Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

A popular YouTuber has launched a campaign called "Stop Killing Games" to apply pressure on publishers to stop making their titles unplayable. The move comes days after Ubisoft shut down the servers of popular racer The Crew, rendering it inoperable for gamers everywhere.

The campaign was launched by YouTuber Ross Scott of Accursed Farms in an effort to highlight how developers and publishers are intentionally designing games to become unplayable as soon as support ends. According to the Stop Killing Games website, the practice lies in a legal gray area, largely because most governments do not have clear laws regarding this issue.

The campaign's goal is to convince authorities to examine the legality of this practice and, hopefully, pass legislation to end as it represents "an assault on both consumer rights and preservation of media." The Crew is said to have had a playerbase of at least 12 million people when it was taken offline, making this an ideal opportunity to hold a AAA publisher responsible for their actions.

​

via Techspot

 

[Nankatsu]

And here I was thinking it was a campaign about how woke games are these days. Silly me.

 

[mrcroket]

Just don't buy games that require you to be online to play the campaign and don't buy online-only games.

 

[Deft Beck]

On the one hand, publishers should not have to keep up the servers for games that are not profitable anymore. Fans may be able to recreate the servers and put it back up, but that infringes on copyright.

On the other hand, if you paid for the game, as well as content/cosmetic DLC, you should have access to that for the life of the hosting service. Even if the publisher doesn't want to sell it to you anymore, you should still be able to access it .

Anything beyond that is a legal gray area we haven't really seen on a grand scale yet.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Drama - Community - Stop publishers from destroying games

For those out of the loop, Ross Scott (Accursed Farms), most known for his youtube series Freeman's Mind and Ross Game Dungeon, started a campaign to stop the erasure of game ownership, more specifically force publishers to be required to make sure every game they sell their costumers be...

www.neogaf.com

 

[Kataploom]

No online service is supposed to be up forever, unfortunately, IDK what they actually want? A "private server" feature in all online games? That's not a good business, specially since online games are F2P and therefore pretty high risk. It's shit when games go offline but that's just how things are, enforcing probably risky business to be even riskier is just gonna set new competition out of even trying... But explaining this to nowadays "adults" would probably hurt their feelings and "their rights" (whatever they always mean by that).

 

[Damigos]

Should be "Stop making games that require online" and problem is solved

 

[Guilty_AI]

No online service is supposed to be up forever, unfortunately, IDK what they actually want? A "private server" feature in all online games? That's not a good business, specially since online games are F2P and therefore pretty high risk. It's shit when games go offline but that's just how things are, enforcing probably risky business to be even riskier is just gonna set new competition out of even trying... But explaining this to nowadays "adults" would probably hurt their feelings and "their rights" (whatever they always mean by that).

The campaign wants clear definitions for the law that require publishers to make sure costumers are informed.
>When you buy a game (or a license to a game, whatever), are you buying it or are you renting, can it be both for different games?

>>If you're buying it, you thus should have eternal access to the software, given you're running it on the (functional) platform it was designed for of course.
>>If you're renting it, publishers should make that extremely clear upon purchase (no fine prints, no EULAs you can only read post-purchase) and the costumer should be informed of how long exactly he'll have access for that software.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

pass legislation

hahahahaha

publishers arent going to pay for game servers indefinitely (you may have noticed this from every online game ever made)
same with online marketplaces like steam--they have no obligation to be around forever
no law will pass saying a company has to offer customers a service forever--that's just not financially viable. and if something stupid like that did somehow pass, companies could just shut down and reopen under a different name.

you'd need the company to provide the game to a national archive or something, which would have to be maintained by taxes/donations. and thats just for the game itself... if you wanted the archive to also run game servers, the operating costs would skyrocket.

anyway, id say vote with your wallet...

 

[March Climber]

And here I was thinking it was a campaign about how woke games are these days. Silly me.

They would be laughed out of most or all law offices. This is something way more legally tangible that can be looked at reasonably.

 

[Guilty_AI]

hahahahaha

publishers arent going to pay for game servers indefinitely (you may have noticed this from every online game ever made)
same with online marketplaces like steam--they have no obligation to be around forever
no law will pass saying a company has to offer customers a service forever--that's just not financially viable. and if something stupid like that did somehow pass, companies could just shut down and reopen under a different name.

you'd need the company to provide the game to a national archive or something, which would have to be maintained by taxes/donations. and thats just for the game itself... if you wanted the archive to also run game servers, the operating costs would skyrocket.

anyway, id say vote with your wallet...

"People are retarded", says the guy who hasn't read any of the talking points.

No, they aren't asking companies to keep the services of games or marketplaces up forever.

 

[Esca]

When a online game is being shut down the publisher should have a patch to make it playable offline or put in a server select screen so people can host their own or use a dedicated server rental.

 

[Kataploom]

The campaign wants clear definitions for the law that require publishers to make sure costumers are informed.
>When you buy a game (or a license to a game, whatever), are you buying it or are you renting, can it be both for different games?

>>If you're buying it, you thus should have eternal access to the software, given you're running it on the (functional) platform it was designed for of course.
>>If you're renting it, publishers should make that extremely clear upon purchase (no fine prints, no EULAs you can only read post-purchase) and the costumer should be informed of how long exactly he'll have access for that software.

So just a matter of rhetoric? I think they wouldn't need that clarification if they used common sense imo

 

[Kataploom]

When a online game is being shut down the publisher should have a patch to make it playable offline or put in a server select screen so people can host their own or use a dedicated server rental.

Then people would run their servers to avoid paying publishers for mtx, which more often than not is almost the only revenue source of those games. Not a good business for already risky products, that should never be enforced

 

[Guilty_AI]

So just a matter of rhetoric? I think they wouldn't need that clarification if they used common sense imo

This "rethoric" would completely alter the way they have to do business. There's be a huge difference in adoption if they had to write on the cover "RENTAL SERVICE, 2 YEAR LICENSE" vs "COOL GAME, GET YOURS NOW!". If they want to sell as the latter, they'll need to give guarantees, if they want to stay as the former, they'd have to communicate that very clearly and thus lose sales in the process.

 

[Esca]

Then people would run their servers to avoid paying publishers for mtx, which more often than not is almost the only revenue source of those games. Not a good business for already risky products, that should never be enforced

That's the whole point to patch it to let the players run their own servers since the game is being shutdown and unplayable otherwise.

 

[Kataploom]

That's the whole point to patch it to let the players run their own servers since the game is being shutdown and unplayable otherwise.

They gain nothing, if they shut down servers is because running the game is just an extra expense, having to implement a feature to an unprofitable product is making the loss even bigger, specially since some kind of support still have to be provided.

Not that I don't want it, but kinda unrealistic to expect a company to do so imo.

 

[Guilty_AI]

They gain nothing, if they shut down servers is because running the game is just an extra expense, having to implement a feature to an unprofitable product is making the loss even bigger, specially since some kind of support still have to be provided.

Thus the campaign to make a clear legislation on it . Afaik, gaming is the only industry that can sell you a product as a product when it's actually a service, AND the user isn't informed in any way how long that temporary license they bought lasts.

Even car manufacturers are complied by law to produce car parts for any given model for a certain period of time after that model's production ends.

 

[Kataploom]

This "rethoric" would completely alter the way they have to do business. There's be a huge difference in adoption if they had to write on the cover "RENTAL SERVICE, 2 YEAR LICENSE" vs "COOL GAME, GET YOURS NOW!". If they want to sell as the latter, they'll need to give guarantees, if they want to stay as the former, they'd have to communicate that very clearly and thus lose sales in the process.

So people that but online games don't know the servers may shut down in the future? IDK, I don't think that would matter to those people since it's pretty well known an online game depends on servers running and game popularity to stay up.

I'm not against it btw, whatever helps consumers get better informed is ok.

 

[Guilty_AI]

So people that but online games don't know the servers may shut down in the future? IDK, I don't think that would matter to those people since it's pretty well known an online game depends on servers running and game popularity to stay up.

You and i do, the average joe doesn't or just doesn't process this when they're buying a game. But if they're clearly warned or given an specific expiration date? They'd think twice before purchasing something... and gaming companies know this.

 

[NickFire]

i hope he (they, whoever) succeeds. Probably fighting a rising tide though. I’m a sucker for card packs in sports games. If they don’t feel bad about the money they take from people like me for jack shit, these companies aren’t gonna care about cutting losses when the games are not making them money any more.

 

[Kataploom]

You and i do, the average joe doesn't or just doesn't process this when they're buying a game. But if they're clearly warned or given an specific expiration date? They'd think twice before purchasing something... and gaming companies know this.

But how would they know the expiration date? Online games don't have expiration date set before they release, it depends on player base and profitability on real time, setting an expiration date to license would only make potential players not even bother with the game in first place.

What should probably be enforced is a minimum time online before game shuts down so if players spent money on any in game item they should be refunded if it was less than it, and it should apply to both f2p and premium games.

 

[Guilty_AI]

But how would they know the expiration date? Online games don't have expiration date set before they release, it depends on player base and profitability on real time,

That's their problem to figure out. What they can't do is sell you service that could technically stop working the next month by their hands without previously informing you any of that.

Imagine how buyers who bought The Crew early december last year felt when they announced closure of service just a few days after. Or rather, they were making sales of the game less than a year before the date of closure.

setting an expiration date to license would only make potential players not even bother with the game in first place.

Exactly, a scammer omitting crucial information from potential buyers to alter their purchase decision. And the legality of such is what this campaign wants to shine a light on.

What should probably be enforced is a minimum time online before game shuts down so if players spent money on any in game item they should be refunded if it was less than it, and it should apply to both f2p and premium games.

Could be one of the things they'd do.

 

[Deerock71]

Retro gaming is looking better and better all the time.

 

[Rayderism]

It doesn't matter what WE think, these a-hole companies are gonna pull their BS regardless of what we want.

 

[yurinka]

A popular YouTuber has launched a campaign called "Stop Killing Games" to apply pressure on publishers to stop making their titles unplayable. The move comes days after Ubisoft shut down the servers of popular racer The Crew, rendering it inoperable for gamers everywhere.

​

via Techspot

Pay some millions to these devs to pay such servers and they will be happy to keep them alive.

They shut down servers because it cost money to keep them alive and always at some point nobody (or almost) is using them, not providing enough money to keep them alive. In such sunseting stage they scale back the team working on them to make costs more affordable, then they reduce the maintenance and support teams working on them, and finally when the game doesn't make enough even to pay the servers they shut them down.

Devs don't have a magic crystal ball to predict the future, so they can't know when the game is going to expire because it will depend on its performance. So can't put an expiration date as some suggested above.

But yes, depending on the case, they could keep them playable offline with bots, or maybe P2P without anticheaters protection and without proper matchmaking.

Afaik, gaming is the only industry that can sell you a product as a product when it's actually a service, AND the user isn't informed in any way how long that temporary license they bought lasts.

The user is inforrmed, but don't read the Terms of Service, EULA, Cancellation Policies, Software Usage Terms, Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, Legal Info, etc. of both your platform (as PSN or Steam) and the game. Even in the game box it's indicated that the game requires internet connection when it's the case.

As I remember you don't own the game, you get a license to play it, that they can drop when they consider, as could be the case of when they decide to shut down the servers of a game that doesn't make enough money to pay them.

Exactly, a scammer omitting crucial information from potential buyers to alter their purchase decision. And the legality of such is what this campaign wants to shine a light on.

They aren't scamming anyone and aren't omitting any info. You are simply ignoring it.

 

[nkarafo]

hahahahaha

publishers arent going to pay for game servers indefinitely (you may have noticed this from every online game ever made)

Um... Literally, nobody is asking for this.

 

[Longcat]

hahahahaha

publishers arent going to pay for game servers indefinitely (you may have noticed this from every online game ever made)
same with online marketplaces like steam--they have no obligation to be around forever
no law will pass saying a company has to offer customers a service forever--that's just not financially viable. and if something stupid like that did somehow pass, companies could just shut down and reopen under a different name.

you'd need the company to provide the game to a national archive or something, which would have to be maintained by taxes/donations. and thats just for the game itself... if you wanted the archive to also run game servers, the operating costs would skyrocket.

anyway, id say vote with your wallet...

 

[RCU005]

The fair use of online gaming should be that when a games comes offline, developers should make it playable offline. Specially if it's single player (which by then, shouldn't even be online at all).

Sadly, developers want to abuse gamers and feel entitled to remove all access. How funny for them to have charged and then have the ability to locked people out of bought content.

It's like when a game will be delisted or an online shop would close (like the 3DS shop). You should be notified and be able to download your games, store them on an external hard drive and be able to use them whenever you want.

This industry is going to crash due to the greed of this industry's suits.

 

[magnumpy]

I see his point, and it makes sense to ME. however I wonder about the newer younger generations of gamers, who have grown up with an amorphous concept of actually owning their games vs. just renting them on a credit card or whatever. or paying for some game rental subscriprion service for the low price of ($who cares).

shame to see it, but maybe I and the entire concept of "ownership" will die out with the passage of time. I'm not immortal, I will die one day, but until that happens you can take my video games from my cold dead hands

 

[Guilty_AI]

The user is inforrmed, but don't read the Terms of Service, EULA, Cancellation Policies, Software Usage Terms, Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, Legal Info, etc. of both your platform (as PSN or Steam) and the game.

All of which the player can only see after buying the game. Also, fine prints. Obfuscating crucial information behind long contracts counts as something done on bad faith with explicit ill intent in cases like this. Much like how a program that has the user opt-out instead of opt-in on extra software or marketing emails during installation of a program is illegal.

Even in the game box it's indicated that the game requires internet connection when it's the case.

Still not clear enough information. There's a huge difference between saying "Requires internet" and "Your game may arbitrarily stop working whenever because we said so"

As I remember you don't own the game, you get a license to play it, that they can drop when they consider, as could be the case of when they decide to shut down the servers of a game that doesn't make enough money to pay them.

There are many types of license, including ones of eternal use. When you buy most games, that's the kind of license you are getting. Publishers do not make that information clear enough and often sell games to people under different terms while taking advantage of the fact that most people see them as the former, like they were buying DVD movies or similar.

If the information that the game would stop working a few years - perhaps months - down the line was explicitly told to the buyer before purchase, would this alter their decision? If so, then it is information that must be explicitly told upfront.

They aren't scamming anyone and aren't omitting any info. You are simply ignoring it.

That'll be for the courts around the world to decide.

And finally, if you're really interest in further discussing this watch the video, because all that you complained regarding servers and what not had been clearly discussed. Saying this campaign wants to force companies to "keep servers up forever" is a bad faith argument or a misinformed one.