4 ms·

> undo all their planned obsolescence. In no way is a game shutting down planned obsolescence. If the Fortnite servers are shut down that's not planned obsoles

> undo all their planned obsolescence. In no way is a game shutting down planned obsolescence. If the Fortnite servers are shut down that's not planned obsolesce, that game does not work and makes zero sense as a single play game. A publisher is not going to spend a ton of money working on a game with a plan to shut it down, they hope to milk it for money as long as they can. I agree with single player games requiring always online, but I have not seen an example of this actually being the case that there was not a patch put out at the last moment to make the game not connect to a server anymore. There is a major difference between a game requiring an online connection for a 100% single player game and an online games servers shutting down. The first is bad and I agree and should never be a practice. The second is just reality.

neurostimulant 3y ago
> that game does not work and makes zero sense as a single play game. Why not? Just unlock all in-game contents, replace other players with offline bots, then shutdown the servers. Many online games have chosen this route in the past.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > Just unlock all in-game contents. This assumes that the content is all client side and some of it is not server side. As is the case with many games. > replace other players with offline bots. That requires work to make the bots know how to play the game, something that even actively supported games suck at. Many bots are really bad with objective based gameplay. and testing. Which is a cost if they are shutting down the game. If the game was built around the assumption that it will always have an internet connection, there may also need to be a lot of changes to the game itself to operate that way.
  - neurostimulant 3y ago
    > If the game was built around the assumption that it will always have an internet connection, there may also need to be a lot of changes to the game itself to operate that way. Then such games shouldn't be sold as goods like the the petition mentioned. They should be sold as services like WoW, so their customers know what to expect at the end of the service. Selling them as goods is worse than selling "lifetime" membership for an SaaS, then closing the SaaS after 3 years, because the customers may not know that the game would become unplayable in a few years when they purchased it.
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      That is a strange distinction that would allow the company to just get out of supporting whatever law they may try to get with just a wording change on the box? WoW you have to buy. Yes there is a subscription but you also have to buy the game and each expansion. Destiny 2 you have to buy each expansion. They are not selling a SaaS as a lifetime one time buy, I checked all of my xbox games and every single one makes it clear that they can change it at any point. So it sounds like your argument is they just change the wording of something, charge the same amount, and then this proposal does nothing? I don't really buy the argument that consumers don't understand that servers eventually shut down.
      - neurostimulant 3y ago
        That distinction is actually very important to set the customers expectation. You don't "buy" WoW, their website explicitly ask you to subscribe (monthly or yearly) [1]. Yes, you can buy the expansion, but those wouldn't work without subscription. Customers wouldn't be duped into buying the game and expecting it to still working later when all the servers are shut down, so the petition problably wouldn't apply to WoW, though the petition mentioned about getting this kind of game to support some form of self hosted server support for at least a fraction of its features at the end of its lifetime. You also don't "buy" Destiny 2, it's a free-to-play game. You can buy items and expansions like WoW. It's not as clear cut as WoW, but it's also should be clear enough that Destiny 2 is not sold as traditional goods, and the petition probably doesn't apply to this game as well. The game mentioned in the petition, The Crew, was sold for $50 with single player campaign and online components just like other games usually do. Then the publisher made the game unplayable later, even though it has some single player campaign contents. What's their excuse for doing this? Is this game actually a service where it can be made unusable at any point? If so, it should be clear from the get go and the game shouldn't be sold as goods, so customers who want the game they bought to be playable indefinitely (minus the online components) can spent their money on other games instead. [1] https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-subscription https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-s...
        3y ago

neurostimulant 3y ago

> that game does not work and makes zero sense as a single play game. Why not? Just unlock all in-game contents, replace other players with offline bots, then shutdown the servers. Many online games have chosen this route in the past.

nerdjon 3y ago
> Just unlock all in-game contents. This assumes that the content is all client side and some of it is not server side. As is the case with many games. > replace other players with offline bots. That requires work to make the bots know how to play the game, something that even actively supported games suck at. Many bots are really bad with objective based gameplay. and testing. Which is a cost if they are shutting down the game. If the game was built around the assumption that it will always have an internet connection, there may also need to be a lot of changes to the game itself to operate that way.
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  > If the game was built around the assumption that it will always have an internet connection, there may also need to be a lot of changes to the game itself to operate that way. Then such games shouldn't be sold as goods like the the petition mentioned. They should be sold as services like WoW, so their customers know what to expect at the end of the service. Selling them as goods is worse than selling "lifetime" membership for an SaaS, then closing the SaaS after 3 years, because the customers may not know that the game would become unplayable in a few years when they purchased it.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    That is a strange distinction that would allow the company to just get out of supporting whatever law they may try to get with just a wording change on the box? WoW you have to buy. Yes there is a subscription but you also have to buy the game and each expansion. Destiny 2 you have to buy each expansion. They are not selling a SaaS as a lifetime one time buy, I checked all of my xbox games and every single one makes it clear that they can change it at any point. So it sounds like your argument is they just change the wording of something, charge the same amount, and then this proposal does nothing? I don't really buy the argument that consumers don't understand that servers eventually shut down.
    - neurostimulant 3y ago
      That distinction is actually very important to set the customers expectation. You don't "buy" WoW, their website explicitly ask you to subscribe (monthly or yearly) [1]. Yes, you can buy the expansion, but those wouldn't work without subscription. Customers wouldn't be duped into buying the game and expecting it to still working later when all the servers are shut down, so the petition problably wouldn't apply to WoW, though the petition mentioned about getting this kind of game to support some form of self hosted server support for at least a fraction of its features at the end of its lifetime. You also don't "buy" Destiny 2, it's a free-to-play game. You can buy items and expansions like WoW. It's not as clear cut as WoW, but it's also should be clear enough that Destiny 2 is not sold as traditional goods, and the petition probably doesn't apply to this game as well. The game mentioned in the petition, The Crew, was sold for $50 with single player campaign and online components just like other games usually do. Then the publisher made the game unplayable later, even though it has some single player campaign contents. What's their excuse for doing this? Is this game actually a service where it can be made unusable at any point? If so, it should be clear from the get go and the game shouldn't be sold as goods, so customers who want the game they bought to be playable indefinitely (minus the online components) can spent their money on other games instead. [1] https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-subscription https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-s...
      - 3y ago