Just look at the situation Fisker Ocean Car owners are in at the moment - the company has gone bankrupt, and their fate is in the hands of whoever buys the assets. eSIMs may not be paid for, and there is no guarantee there will be an online service for the cars to phone home to in the future. Some features - like the sunroof - won't work without it.
Apparently, isn't the future great?
Next year the brakes might require a round trip to the data center too, so I guess we should start to account for network latency when braking. /s
Original video with all the different avenues he's trying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE
The one specifically about this initiative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMe9MxxZiI
He's done smaller update videos on how it's been progressing on his channel if you want additional info.
Good job!
I think piracy is the best method of preservation because it's removed from a financial incentive. Publishers just aren't going to spend a dime if it doesn't make a buck.
The problem is that piracy doesn't help for always online "games as a service" games where the game is killed after the server has shut down. You can't pirate the server because it was never available, and outside of being lucky enough that a few hackers dedicate a lot of spare time to reverse engineering it, that game is gone forever.
The point of this initiative is to ensure that game companies have a legal obligation that at the point of shutting down game servers they must either release the server software, patch the game to work offline, or do whatever else to ensure that the game continues to function.
It's worth noting that this would only count for games sold as goods i.e you paid a fixed fee at the time of sale with the expectation of owning a product indefinitely. Games with explicit subscriptions such as MMO's would not be subject to this since there was never an expectation of access to the product continuing after the subscription expired.
Now consider how many of the modern classic PC games are kept playable/relevant (a problem with some older games are things like terrible playing mechanics; graphics less so) by an enthusiast modding community.
I don't think that's universally true. Paradox Interactive are a studio with grand strategy games, and even decades-old games still get new sales of the base game and the DLCs, with a strong user base.
this is not just a GaaS thing (though GaaS is the biggest in the list), even evergreen indie titles can choose to just add more content to a single player game for years instead of making a new title. titles like Terraria and Binding of Isaac more than passed a decade at this point.
As someone who writes software, I'm honestly happy when someone is requiring that the source be open, that my results be reproducible, that my changes are reviewed, etc. Without that my boss is just asking why I waste my time on things with no profit margin but which are quite satisfying if you take any pride in your work.
In a lot of cases, just requiring that something work without phoning home will cost developers almost nothing and insulate them from silly cost shaving from the higher ups.
Besides it might keep the game alive and even generate some residual revenue even though you aren't spending a dime with server infrastructure.
Requiring companies to do things they don't want to do... has limits. It's hard to prevent them from doing a crap job.
The actual "solution" is radically reducing copyright duration. Most revenue is generated during the first N years.
>Most revenue is generated during the first N years.
With the shift to GaaS models this is becoming less true. once you get a hit, you will easily have a steady income stream for 5,10+ years. WOW is well over 20 at this point.
Not sure about that. It seems like Apple is having a pretty hard time skirting around the gatekeeper legislation right now, and I've asked for a copy of my data to a dozen different companies and all of them complied very closely to what gdpr is requiring.
I would doubt it. Already the smaller developers are less likely to be part of the current problem, most of those games at least work offline if they aren't already entirely DRM free.
And the ones that require online access, when the game is designed to be self-hostable this is 0 problem. I'd almost wager it is more difficult and time consuming ensuring they are the only ones that the game can connect to if they'd publish the server binary.
And regarding licensing of server software: you'd need to take into account that you need to publish it down the line when sourcing your dependencies, so I wouldn't count licensing complications a valid excuse, as it's already done with the game software itself.
For same reason I'm unable to play (and pay for) online games because I don't have control over saved progression and future development of the game.
I don't want to suggest that I'm in favour of sunsetting every game once a publisher or developer is done with it, but there's got to be a middle ground between "you must ensure that your game can have all online components replaced" and what we have right now. And I think the sheer amount of work involved in the former for every game combined with perverse incentives from a very small subset of users that cause a disproportionate amount of hassle makes this not a good idea. It's a great example of a change that greatly favours existing companies who could meet the legislation, and will negatively effect smaller games and studios.
This is to the benefit of everybody now and in the future. It doesn't matter if only an insignificant fraction of people recognize the importance.
>It doesn't matter if only an insignificant fraction of people recognize the importance.
that's literally how petitions work. If not enough people care, it doesn't even get looked at by Parliment. The first pass of this didn't look too hot.
What about cases where just having the source code isn't enough. Things that use paid third party libraries are a good example.
Also, perhaps based on the time spent in the game, players should receive some kind of compensation such as credits for their next purchase.
Wouldn't this just incentivise companies to move to a F2P and/or subscription model?
There's no expectation that, just because I've downloaded the client, I should be able to use a VPN service after the servers are discontinued. Or use AutoCAD after my licence has expired.
You don't need to leave the gaming realm to imagine the unintended consequences of this petition - just look at the hellscape that is mobile gaming.
On the other hand, if you sell cosmetic items in your subscription based or free-to-play game, then you have sold something with a reasonable expectation of durability which is somewhat already enshrined in the digital goods laws. If you rent those items for a limited time then the relationship is again honest.
If it is reasonable to expect a limited time frame of usage from the software then it is reasonable for the company to state what guarantees they are willing to make for that time frame in a subscription contract. The presumption of durability should carry the weight of law (up to consumables and wear and tear).
Yeah, good luck with that. these companies have wasted that goodwill for almost a decade now. The real unfortunate part is that most consumers don't care, so companies can keep doing it.
As for subscription-based games, Ross Scott put them in a separate category in a previous video of his [1], as you willingly pay for access to a service which has a known end date (end of the month). Although with the micro-transactions angle in mind, I'm not sure how this changes things.
[1]: "Games as a service" is fraud, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw
With many games you are currently paying money for unknown period of time. Maybe you will get 5 year, maybe 1 year, maybe 1 month or even just 3 days. It's not that much of exaggeration, there have been examples of companies continuing to sell a game without any warning that they will kill the servers making the product useless in a few months.
Any fair trade whether it's a purchase, subscription or rental needs to clearly state what exactly and how much of it each party will get from the deal.
Also while this may not be the current public opinion, F2P generally still involves income via sales - not of the whole game but of tiny portions of it dangled in front of you. Any worthwile rule change would also require those to continue to be available to you when the company decides to shut the servers.
Needs better explanation.
This seems like a good goal but I'm not sure they've fully thought it through.
Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
Get used to this new reality. Enjoy your gaming experiences when you have them.
Such a bizarre take, when most games I play are from a decade ago or more.
I have very little interest in current gaming trends.
We are in this situation because of a shrinking time horizon for the modern society (aka "high time preference"). People want instant gratification, buy-now-pay-later, pay attention to the packaging, not content. Most citizens are conditioned to live here and now. Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical right now, otherwise the world's gonna end tomorrow.
This looks more like a consequence of the issue you described previously, than part of the issue itself. If everyone is concerned only with the next 5 minutes (and even if they are with the next 5 years), how would you possibly get them to care about the next 50 or 500 years? So you frame it in terms that align with the modern approach of "only here and now exist".
> Even climate change activists frame the issue (that is supposed to be about long-term thinking) on a very short scale: do something hysterical
No need for "hysterical" in there. But the more and sooner action is taken the better the outcome.
It takes extra effort to avoid this trap. I and my wife had to make a conscious decision to abstain from watching any TV shows because of their addictive structure - same goes for the algorithm feed of reels. If we need to watch a movie in the evening, it must be a complete thing in itself, not a beginning of a 5-season saga.
Gamepass seems to disagree. You are free to buy any game so far that has been on gamepass but people would rather buy a rental Smörgåsbord than keep some sense of ownership of the game. I don't think the choice is force; it just aligns with most people's real feelings on the media they consume.
I recommend it even if one is not really interested in cryptocurrencies. Or watch the author's (Saifedean Ammous) interview on Lex Friedman if you prefer.
As much as I don't play a lot of AAA games due to how they either play or monetize, it is important to me to preserve them for future times considering I still play a lot of older games and even some games from before I was born.
I do think games are art. I don't think most of society thinks of games or even most media as art. So that's already one social hurdle to jump.
There will be a few big artifacts, but most people won't care about preserving every single piece of media in existence.
>it is important to me to preserve them for future times considering I still play a lot of older games and even some games from before I was born.
No point in preserving servers with no on it. I still have PS1 discs in my room, but those are all single player experiences that don't depend on others to derive enjoyment from.
