6 ms·

"effectively breaks it" Who breaks it though? For example Hatoful Boyfriend haven't been updated for years, Macs moved to 64bit only so it was essentially unpl

"effectively breaks it" Who breaks it though? For example Hatoful Boyfriend haven't been updated for years, Macs moved to 64bit only so it was essentially unplayable on modern Macs. Is it the devs fault, are you obliged to update your game forever? Is it Apple's fault for the lack of backwards compatibility? Epic was selling a broken game so they must remove it. Btw that happened on Steam too now they only sell the Windows version.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
The game almost certainly had compatibility promises, eg 'runs on MacOS# with X MB RAM'. It should still do that. The fault would be whoever designed it so a single player (or local multiplayer) game wouldn't run on said system in perpetuity. Mind you, some time in the future an AI will be able to watch Let's Play-style footage and generate the game for you.
nebulous1 4y ago
That's a different issue. These games are written to require an online component that Epic are rescinding access to. This isn't about what Epic is selling either, it's about them effectively bricking what they've already sold. Assuming Hatoful still works for the users who bought it on the hardware/OS that they bought it for then it's not a good comparison.
saint_fiasco 4y ago
It feels different when a game has a server and a client component. I can choose to airgap my ancient Macbook and never update it if I want to keep playing that particular game on that particular computer. I can also play it on Linux, and Linux can run on Mac hardware. All of that sounds like a pain in the ass, and if the game is not worth the trouble I'll just not go through the trouble. But I am the one who makes the choice, not the owner of some proprietary server.
philippejara 4y ago
I can play the game in the hardware that it was advertised to work at the time, 32bit(?) macs, the same way I can play a ps2 game on a ps2 but not a ps5. Removing official servers when there is no alternative means I can't use the product on the platform it was listed to work at.
Chris2048 4y ago
But this isn't about updates, it's about turning off a cloud component for which the software isn't available to otherwise self-host.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

The game almost certainly had compatibility promises, eg 'runs on MacOS# with X MB RAM'. It should still do that. The fault would be whoever designed it so a single player (or local multiplayer) game wouldn't run on said system in perpetuity. Mind you, some time in the future an AI will be able to watch Let's Play-style footage and generate the game for you.

nebulous1 4y ago

That's a different issue. These games are written to require an online component that Epic are rescinding access to. This isn't about what Epic is selling either, it's about them effectively bricking what they've already sold. Assuming Hatoful still works for the users who bought it on the hardware/OS that they bought it for then it's not a good comparison.

saint_fiasco 4y ago

It feels different when a game has a server and a client component. I can choose to airgap my ancient Macbook and never update it if I want to keep playing that particular game on that particular computer. I can also play it on Linux, and Linux can run on Mac hardware. All of that sounds like a pain in the ass, and if the game is not worth the trouble I'll just not go through the trouble. But I am the one who makes the choice, not the owner of some proprietary server.

philippejara 4y ago

I can play the game in the hardware that it was advertised to work at the time, 32bit(?) macs, the same way I can play a ps2 game on a ps2 but not a ps5. Removing official servers when there is no alternative means I can't use the product on the platform it was listed to work at.

Chris2048 4y ago

But this isn't about updates, it's about turning off a cloud component for which the software isn't available to otherwise self-host.