←back to thread

Stop Killing Games

(www.stopkillinggames.com)
253 points MYEUHD | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
graynk ◴[] No.44446699[source]
> But it's less obvious to me how the legislation should work for a multiplayer-only game that goes out of business

The idea is to force the companies to provide an end-of-life plan that leaves the game in a "reasonably playable state". Depending on the game the approach can differ. Releasing the binaries along with instructions for hosting dedicated servers is one approach (that some games already take). I was playing on a (pirated, but it was a long way ago and I was a child) Lineage 2 server way back in 2007 on my local ISP network, so even something like MMORPGs can be covered if it's included in the discussion at the design stage of the game.

But even if the backend is very complex and vendor-locked, releasing something like a set of Cloudformation templates and saying "you can only host this on AWS and it's going to be restrictively expensive but there you go" is also an option that would satisfy the requirements. It's still better then having nothing at all to dig at (although some fans still do reverse-engineer and spin up community servers even without having access to any of this).

replies(2): >>44446725 #>>44446780 #
hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44446780[source]
The problem is that you can easily create negative effects that hurt all developers while only imagining the impact on profitable AAA games which seems to be how most of these discussions go since people always bring up blockbuster games like Lineage 2 and World of Warcraft.

Ensuring that the multiplayer server component of your game is a standalone end-user distributable is a huge task to impose on every game that wants to have a multiplayer component. Especially once you consider the vast majority of games that never even get traction much less turn a profit.

So, the second someone buys your prerelease indie slither.io game, what exactly does this checklist look like? It needs to also day 1 launch with a self-hostable standalone server distro instead of the crappy spaghetti mess you live coded on an EC2 machine?

replies(6): >>44446834 #>>44446843 #>>44446995 #>>44447376 #>>44447432 #>>44447480 #
graynk ◴[] No.44446834[source]
I fail to see the impact it would cause on a smaller studio - a lot of the times the games from those are usually are already pretty simple to self-host, as they don't want to bear the load of maintaining servers besides maybe a master-server (e.g. Valheim and the like).

> Especially once you consider the vast majority of games that never even get traction much less turn a profit.

Which is the whole point. Believe it or not - people who slave away on the game for years want people to maybe get to play it and enjoy it? Cause it's also art and not just business and there's a preservation angle to all of it?

> It needs to also day 1 launch with a self-hostable standalone server distro instead of the crappy spaghetti mess you live coded on an EC2 machine?

Not by day 1 launch, by day "we shut everything down". Not on an EC2 machine - as I mentioned in the thread above, even dumping your cloudformation templates and saying "enjoy all these queues" will satisfy the requirements.

replies(1): >>44446924 #
hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44446924[source]
I think the fact that you used the word "studio" kinda betrays a disconnect here. What about all the games that aren't built by "studios" and don't have "cloudformation templates" and have barely any sales?

They also need to have had invested in the extra work so that hypothetical players can have the opportunity to self-host the server on day 1 for a game that never caught on in the first place?

replies(1): >>44446982 #
1. graynk ◴[] No.44446982[source]
Yes?.. It does not have to be pretty. If you're able to deploy it, your community will be able to deploy it.

If you really don't want to bother with that - don't sell the game, sell timed access and shut it down once the last subscription runs out.

replies(1): >>44447014 #
2. hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44447014[source]
Fair enough, but that's a huge imposition on everyone for what probably comes from a very specific instance in your life of a single game that you loved having its server die after a while, long after you got your money's worth.

It seems short sighted.

replies(3): >>44447101 #>>44447450 #>>44448505 #
3. graynk ◴[] No.44447101[source]
> It seems short sighted.

In my opinion it's the other way around. It's short sighted to throw away so much of the medium's history with no way to preserve it.

4. OkayPhysicist ◴[] No.44447450[source]
How is dumping your server files in a file upload server somewhere a "huge imposition"?
5. dpoloncsak ◴[] No.44448505[source]
Nobody is even asking you to maintain the code. You had it working when I purchased the product that required the code. Just share that code. I'll even fiddle around with hard-coded paths or whatever you think is making this impossible