3 ms·

This is a common rebuttal but does not pass the sniff test. Alternatives to shutting the servers down: - patching the game so it does not require a server. Man

by sph 3y ago

This is a common rebuttal but does not pass the sniff test. Alternatives to shutting the servers down: - patching the game so it does not require a server. Many GaaS are single player games, and are online-only as a form of DRM - release a closed source binary of the server so that people can run it themselves - release documentation so people can implement their own backend - release the server as open source - be legally required to put a large sticker on the box saying "THIS GAME WILL EXPIRE. BUYER BEWARE." Some games require servers, like World of Warcraft, but that is a moot point as well because people have been able to reverse engineer and create their own unofficial WoW servers. If Blizzard shuts down tomorrow, WoW will keep chugging along. Not all games benefit from having a dedicated community of nerds to do what the company should have been doing all along, hence this campaign.

kevingadd 3y ago
These are "alternatives" in the same way that "drive a car" is an alternative to a cross-country flight on a jet. Sure, you could theoretically do it...
- rangerelf 3y ago
  There's nothing "theoretical" about driving cross country. Your comment reeks of personal bias.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    My personal bias is that given the choice between a 2-3 hour flight between Sacramento, CA and Seattle, WA, and a very long drive that might have to cross snowy mountain passes - I've done both, and the difference between them is vast. People love to say that difficult things are easy. I've also driven cross-country from the US west coast to the east coast. Flying is much, much easier. It's a completely different "can I take this trip" equation.
- watwut 3y ago
  I am able to drive the car very very practically. It is an actual alternative.
nerdjon 3y ago
> patching the game so it does not require a server. Making GaaS are single player games, and are online-only as a form of DRM. Do you have a single example of this? The Crew does not seem like an example of this since it is a multplayer game. I agree with always on DRM being a bad thing, but online features is not the same as online drm. > release a closed source binary of the server so that people can run it themselves. That requires that it was ever a single binary in the first place and not multiple systems. Also would require that the parts that are specific to them, like auth, would need to be able to be toggled or removed before releasing it. > release documentation so people can implement their own backend. > release the server as open source Sure, that's an alternative but it still takes time for them to do it. > be legally required to put a large sticker on the box saying "THIS GAME WILL EXPIRE. BUYER BEWARE." There is something to be said about as a consumer understanding that an "online game" will eventually shut down. This should be well understood. Your proposals are all implying that just doing all of this is just free and one day they can just flip a switch and here is everything for the community but that isn't the reality and it is severely flawed.
- adamzochowski 3y ago
  > The Crew does not seem like an example of this since it is a multplayer game. One can play The Crew single player, it has a whole campaign. There have been tons of games that are single player with multiplayer elements. This is same as GTA5 or The Division or any other game which is single player and multiplayer > That requires that it was ever a single binary in the first place Or release all binaries / source code. The whole docker swarm config, or the terraform or whatever was used to run the stuff. Not sure if server side is two binaries out of a sudden it is impossible. > Sure, that's an alternative but it still takes time for them to do it. Why? release all the docs+source code as you have them, and call it a day. > There is something to be said about as a consumer understanding that an "online game" will eventually shut down. This should be well understood. Why? I had played tons of online games that were not shut down. Dooms, quakes, warsaw, etc. This is a relatively new thing that companies are both, not allowing single player run without a server, and shutting down the server part. I think in the past we had similar thing when GameSpy was shutdown, and recently Games For Windows Live which microsoft stopped supporting. However, these are mostly DRM cases with some bypass possible. I want to add, I suspect Blizzard has complex architecture, but people managed to reverse engineer the server to run custom diablo/starcraft/wow servers. Now blizzard as they have not shutdown their services has been actively fighting these efforts of custom servers. All the ask is that companies that do shutdown their services do the opposite. Help community run the games longer. In case of The Crew, the shut down was a deliberate push to get people to buy The Crew 2.

by sph 3y ago

kevingadd 3y ago

These are "alternatives" in the same way that "drive a car" is an alternative to a cross-country flight on a jet. Sure, you could theoretically do it...

rangerelf 3y ago
There's nothing "theoretical" about driving cross country. Your comment reeks of personal bias.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  My personal bias is that given the choice between a 2-3 hour flight between Sacramento, CA and Seattle, WA, and a very long drive that might have to cross snowy mountain passes - I've done both, and the difference between them is vast. People love to say that difficult things are easy. I've also driven cross-country from the US west coast to the east coast. Flying is much, much easier. It's a completely different "can I take this trip" equation.
watwut 3y ago
I am able to drive the car very very practically. It is an actual alternative.

nerdjon 3y ago

> patching the game so it does not require a server. Making GaaS are single player games, and are online-only as a form of DRM. Do you have a single example of this? The Crew does not seem like an example of this since it is a multplayer game. I agree with always on DRM being a bad thing, but online features is not the same as online drm. > release a closed source binary of the server so that people can run it themselves. That requires that it was ever a single binary in the first place and not multiple systems. Also would require that the parts that are specific to them, like auth, would need to be able to be toggled or removed before releasing it. > release documentation so people can implement their own backend. > release the server as open source Sure, that's an alternative but it still takes time for them to do it. > be legally required to put a large sticker on the box saying "THIS GAME WILL EXPIRE. BUYER BEWARE." There is something to be said about as a consumer understanding that an "online game" will eventually shut down. This should be well understood. Your proposals are all implying that just doing all of this is just free and one day they can just flip a switch and here is everything for the community but that isn't the reality and it is severely flawed.

adamzochowski 3y ago
> The Crew does not seem like an example of this since it is a multplayer game. One can play The Crew single player, it has a whole campaign. There have been tons of games that are single player with multiplayer elements. This is same as GTA5 or The Division or any other game which is single player and multiplayer > That requires that it was ever a single binary in the first place Or release all binaries / source code. The whole docker swarm config, or the terraform or whatever was used to run the stuff. Not sure if server side is two binaries out of a sudden it is impossible. > Sure, that's an alternative but it still takes time for them to do it. Why? release all the docs+source code as you have them, and call it a day. > There is something to be said about as a consumer understanding that an "online game" will eventually shut down. This should be well understood. Why? I had played tons of online games that were not shut down. Dooms, quakes, warsaw, etc. This is a relatively new thing that companies are both, not allowing single player run without a server, and shutting down the server part. I think in the past we had similar thing when GameSpy was shutdown, and recently Games For Windows Live which microsoft stopped supporting. However, these are mostly DRM cases with some bypass possible. I want to add, I suspect Blizzard has complex architecture, but people managed to reverse engineer the server to run custom diablo/starcraft/wow servers. Now blizzard as they have not shutdown their services has been actively fighting these efforts of custom servers. All the ask is that companies that do shutdown their services do the opposite. Help community run the games longer. In case of The Crew, the shut down was a deliberate push to get people to buy The Crew 2.