4 ms·

I feel like game companies should have to disclose the minimum length they're going to keep the servers running for a game before release. Be it 12 months, 3 ye

I feel like game companies should have to disclose the minimum length they're going to keep the servers running for a game before release. Be it 12 months, 3 years, 10 years, but the consumer should have that knowledge before making a purchase.

kevincox 3y ago
IMHO all products should have this spelt out. If it is internet facing how long will it receive security updates for? If it uses online services how long will they be maintained for and what functionality will be lost when they shut down? If these promises are broken the user should get a full refund (or even more compensation).
- Eric_WVGG 3y ago
  I think it'd be acceptable to see the necessary server code to be open-sourced, if for no other reason than to get the APIs reverse-engineered (weren't some Blizzard servers like World of Warcraft and Starcraft figured out a very long ago?) An even bigger issue is discontinued servers for hardware that winds up in the landfill. I have three perfectly good "smart plugs" that went dark about a month ago. Supposedly Matter will solve this, but I see no reason why better consumer protections shouldn't be in place.
  - kevincox 3y ago
    I think it is acceptable if that is what you promise. But if I were to mandate some sort of "IoT Facts" label I would keep it simple. How long can some consumer with little to no technical knowledge keep using this device? If after 5 years they need to hack it to use a third-party server which may or may not be run by some third-party, they may have to pay extra for or run their own then I don't think they get to write ∞ on the "IoT Facts" label. They can say 5 years + open source server code afterwards. But that is a different promise than running the server for 10, 20 or 100 years.
- brianwawok 3y ago
  Okay but how can you promise that? I run Acme Inc making IOT devices. I say 10 year guaranteed support. I go bankrupt next week, the company doesn't exist. Who is keeping the servers running exactly?
  - TOMDM 3y ago
    Maybe providers should be obligated to open source their stack if they fail in that manner? Feels like your opening up a can of hurt if they're relying on licensed services from someone else, not like they can open source that as well.
    - gs17 3y ago
      They're saying that there's no one to obligate in that scenario. The company made one product, then disappeared. Unless you mean their cloud providers should release their setup, but that would have bigger issues.
      - TOMDM 3y ago
        I'm suggesting making it part of bankruptcy proceedings. Again though given the sub licensing potential I can't see it being very effective. Maybe just a slight improvement.
      - toyg 3y ago
        This could be solved with a state-mandated escrow service. When selling anything that relies on network services, companies should be forced to provide server and client source code to an authority, which will keep it in escrow indefinitely. The company is then required to renew their "IP lock" every X weeks/months; if they fail to do so, the code is made publicly available (maybe for a small fee, to cover operational costs). Extra red tape? Maybe. A perfect system? Probably not, as companies would likely fail to upload updates after the initial market debut; and probably someone would occasionally forget to renew locks on products they still sell. Still better than the terrible status quo? For sure.
    - brianwawok 3y ago
- keyringlight 3y ago
  Another issue I've thought about is a lot of the time a company doesn't just go bankrupt and then everything suddenly ceases to exist, parts get bought by other companies. Will there be a transfer of this liability to continue service as part of buying anything connected to it, or otherwise that they must release the crown jewels that may undermine the value in buying it. Even in the case where it does trigger a public domain release, when the company is shutting and staff are trying to find new jobs, are they going to spend the time auditing they are able to release it? I all seems like wishful thinking by gamers where their 'skin in the game' might be $60, or less if they got it on sale or a free to play title, or a trail of microtransactions that presumably they want to keep online but wasn't enough to keep the game going.
gs17 3y ago
It's ridiculous that the responsibility falls to the consumer to even be aware that this is a possibility. I don't think most people understand a game labeled "Internet connection required" is really saying "Developer-hosted server required", so someone could pick up a physical copy of The Crew a few months from now, say "no problem, I have Internet", and not be able to play the single-player game (The Crew does have multi-player, but the appeal to me seems to be the single-player campaign) they thought they had bought.
- kevincox 3y ago
  > a game labeled "Internet connection required" is really saying "Developer-hosted server required" Because it literally isn't saying that! It is hinting at it. Having an internet connection is a subset of the requirement to access to the developer-hosted server. If the actual requirement is "Must have access via the internet to a service that we run but may shut down whenever we feel like it won't harm our reputation too much" then that is what they should write.
themoonisachees 3y ago
Leave it to game companies to all say 1 month and always going over, right until they don't want to anymore.
- gs17 3y ago
  I would expect the Ubisofts and EAs of the world to give a year (just enough time for you to buy the next installment on release!) with a "better" studios giving relatively long guarantees.

kevincox 3y ago

IMHO all products should have this spelt out. If it is internet facing how long will it receive security updates for? If it uses online services how long will they be maintained for and what functionality will be lost when they shut down? If these promises are broken the user should get a full refund (or even more compensation).

Eric_WVGG 3y ago
I think it'd be acceptable to see the necessary server code to be open-sourced, if for no other reason than to get the APIs reverse-engineered (weren't some Blizzard servers like World of Warcraft and Starcraft figured out a very long ago?) An even bigger issue is discontinued servers for hardware that winds up in the landfill. I have three perfectly good "smart plugs" that went dark about a month ago. Supposedly Matter will solve this, but I see no reason why better consumer protections shouldn't be in place.
- kevincox 3y ago
  I think it is acceptable if that is what you promise. But if I were to mandate some sort of "IoT Facts" label I would keep it simple. How long can some consumer with little to no technical knowledge keep using this device? If after 5 years they need to hack it to use a third-party server which may or may not be run by some third-party, they may have to pay extra for or run their own then I don't think they get to write ∞ on the "IoT Facts" label. They can say 5 years + open source server code afterwards. But that is a different promise than running the server for 10, 20 or 100 years.
brianwawok 3y ago
Okay but how can you promise that? I run Acme Inc making IOT devices. I say 10 year guaranteed support. I go bankrupt next week, the company doesn't exist. Who is keeping the servers running exactly?
- TOMDM 3y ago
  Maybe providers should be obligated to open source their stack if they fail in that manner? Feels like your opening up a can of hurt if they're relying on licensed services from someone else, not like they can open source that as well.
  - gs17 3y ago
    They're saying that there's no one to obligate in that scenario. The company made one product, then disappeared. Unless you mean their cloud providers should release their setup, but that would have bigger issues.
    - TOMDM 3y ago
      I'm suggesting making it part of bankruptcy proceedings. Again though given the sub licensing potential I can't see it being very effective. Maybe just a slight improvement.
    - toyg 3y ago
      This could be solved with a state-mandated escrow service. When selling anything that relies on network services, companies should be forced to provide server and client source code to an authority, which will keep it in escrow indefinitely. The company is then required to renew their "IP lock" every X weeks/months; if they fail to do so, the code is made publicly available (maybe for a small fee, to cover operational costs). Extra red tape? Maybe. A perfect system? Probably not, as companies would likely fail to upload updates after the initial market debut; and probably someone would occasionally forget to renew locks on products they still sell. Still better than the terrible status quo? For sure.
  - brianwawok 3y ago
keyringlight 3y ago
Another issue I've thought about is a lot of the time a company doesn't just go bankrupt and then everything suddenly ceases to exist, parts get bought by other companies. Will there be a transfer of this liability to continue service as part of buying anything connected to it, or otherwise that they must release the crown jewels that may undermine the value in buying it. Even in the case where it does trigger a public domain release, when the company is shutting and staff are trying to find new jobs, are they going to spend the time auditing they are able to release it? I all seems like wishful thinking by gamers where their 'skin in the game' might be $60, or less if they got it on sale or a free to play title, or a trail of microtransactions that presumably they want to keep online but wasn't enough to keep the game going.

gs17 3y ago

It's ridiculous that the responsibility falls to the consumer to even be aware that this is a possibility. I don't think most people understand a game labeled "Internet connection required" is really saying "Developer-hosted server required", so someone could pick up a physical copy of The Crew a few months from now, say "no problem, I have Internet", and not be able to play the single-player game (The Crew does have multi-player, but the appeal to me seems to be the single-player campaign) they thought they had bought.

kevincox 3y ago
> a game labeled "Internet connection required" is really saying "Developer-hosted server required" Because it literally isn't saying that! It is hinting at it. Having an internet connection is a subset of the requirement to access to the developer-hosted server. If the actual requirement is "Must have access via the internet to a service that we run but may shut down whenever we feel like it won't harm our reputation too much" then that is what they should write.

themoonisachees 3y ago

Leave it to game companies to all say 1 month and always going over, right until they don't want to anymore.

gs17 3y ago
I would expect the Ubisofts and EAs of the world to give a year (just enough time for you to buy the next installment on release!) with a "better" studios giving relatively long guarantees.