←back to thread

Stop Killing Games

(www.stopkillinggames.com)
253 points MYEUHD | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44446623[source]
The obvious case where this makes sense are single-player games that require internet access before they even launch, like when you need to link a Microsoft account to play Forza.

But it's less obvious to me how the legislation should work for a multiplayer-only game that goes out of business. I suppose it should require a refund at some point. But at what point?

Steam only lets you refund a game that you played for less than two hours.

And if you think that's not long enough, there's surely some time period where you can agree that you've got your money's worth. Kind of like how you lose the ability to say "I didn't like it" after you ate your whole dinner at a restaurant.

Yet in the comments here someone gives an example of three years of online support which is insane. Why is multiplayer special? Should Steam also let you refund any game until three years elapse?

replies(7): >>44446687 #>>44446699 #>>44446768 #>>44446987 #>>44447096 #>>44447118 #>>44447447 #
1. tracker1 ◴[] No.44446768[source]
I would say requiring an online game be required to either support their players from 3 years after public release, and/or release the server code would be a reasonable expectation.

It may not always be possible, especially if you aren't actually charging in some way... but the money soak that some games are is ridiculous and the massive corporate decision making interfering with the game design in that direction deserve to have to fulfill that requirement.

I'm honestly mixed in a lot of ways as I do see and understand the need/desire for some decisions without malice or greed behind them. But in the end, it's a balancing act. Actual online driven games should probably have a monthly fee, if they don't they're bound to get taken offline sooner than later. It doesn't need to be a huge fee even $20/year to keep the lights on. For offline games, maintaining a license api server shouldn't be an undue burden, and there's almost no reason to ever turn such a thing off... If the game isn't that widely used a $5/mo VPS can probably handle it.

Aside: I really miss gamespy and the like for self-hosting the server side for interactive games, lan party play, etc. Wish more games would go back to that.