would say that to me that doesn't seem to be the most likely explanation for why they keep using it. > It may also be worth considering ... Worth considering, perhaps. But, ultimately, not an idea that is all that compelling to me, and even less so (apparently) for the economic stakeholders in game development.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Do you increase revenue with hard DRM measures? I believe it depends. I did pass games because of their DRM requirements and that includes Blizzard for the last few years. They don't need my money as they were doing fine, but their obnoxious battle net certainly drove me away. Same is true with a lot of other developer specific platforms. I accept some because they provide added value, but the vast majority of DRM does not. On the other hand other services have proven that piracy is most often a service issue. There will still be piracy, but it is questionable if those users were able or willing to spend anything in the first place.

anthonypasq 5y ago

well the Diablo 2 servers have been online continuously for over 20 years already, so I'm not exactly sure this is a valid concern for the vast majority of people.

mdp2021 5y ago
> I'm not exactly sure this is a valid concern for the vast majority of people If people do not note the reason for concern in being dependent from third party infrastructure for having a purchased good in working state, their societies have immense problems. > valid concern ... vast majority of people Absurd. The concern is valid irregardless of the individual.