Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 02:06
collapse
Two more months to go and more than 50% left to reach 1 million signatures. It’s sad to see that with how many people game, this petition has so little reach. I guess we’ll have to wait till Fortnite is shut down, then suddenly many more will care that their childhood game is gone forever.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
on 23 May 02:09
nextcollapse
Unfortunately, I think it was just a lack of awareness that the petition in existed in certain countries where Ross just didn’t have enough reach, possibly due to language barriers. A big push from native speakers of those countries with large audiences, like streamers, could’ve pushed it over the edge.
I don’t know if I fully agree with the petition, but I do think that there are some real problems with the status quo.
I also think that either a legislature or courts need to provide legal criteria for the good or service division with games. I think that there probably need to be “good” games, "serviceʾ games, and possibly even games that have a component of both.
It doesn’t sound like it was as of 2020 in the US, at least on the good/service distinction:
The creator of the Stop Killing Games campaign did a segment about the viability of fighting it in the US in a segment here: youtu.be/DAD5iMe0Xj4?t=1097
tl:dr, the motivated lawyer he talked with on it eventually found a court case that set a precedent that would be extremely difficult to fight in such a pro-corporate court system without extreme amounts of legal funds. This is why the Stop Killing Games campaign is focusing on implementing laws in the EU and other non-US countries.
I don’t even trust non-unlockable bootloaders. There’s so much planned obsolescence everywhere
cheers_queers@lemm.ee
on 22 May 23:16
nextcollapse
Im honestly so sick of online games that should be offline. I just got a few switch games to pass time on my breaks, and half of them require internet access. One of them is literally a bubble shooter.
i buy physical because i genuinely think nintendo is one of the last good game devs remaining. but switch 2 is just download cards. i will not be purchasing it.
RedStrider@lemmy.world
on 23 May 01:15
nextcollapse
i think that’s a myth, switch 2 will have real games.
gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
on 23 May 13:10
collapse
Not in 10+ years when you can't download the rest of the game from the servers because they don't put the whole game on the cartridge anymore. Not to mention patches and DLC aren't on the cartridge either.
have you seen any of their pokemon releases the past years? its actually embarassing how bad the games are in terms of quality and polish, for a game that is the biggest IP in the world.
they do own the pokemon IP though, so even though they dont develop the game, i’d argue its still their fault if the game turns out ass. its time they put some stress on gamefreak to do better.
AFAIK, most PS3 (and even PS4) / Xbox 360 games will play and function with just the disc, an internet connection will just let them download updates to the game.
It was PS5 and Xbox One where the discs became glorified physical download codes, and did not actually contain the entire game.
leave_it_blank@lemmy.world
on 23 May 01:50
collapse
That’s why I only buy games on GOG. After purchase I archive the installer, and it’s mine forever. On console you are really fucked.
randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 May 00:37
nextcollapse
Piracy is essentially a form of archivism. The digital age literally ended scarcity in digital media and these people were like “well that won’t do”.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 12:25
nextcollapse
For sone of these games piracy would solve nothing. How wouldI run an 8vs8 PvP mission in DCUO that players are required to do if there aren’t 16 players on the server? If Im hosting it offline that content is still dead.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 May 12:53
collapse
Private WoW servers thrived. Much of the endgame content required 40 players to collaborate for hours at a time, and they have kept their own dream running for well over a decade.
You should have the option to find and play with others long after corporate servers are abandoned. Whether or not there are other players immediately available is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Edit - and you’re all over this thread licking boots and saying “you signed the agreement!”
Thanks. We know how license agreements work. They are included in the thing we want to change, when we talk about changing the industry. We want to stop allowing bullshit license agreements. The exact same way many of us want Right to Repair for people who bought tractors with proprietary software.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
on 23 May 14:50
nextcollapse
It also allows the game to revive itself. Those 40 players playing pirated WoW could introduce more people to the game. And at the very least, it allows it be run in the future if ever historians should need access.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 16:14
collapse
I dont think you do know how licenses work when your complaint amounts to ” I want this the way I want it not the way I agreed to it”.
You either accept the game the way it us offered or you dont play the game. You are not entitled to get things the way you want them.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 May 17:25
nextcollapse
Lol swing and a miss again, my friend.
Nice use of the word “entitled” - really sums up your stance on the consumer/business relationship.
The consumer is “entitled” for protesting predatory or unethical business practices.
The consumer is “entitled” for opposing the ongoing enshittification of entire industries.
The consumer is “entitled” for wanting businesses to not be able to legally hide behind unsustainable licensing practices that provide no value to society and further entrench the ever-growing rent/subscription model that is squeezing people dry for no reason.
The entire point - the entire fucking point - is that these licenses are not okay. So, no, I don’t pay for these licenses, but I don’t think anyone should be able to pay for these licenses, because I don’t think anyone should be able to “sell” these licenses.
These licenses - like many unethical business practices - put the corporation that offers them at a financial advantage over the corporations that don’t.
Regulations - in every industry - should level the playing field. They can allow ethical business practices to be viable and competitive, instead of being liabilities and risks. The copyright/IP system is an example of those regulations instead being weaponized against the consumer, and needs a massive overhaul.
And guess what? In a functioning society, consumers areentitled to get what they want. They areentitled to oppose unethical business practices, and use their collective power to try to stop it. Why the fuck would we want it the other way around? Why are corporations entitled to get whatever they want?
We have every goddamn right to protest those business practices whether or not we do business with those companies - just as we have every right to protest unethical or discriminatory hiring practices by companies that we don’t work for. Even if plenty of people applied for those jobs and signed those contracts, we have every right to protest anyway.
But enjoy the taste of corporate boots!
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 19:58
collapse
It is entitlement. When I signed up to play Fortnite BR I agreed to a limited license to play the game as they intended to run it. If Epic kills Fortnite do I have the right to force them to make a version of BR be playable offline? No, because that isn’t what we agreed to.
Nothing about this is predatory. You simply aren’t getting what you want and are throwing a tantrum over it
How DARE you suggest things should be better for me, the consumer, instead of the way our corporate overlords feel is more profitable!
Well, that’s certainly an… Interesting take on someone saying things should be better…
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 May 21:23
collapse
Everything about the “rent/subscription” model is predatory, but we weren’t even talking about the truly fucked up stuff, like deeply unethical microtransaction marketing to children ala Fortnite.
Amazing that you think its okay for children to sign contracts where they agree that any money they give to Epic is gone forever, and that any worthless digital assets they are manipulated into purchasing can be voided and deleted at any time without any recompense!
(Lol inb4 “it’s the parents job to monitor their kids at all times in case a predatory corporation sneaks capitalism and FOMO advertising into their apparently harmless child-friendly free-to-play game or app”)
But sure, keep on defending predatory corporations! Enjoy the taste of boots!
I’ll be over here advocating for stronger consumer business protections! Sorry, I mean, I’ll be throwing an entitled tantrum lol.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 22:21
collapse
“ Amazing that you think its okay for children to sign contracts where they agree that any money they give to Epic is gone forever, and that any worthless digital assets they are manipulated into purchasing can be voided and deleted at any time without any recompense!”
At no point have I said anything that would lead to this conclusion.
For the record Fortnite is rated “T” for teens because of the microtransactions.
Your “inB4” is moronic. It IS parent’s job to do this. If they don’t have the energy then dont get them a system.
You as an adult are responsible for the agreements you make. It is childish to pretend otherwise.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 May 22:46
collapse
You absolutely said everything that leads to this conclusion.
People sign agreements with Fortnite that give Epic the right to sell them microtransactions that don’t belong to the purchaser. They also give Epic the right to take down Fortnite and therefore remove access to any of the content that they paid for. This is the license that every player agrees to when they play the game.
You claim that protesting the usage of that license is “throwing a tantrum.”
Lol I forgot that teens aren’t children, apparently. That makes the microtransaction okay, because the players are (supposed to be) teenagers. As if teenagers aren’t vulnerable to manipulation, or as if the ESRB actually does a goddamn thing anyway.
Just couldn’t help yourself, could you? You just have to defend the corporation’s right to advertise to children, and blame everything on the parents. We already had this fight with cigarrettes, you know. People would say that it’s the parents’ fault if kids were attracted to cigarettes.
How did that turn out? That’s right. Nearly every developed country in the world agreed that advertising that shit to children was not okay. Full goddamn stop.
“Oh but it’s on the parents to make sure capitalism doesn’t poison their childrens’ bodies and minds through cartoon villain levels of social manipulation”, you say.
Corporations advertising harmful shit to children should not be tolerated under any circumstances, and functioning societies are entitled to make that a goddamn law, which they have done before, and can do again.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 23:29
collapse
No I claim that agreeing to those conditions and then complaining when they do not alter those terms in ways you want them to is childish entitlement. Do you see the difference? If you have a problem with the license you do not agree to it and you do not play the game.
The rest of your post is just more of the same whining about why you can’t have things the way you want them when they are not being offered on your terms to begin with.
Finally, you are complaining about video games. You should keep that in mind so you have better perspective on this.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 May 00:17
collapse
So… exactly what I said, then? You think Epic’s licenses are okay, and it’s entitlement to complain about them. I genuinely don’t see the difference you’re trying to describe.
Lol but enjoy defending unethical business practices, I guess. Keep imagining that I’ve bought these licenses at all, and keep imagining that it’s entitlement to want things to change for people’s best interests.
I hope the corporations thank you for defending their right to walk all over consumers. Manipulating children into gambling and renting worthless digital products is “just video games” after all. I’ll try to keep that perspective in mind.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 24 May 09:55
nextcollapse
And I hope you grow up and learn how engage maturely one day.
You sound mad now, too. I don’t need to explain anything, go re-read the conversation. I can’t make you see someone else’s perspective, but I can mock you for being so obtuse.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 25 May 14:16
collapse
Ahh, the pinnacle of internet discourse - pretending that one wins an argument by minor differences in tone, rather than content. Only… suggesting over and over that someone is throwing an entitled tantrum certainly sets a tone, don’t it?
Strange, that I am the only emotional one here. Perhaps if you take a deep breath, and read my comments slower? Maybe ask a chatbot to read them in the voice of David Attenborough or Morgan Freeman?
Maybe you’re right, and I’ve just gone deaf from all this blind rage. At this rate I’ll never achieve my dreams of being acutie…
You are not entitled to get things the way you want them.
“You want to purchase something and use it the way you want to? How entitled can you get?”
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 24 May 16:41
collapse
Right, and the way licenses work should be illegal. If I purchase something, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, for as long as I choose to. That’s what purchase means.
If I rent/subscribe to something, that only lasts for the duration of my contract.
Sure, I’m not entitled to get things the way I want, but am entitled to get things the way they were advertised. If I buy a game, I should be able to play it even if the publisher shops selling it. They have options on how to handle that, either by releasing the server code so I can self-host it, removing the server bits so I can play offline, or continuing to keep servers online for existing owners.
If I rent/subscribe to something, that only lasts for the duration of my contract.
Just to reinforce your point, if you rent/subscribe to something, the duration should be known at the time. The fact that they can pull the plug at any time without a prior warning is what makes it a scam.
You know you bring up a really great point. We’ve finally hit post-scarcity in an industry (information) and look at what it has done to us. Are we really ready for this in other areas yet. Should we use this as a chance to figure out how to integrate such a creation into society such that the next time this happens it doesn’t kill us all.
Fandangalo@lemmy.world
on 23 May 01:13
nextcollapse
Out of the games I’ve been fortunate to work on, 1/7 require internet, and the 1 was my first industry job as QA. Everything else has been mobile, online required. 5/7 are no longer playable / removed from the internet.
It makes me sad because my kids will never play a bunch of things I made. I can’t revisit them nostalgically. If I had made something in the 90s, it would be preserved still.
I played the cards dealt to me to follow a dream and make a living, but I wish the industry wasn’t like this. The money has always been a role, but nowadays, it’s distorted so badly.
I call em full version demos. Specifically because I buy when it’s good. The 2 hour steam thing sometimes, just isn’t enough to really know. It usually is tho.
heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net
on 23 May 06:13
nextcollapse
I boycott single player games that require online login/validation. Rockstar and Ubisoft are on my blacklist
It’s astonishing to me how even right here on Lemmy so many people still misunderstand what this is about with comments saying that piracy fixes it or that downloading the game installer solves the issue. The games where those things are options aren’t what this effort is about, this is about games like Darkspore, Defiance, Tabula Rasa, and our prototypical example The Crew, where there is no one who can play them no matter where, how, or when, they acquired the game, it is impossible to play for anyone, the whole piece of art has been destroyed.
Honestly if we can’t even communicate what the movement is about to those who aught to be our base it really does not bode well for gaining any kind of wider traction.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
on 23 May 11:29
nextcollapse
I think the issue is that, as with reddit, a lot of people are only reading the headline and commenting.
AgentRocket@feddit.org
on 23 May 13:17
nextcollapse
Also many young people are so used to games requiring online connection and being shut down, that they can’t imagine a better way.
That does seem to be an influence, though oddly there are some modern wildly popular games, Minecraft being a prime example, that still allow you to self host your own server, so it shouldn’t really be as foreign of a concept as it appears to be to some younger folk.
I’m not young and I disagree with this petition. I don’t think developers are doing anything wrong or immoral, and they should be free to make the design decisions they think are best. If the consumers end up not liking their decisions, then they won’t buy the companies product. I think creating a law or regulation around this is too far.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 24 May 16:34
collapse
Sure, but when the link is to a video, I don’t blame them.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 12:23
nextcollapse
The thing is when you created your account you agreed to the fact that it isn’t your game. What you agreed to was a game that they own and control and you can participate in. You might not like the results when they close the game but you chose to start playing that game to begin with.
Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
on 23 May 12:47
nextcollapse
People aren’t used to this as a concept, especially when there are so many terms and conditions screens (that have been shown in multiple jurisdictions courts to not be legally binding) they click through on a daily basis as well as many other “as a service” models that are reliable enough that people don’t realise what the pitfalls are (people playing for Netflix are fairly certain it won’t close next week, for instance), even the more technically minded expect sunset clauses - which would be a pretty good legal baseline to improve the situation.
Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
on 23 May 17:09
collapse
Or people are used to this concept and accept it as normal instead of unethical behavior that should be illegal.
That’s basically like saying g all mmo’s should illegal. Or that it is illegal to go out of business and close up shop without giving away all your code.
Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
on 24 May 18:13
collapse
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m saying. If you offer software that requires outside servers to run, you should be legally obligated to release the code used to run the servers if you discontinue supporting that software. That doesn’t make mmo’s any different, just a minor change to how they handle end of life.
If you don’t like how a company handles their end of life then don’t buy from them. Trying to make it illegal is unnecessary as companies are already facing negative consequences for making poor EOL choices. I don’t like forcing developers to create in a specific way, I’d rather they have freedom to choose.
At what point in the purchase cycle is it known that they won’t? Because the right reserved in a EULA is not a guarantee of occurrence, so how does one make a decision when or when not to purchase?
Also, when single player games are being forced to be always online and are being affected, there is a real problem. If there is no valid tangible benefit to the player for a game to be online, and require the online component to play the game, it should be illegal.
Well, I knew the crew would be decommissioned and dissapear from day one. I’m not sure why people expected it to live forever. I understand people want to change things to be different, but the norm before was that online games are sunset. Its happened over and over.
And you would base your decision on prior actions of the company. Dont buy ubisoft until they prove they have fixed this problem. You already shouldnt be playing online games hosted by shitty companies, exactly for this reason. Most companies actually don’t fuck their fan base over, and so its not an issue.
You’re damn right I don’t like it, I especially don’t like how it destroys art history, which is why I’m part of this campaign to make that practice illegal.
The general minimum for a National Landmark is 50 years. This would make any game released prior to 1975 eligible. That is a good chunk of games. That said, protecting works of art are usually much shorter terms. Works of art can be justified to be protected almost immediately depending on the artist and work.
Okay thats fair, I actually didnt know there were video games that old. I wouldnt day all of them should be archived as a rule but if they are available why not.
I don’t know any current publishers that would qualify for the day one protection you mentioned. Can you give an example of something being declared historical nearly immediately though?
I know I could find examples, but I am exhausted after coding all day on one thorny problem, so I am just going to make educated guesses from what I know of US history. I would bet that the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore received National Landmark status before the general 50 year mark. I would hazard that the presidential monuments on DC did as well.
That said, this was an exercise in examples of things that need to be protected as part of history. Works of art have a much lower bar than national landmarks for this. Games that are transformative or innovative in a way that we still feel today, or games that are massive parts of the cultural zeitgeist for a period definitely deserve preservation. Rogue, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy VII, Super Mario Brothers, Zork, etc. The reason this is such a big deal is that it might be hard to measure in a moment what is or is not going to have that long reaching impact. Imagine you are an art historian in 30 years and you are doing a paper on the growth and history of game mechanics. How are you going to research that. If you were doing one on painting and how techniques grow over time, you go look at the paintings, study them. The game paper will have no source material to study to draw new conclusions or find previously unnoticed connections if 70+% of the source media disappears in the next 10 years.
One persons historical piece is another’s bit of oppression, using mount Rushmore is a great example of this. I’m pointing out that I find it impossible to agree on what’s historical as a country when it comes to things like that. I literally never touched dark souls the entire time its been popular, its not historical for me.
Then theres the fact that you can’t really delete anything from the internet. Sure online games can be “disconnected” but even the crew has a private server going live this year. WoW did the same thing and eventually the company started supporting their old games again. Funny thing about that, they didnt have the old code anymore and had to rewrite it.
I would like the same result as you would, I just don’t want laws to force it that way. I think its already changing and its unnecessary to regulate. This might not be the case in this instance but regulations tend to be easier to handle by larger companies as well, and I wouldnt want to unduly stress small development teams. Art should largely be unrestricted.
Yeah, but a contract that you cannot negotiate before signing isn’t really a contract is it? It is a gate keeper. A gun to the head. An “agree to this or else”. In the modern world, one can do essentially nothing without signing a EULA. Want to get a job without signing one? Good luck. Want to play a game? Not many of them. Want to shop online, look at art, communicate with friends and family. Many of the most integral parts of maintaining our mental health are being put behind abusive “contracts” that strip us of any rights we think we have. Community, leisure, socialization, entertainment, all of the primary avenues in the modern world have predominantly become privatized and every one of those comes at a pretty steep nonmonetary cost.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 16:00
nextcollapse
You can choose to accept their terms or not play the game.
You are not entitled to have everything on your terms.
You can also choose to call them out on having anti-consumer practices. You are entitled to criticize shitty business practices.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 17:18
collapse
I wouldn’t call this a shitty business practice. You agreed to a game they own and control. You went into the game knowing this. If they are losing money on the game why should they lose more just to “preserve” the game after shutting down?
They don’t have to. They can release the code and let people run their own servers once they’re no longer interested in doing so. This costs them nothing.
That is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal requires evidentiary support of your stance. For instance, as support for saying it costs them nothing, one might offer the following:
once released, users would distribute and maintain the file servers independently of the corporation, thus costing the company nothing.
once released, users would maintain independent game servers and pay for their upkeep, thus costing the company nothing.
once released, the modding community would take over the maintenance and development on the code base, thus costing the company nothing.
There, 3 salient points which support the position that releasing the codebase for the game when sunsetting it costs the company nothing. I could even make points about how it is actually profitable for the company, but I want to give you your turn to rebutt me now that you have a good example of how to provide a good argument.
Okay, if the crew was released at EOL, it would have cost ubisoft money on sales of the crew 2. I would not expect them to choose to lose money in that situation. It was only later with multiple issues with multiple games that ubisofts market value tanked and they had to assess a new position/direction for the company.
Also, we are talking about video games, not a basic right like food, water, and air.
And by what mechanism would it have affected sales of the sequel? Historically, and demonstrably, greater access to a game increases the sales of sequels. Why do you think developers put games in a series on sale when a new game in a series is coming out? I would definitely argue that having released the server hosting code for The Crew to allow people to host private servers would have potentially added to The Crew 2 sales. Also, if they release the server code, but not the game code, they could continue the sales of the game on storefronts at a reduced price having it marked that it will no longer receive updates and still made even more money from those sales. I would definitely prefer if they just release the whole game, but either would have worked.
Its just as likely to do either, its all speculation. I still don’t want to force a developer to do anything really. Prohibiting things is a bit different though.
In this case, it is a prohibition on sunsetting a game without providing the means for purchasers to continue playing without your support. They are taking an action in their sunsetting decision, this is a prohibition on one choice made in that process.
Except… For a contract to be legal it must be agreed upon by both parties free of manipulation or coercion. Now, usually this is specified to be manipulation or coercion on the part of one of the parties, but what I argue is that in the modern era that is insufficient to encompass the growing complexity around the way society works and how it will continue moving forward.
Pulling the numbers out of my well educated ass, 40 years ago the average person would encounter EULA-like contracts a handful of times per year. Maybe for a mail order service, or a piece of software. Today we encounter them daily. The amount of information in them is intentionally made dense and overwhelming so the average person becomes numb very quickly and opts to click through on most of them without reading them. This enables all sorts of personal liberty and information abuses on the part of corporations.
40 years ago you did not have one to find a job, a lover, buy a car (still had a loan contract, but if you paid up front you had 0 contracts other than the bill of sale). You would not encounter them to work most jobs. You could go years without having to risk signing your rights over to a company and usually when you did you had negotiation power. This is not true today. You work for a company, they use Zoom, Slack, Google Workplace, a Virtual Timecard service, all of which have individual EULA that you as a private citizen, not an employer, must agree to and be bound by. Microsoft can put in their EULA that they are allowed to take a screenshot of your computer every 15 seconds and transmit it to their servers. This could be intercepted, or the servers could be hacked and have the entire database compromised and you have 0 say other than public outcry or to airgap your system, which then complains constantly that it cannot connect to the internet and becomes virtually unusable for about 80% of why you want to own it.
Being required by an employer to use software which requires that you as an individual sign a EULA is coercion. Having 0 recourse for alternatives in a marketplace which do not require signing a EULA is coercion. Having the terms which strip your rights irrevocably and transferrably buried and written in confusing ways is manipulation.
I should never have to worry that my copyright is being stripped from a piece of art I create just because I share it to a friend on some website.
You are acting like an EULA is going to ruin your life. Restaurants have EULAs too, like requiring shirt and shoes. Its not some crazy concept that if you want to enter someone else’s establishment (online game) they might have expectations on how you behave.
“No shirt, no shoes, no service” is a health code, not a EULA.
Also, you are conflating social contracts with actual legally binding ones. If you had to sign a contract to eat at a resteraunt which gave them the right to photograph you and record all of your conversations while you ate then use all of it for marketing without compensating you or to sell the contents of your conversations and likeness to unknown 3rd parties without informing you of who they were sold to and what the intended use was, would you still eat there.
Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand and what abuses of rights are done in digital spaces.
There are many restaurants, especially the largest fast food chains, who do have you sign an agreement to allow them to do everything you said. And no I don’t eat at those places because I don’t like the practice personally. I don’t buy games if I don’t like the game company or their actions.
But this isn’t about data collection and privacy, its about trying to prevent a game from shutting down because it feels upsetting. I’m sorry but if you are upset about it don’t support the company.
I will agree we need laws around data privacy and collection of course, but thats a different topic.
I don’t really see it as an entirely separate topic. It is still an abuse of rights. In this case, it is an abuse of ownership. If I make a purchase of a good, I should own that good. If the company later decides that they no longer want to support the services which support that purchase, they should be required to provide the opportunity that all purchased goods remain valid and operational. If we take a different good as a stand in, cars, a manufacturer may eventually decide to stop supporting a vehicle, but they do have to sell the component rights to aftermarket manufacturers (or at least make good faith attempts) when they drop support so people who own those vehicles have the chance to maintain and use them. I see this as no different than that. Their dropping of support means that products purchased are removed from use or function without the owner’s consent.
And I know you are going to say “well the EULA says you don’t own it and you agreed to it” which is precicely the problem we are arguing. Purchase should mean ownership and forcing people to agree to whatever you want is wrong. Legislation is required because no company will protect the rights of customers, that is the duty of legal systems.
You don’t have to accept your job. Stop acting like choice doesnt exist, its an obnoxious way of enabling shitty decisions. You aren’t forced to agree to use slack, and you aren’t forced to play a game. You want to have your cake an eat it too.
Although I’d be shocked if someone who argues the things you are is actively supporting shitty game companies so surely you can see when you choose to do something vs not.
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 19:53
collapse
Yes, you did agree to these terms. It’s usually in the first few paragraphs. Try looking them up sometimes and look for words like “limited” and “conditional”
ICastFist@programming.dev
on 23 May 14:13
collapse
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they’ll never actually die, unless the server source code gets taken down and nobody archives a copy. I mean, WoW Classic only happened because a private server running vanilla got too big, despite Blizzard bullshit of “You think you want it, but you don’t” and “We don’t have the code to roll back”.
Star Wars Galaxies, Phantasy Star Online, City of Heroes, Warhammer Age of Reckoning all still exist and can be played, despite being “dead”, thanks to private/pirate servers.
Marvel Heroes Omega is one I recently discovered has private servers now. I really miss that one. The whole campaign is playable, but the server will be wiped once 1.0 of the emu comes out, possibly early next year.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 24 May 16:33
nextcollapse
That only works if the server code gets leaked or someone reverse engineers it. Both of those options shouldn’t be relied on, especially for more complex or less popular games.
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they’ll never actually die
That happened to Ragnarok Online. Iirc the early server code got leaked by hackers (it seems it’s still being developed on GitHub lol), so all throughout the game’s 20+ years lifetime it has had a flourishing private server scene with hundreds of servers still online, so I don’t think it will die in our lifetimes.
isekaihero@ani.social
on 23 May 12:05
nextcollapse
This is true. I’ve been grieving the loss of Isekai Demon Waifu, which shut down only a few days ago on the 19th of this month. I had been playing it over 3 years, and had unlocked most of the girls, become the #1 on my server, and had grown attached to seeing my harem girls every night when I play the game before bed. I missed the server shutdown notification and I was messed up the next day. It hit me hard.
I hope there is another harem game with succubi and monster girls. IDW had a lot of charm. The music, art style, aesthetic. Amazing monster girls. I’m going to miss seeing Ephinas, Fiadum, Hastia, Scardia, Palotti, Ymir, and all the others.
It doesn’t seem fair that we can spend years of our life, hundreds or even thousands of dollars, make a game experience part of our lives, and then one day it just goes poof and it’s all gone. Part of you vanishes in that moment. It’s like a bandaid being ripped off a wound, or a light in your life going out. Because someone else decided it cost too much to keep a server running?
They should be required to transition the game into an offline mode!
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
on 23 May 12:21
nextcollapse
You paid this money knowing you do not have the ability to run the game. Why does the developer have the obligation to change the user agreement you signed off on when you created your account? You chose to play a game that you cannot run yourself.
That’s weasel speak. Hiding behind a user agreement is a pathetic excuse for bad behavior on the part of the developer. The developer decides what is in that agreement. It can be changed at any time, and 'but you agreed to this" is a poor excuse for laziness and disrespect for the community that supported them for so many years.
Transitioning the game into an offline mode could be done with some development time spent on a final update. Take out the multiplayer stuff, let the game run offline, and put the game up for sale as an idler for like $5 or $10. It might not make much money but it lets players continue to play a game that they love. It shows that you as a developer care about your product and the customers who have supported you for so long.
steeznson@lemmy.world
on 23 May 14:04
nextcollapse
Weasling out of things is what separates us from the animals… except the weasel of course.
That’s the point of agreements though. If you buy a game and don’t like the agreement you should be allowed to return it. If they change the agreement you should be allowed to return it. Agreements aren’t inherently a bad thing. There just hasn’t been enough backlash about bad agreements or the business models they create.
Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
on 23 May 12:35
nextcollapse
They should be required to transition the game into an offline mode!
Seems to me like this would be good business sense too. Wouldn’t people be more likely to buy their next online game if you felt there was a good chance you could keep playing it after a few years? Instead they’re going to get a reputation for making products with a short shelf life.
slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org
on 23 May 14:08
nextcollapse
I can’t tell if this is satire or not.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
on 23 May 14:39
nextcollapse
Given the username I’d guess not. Good username btw
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world
on 23 May 15:07
collapse
Depends on whether they have heard of Josh Strife Hayes.
I’m still upset about Atelier Resleriana: Forgotten Alchemy & The Polar Night Liberator
barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
on 23 May 15:15
nextcollapse
This is why it is so important to find exploits for current gen consoles. It is not about piracy, it is about preservation. You don’t own a game that requires the internet, or a fucking download code Nintendo.
thisisnotmyhat@programming.dev
on 23 May 16:12
collapse
A PS3 with Evilnat custom firmware is truly a thing of beauty. A great era for videogame creativity and experimentation, when F2P was just a twinkle in Tim Sweeney’s eye.
…Dead games, which means no one on Earth can currently play the game. It’s not possible…
…At-risk games, which means these games are currently working, but they’re designed in such a way that the second the publisher ends support, they will become dead games without some sort of intervention…
…Dev Preserved, which means the game would have died, but the publisher or developer implemented some sort of endof life plan, so now the game is safe…
…Fan Preserved, where the publisher did nothing or practically nothing to save the game, but fans managed to either hack it to remove dependencies or reverse engineer a server emulator so that the game was saved in spite of the publisher actions.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
on 24 May 10:26
nextcollapse
Out of curiosity what are the 16 dev preserved ones?
That’s why the first thing I do when I buy a new game is to turn off the internet and boot the game. If it doesn’t boot or work offline, I refund it. And I just don’t buy games that have Denuvo.
ssfckdt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 23 May 22:18
nextcollapse
There ought to be a law…
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
on 24 May 13:52
nextcollapse
Technically 100% do, games that require the Internet require the Internet, which means by design you’re relying on someone else hosting servers which means it may not be available, 50, 100, or even more years into the future. That’s not the case with single-player/offline-available games.
As the graph breaks down, some games are patched by companies to allow them to function offline or to enable self-hosted servers. Mostly its fan efforts to reverse engineer the server code, though.
The point of the stop killing games campaign is to legislate by law that going forward, developers/publishers would have to account for a way to allow the player to host a server or patch the game to run offline when they become unprofitable and are shut down.
I understand, but I’m not really sure why you’re pointing out the exact problem that this campaign is actively trying to solve.
ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
on 24 May 18:24
nextcollapse
An MMO i played from 1999-2007 shut down in I think 2017. I still remember the landscapes and landmarks and it is really strange knowing the shared experiences in those places are just flat gone. Inscribed items with messages to other players: deleted.
I have emulated the game world but only fragments were saved by collective efforts in the community before shutdown. Regardless there’s simply no people or things to interact with so it feels even more soullessly dead and empty.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
on 24 May 20:46
nextcollapse
Its a depressing perspective sure, but it mirrors real life pretty closely. Nothing lasts forever, buildings change, towns die out. Still a good idea to take some pictures or videos in either case.
I still love Lord of the Rings Online. It still has enough people to feel alive, to the point where they even upgraded their servers recently, and still keeps that old school feel. You can even earn LOTRO points through hunting monsters and quests, so if you put the work in you don’t even need to buy anything.
Do I miss the days before MTX? Yeah, but I feel like they are fairly less greedy about it than other games. Fairly. There’s still the VIP subscription while double-dipping into MTX that rubs me the wrong way a bit, but they still actively try to listen to the players. I’ll be sad when its gone…
Its mostly much older generations that play, though, but that really cuts down on a lot of the toxicity. I’ve had so many polite conversations in world chat with programmers and sysadmins offering advice. One of the most helpful players I met was a 72 year old vietnam veteran. He helped me get started and gave me a ton of gear just for having a nice talk with him.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
on 24 May 21:57
collapse
I love lotro. I played it for 10 years. From release, until mordor.
I was madly inlove with lotro. It was a beautiful game. the only MMO where you actually read lore and quest text and anything else, because of how immersive it was all… and the game was perfect (before mordor). Casual, relaxing, but challenging in all the right places.
and the community was just absolutely amazing. Kind, considerate, helpful, generous. Like you said, i think the average age of lotro players was over 40… Until there was there was some issue with WoW that caused a lot of WoW players to immigrate to lotro… Then chat got less friendly, and more obnoxious, and the community got less kind, and less helpful… cause all the kind helpful people got burned by the jackholes being jackholes… Still a pleasant community overall, but no where near what it was before that WoWpocalypse.
My love and faith in the game changed with Mordor, though… Mordor broke me, It was just so pointlessly difficulty spiked on even the landscape mobs were slaughtering raid-ready players, that most of my kin, myself included, ended up just quitting the game. A few people eventually got the gang back together again for southern mirkwood, but that mordor level of difficulty was still there. No one in the kin, except for the hunters and the champions, seemed able to even 1v1 the landscape mobs. that also reflected group content… no one wanted anything but healers and hunters. was the same with mordor, but even worse with southern mirkwood. Mobs were so dumbly overpowered that only the lotro character equivalent of tactical nukes were wanted in groups… I, sadly, was not a tactical nuke class.
It really breaks my heart. I loved that game. I made great real life friends in that game… I met my Ex in that game (though in retrospect that probably shouldnt be viewed as part of the happy memories lol), Spent so many evenings bullshitting in voice chat while we did instances and group content, or just ground out old content for deeds. Was such a magical fucking experience, that I’ll probably never experience again for the rest of my life. The pre-mordor game was absolute perfection. Especially with the revamps to some less ideal/polished game areas like Moria.
And killed, to me, because devs listened to a vocal minority that wanted moar harderer.
I absolutely love LOTRO, too. I understand what you mean. The endgame content is pretty advanced, but I had this conversation with someone on Reddit years ago.
It doesn’t have to be hard. There is so much content in LOTRO to last you years of playing new classes and enjoying the world. Throw out all of your max level up items, they’re going to ruin the game for you. Just go out adventuring. I’ve had a good time during anniversary helping people through old dungeons (I hate you, Saruman).
The endgame is hard, because half the community beats endgame and complains that there’s no content, and half the community just plays casually. They don’t really have the power to keep pushing out quantity in content, so they have to make ridiculously hard and rewarding content to make up for it. It’s really a lose-lose either way, and they chose to keep the community that has been faithful for years over trying to pull in new players.
It sucks, I agree, but I think I would have made the same choice. I still love playing and wandering around; leveling new classes, and you can now get new titles for playing new difficulty modes they made. You can change the world difficulty starting at level 10, I believe.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
on 25 May 22:02
collapse
Respectfully, I have to disagree with some of what you said… I don’t mind end game being a challenge, or even difficult.
Because the end game has always been in instances and raids. I don’t mind raids being challenging. I dont mind 3/6mans being challenging. Cause they are content you can typically choose to do or not, you need a group to do them, and they have the tier system that lets you select how difficult you actually want it.
Thats a good, healthy system to introducing challenge to the system.
And that meshed very well with the otherwise relaxed/chill nature of lotro. Because before mordor, Turbine/SSG/Whatever they are now, did a fairly admirable job at balancing and spacing out the challenging aspects amongst the fun and relaxing stuff to keep playability and fun high, while keeping a sense of satisfaction by overcoming the challenging bits.
Landscape wasnt a cake walk, unless you were ridiculously overeveled, but it wasn’t a torture session either. Any class could get through their landscape quests with an acceptable amount of challenge.
But then Mordor came in, and you couldn’t solo landscape unless you were one of the chosen classes, with Hunter being the king of them, because their DPS was insane, and they were range, so they could power down anything without taking damage. A poorly equipped hunter was solo survivable, when a very well equipped not-hunter could barely survive, if survive at all.
Mordor landscape wasn’t fun, it wasn’t a challenge. it was just naked brutality for brutality sake. They listened to a vocal minority that hadn’t played the game for long, comparatively, and wanted to turn lotro into a souls-like difficulty game, at the expense of all the people who had made lotro their evening stable for a decade+. and they lost players because of it. It really changed lotro from a fun way to spend an evening, to a way to ruin your evening because you just want to do these handful of landscape quests without having to deal with generic orc 37 that’s as strong as a 3/6 man miniboss (slight hyperbole).
I dont know if they’ve re-balanced the areas since then, or introduced mechanics to take the edge off, or what. I hope they did. I hope they’ve brought the fun and play-ability back so new players don’t hit the same wall that destroyed a generation of players, but no matter what changes they may or may not have made… ultimately, I just cant see myself ever mustering desire to play lotro again… and that saddens me as much as the state of the game that made me quit to begin with.
I don’t want to even think of how many thousands of hours i poured into lotro over a decade of almost nightly play. Thats too terrifying a number to ever think about, lol.
Ohhhh, no no. The raids and dungeons are challenging and ridiculously hard. I get what you’re saying now. It hasn’t been like that since I started up again, which was right when Gundabad released. It’s very easy to solo, and now there’s an NPC that lets you change world difficulty if you want to opt for it, making it so that the hardcore players and the casual players both get what they want.
I hear you. I haven’t touched it in a while because I will literally lose months of my life to it. Its harder for me because its one of my gf’s favorite games and when she plays I can’t help but play.
Are people still playing MS-DOS games or listening to the 50s music. I bet there are a numbered few. But everything will die eventually
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
on 24 May 22:33
nextcollapse
MS-DOS games are pretty much what GOG built their business on, they still sell quite well. 50’s music is still listened by many (over 57 million views on that one song alone), and often used in movies, though that’s a bit of an odd comparison, almost as if old things aren’t worth keeping around. I mean, people still listen to classical music that’s hundreds of years old at this point, read ancient stories, and look at art from artists long dead. I consider games to be an art form like any other, and worth preserving.
threaded - newest
Link to the games list: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1at1k7qIo5dgPp6K1aCrYIyAgNOjY-IhF
Link to the European Citizens’ Initiative: eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home stopkillinggames.com
Two more months to go and more than 50% left to reach 1 million signatures. It’s sad to see that with how many people game, this petition has so little reach. I guess we’ll have to wait till Fortnite is shut down, then suddenly many more will care that their childhood game is gone forever.
Unfortunately, I think it was just a lack of awareness that the petition in existed in certain countries where Ross just didn’t have enough reach, possibly due to language barriers. A big push from native speakers of those countries with large audiences, like streamers, could’ve pushed it over the edge.
I don’t know if I fully agree with the petition, but I do think that there are some real problems with the status quo.
I also think that either a legislature or courts need to provide legal criteria for the good or service division with games. I think that there probably need to be “good” games, "serviceʾ games, and possibly even games that have a component of both.
But I’m not in the EU or UK.
I also am kind of puzzled by this:
www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
It doesn’t sound like it was as of 2020 in the US, at least on the good/service distinction:
carltonfields.com/…/youve-been-served-legal-effec…
A few quick searches haven’t picked up US case law, if it’s out there.
The creator of the Stop Killing Games campaign did a segment about the viability of fighting it in the US in a segment here: youtu.be/DAD5iMe0Xj4?t=1097
tl:dr, the motivated lawyer he talked with on it eventually found a court case that set a precedent that would be extremely difficult to fight in such a pro-corporate court system without extreme amounts of legal funds. This is why the Stop Killing Games campaign is focusing on implementing laws in the EU and other non-US countries.
Yeah, trusting that anything Internet connected keeps working is a pipedream these days unfortunately.
Hardware and software.
I don’t even trust non-unlockable bootloaders. There’s so much planned obsolescence everywhere
Im honestly so sick of online games that should be offline. I just got a few switch games to pass time on my breaks, and half of them require internet access. One of them is literally a bubble shooter.
that’s why i dont buy digital games on nintendo. one day the service ends and it’s gone forever.
I’m not buying Nintendo at all, so many shitty policies from that camp
i buy physical because i genuinely think nintendo is one of the last good game devs remaining. but switch 2 is just download cards. i will not be purchasing it.
i think that’s a myth, switch 2 will have real games.
“one of the last good game devs” brother there has been so much drama with nintendo being a god awful company the past year ALONE.
Their games are genuinely fun though, and they work offline
you can say that about a lot of games and their devs. tons of great indie games out there.
Can’t argue with that!
Not in 10+ years when you can't download the rest of the game from the servers because they don't put the whole game on the cartridge anymore. Not to mention patches and DLC aren't on the cartridge either.
They do put the full game on the cartridges, for example I can play TOTK on a new switch with just the cartridge without ever going online.
www.gamespot.com/gallery/…/2900-6508/
Did you read this article? It literally says this:
The only games that will be fully available on the cartridge are the ones explicitly singled out. There are 10. How is that significant?
The article literally says
We were talking about Nintendo as a game dev.
But just judging by quality of games they are still the best
have you seen any of their pokemon releases the past years? its actually embarassing how bad the games are in terms of quality and polish, for a game that is the biggest IP in the world.
Nintendo has not developed those. Blame gamefreak.
Check out the new pokemon snap which isn’t that dev. It is legit a 9/10 game. I play it a ton.
they do own the pokemon IP though, so even though they dont develop the game, i’d argue its still their fault if the game turns out ass. its time they put some stress on gamefreak to do better.
Oh yeah fuck nintendo for real. But as long as they keep making quality games I’ll keep coming back, unfortunately
it do be like that. cant stop a gamer from enjoying good game.
It’s already happening on other platforms. Doom dark ages only has something like 28 megabytes on the disc.
I’m not even aware of any ps3/xbox360 games that are fully contained on discord. Maybe Orange Box?
AFAIK, most PS3 (and even PS4) / Xbox 360 games will play and function with just the disc, an internet connection will just let them download updates to the game.
It was PS5 and Xbox One where the discs became glorified physical download codes, and did not actually contain the entire game.
That’s why I only buy games on GOG. After purchase I archive the installer, and it’s mine forever. On console you are really fucked.
Piracy is essentially a form of archivism. The digital age literally ended scarcity in digital media and these people were like “well that won’t do”.
For sone of these games piracy would solve nothing. How wouldI run an 8vs8 PvP mission in DCUO that players are required to do if there aren’t 16 players on the server? If Im hosting it offline that content is still dead.
Private WoW servers thrived. Much of the endgame content required 40 players to collaborate for hours at a time, and they have kept their own dream running for well over a decade.
You should have the option to find and play with others long after corporate servers are abandoned. Whether or not there are other players immediately available is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Edit - and you’re all over this thread licking boots and saying “you signed the agreement!”
Thanks. We know how license agreements work. They are included in the thing we want to change, when we talk about changing the industry. We want to stop allowing bullshit license agreements. The exact same way many of us want Right to Repair for people who bought tractors with proprietary software.
It also allows the game to revive itself. Those 40 players playing pirated WoW could introduce more people to the game. And at the very least, it allows it be run in the future if ever historians should need access.
I dont think you do know how licenses work when your complaint amounts to ” I want this the way I want it not the way I agreed to it”.
You either accept the game the way it us offered or you dont play the game. You are not entitled to get things the way you want them.
Lol swing and a miss again, my friend.
Nice use of the word “entitled” - really sums up your stance on the consumer/business relationship.
The consumer is “entitled” for protesting predatory or unethical business practices.
The consumer is “entitled” for opposing the ongoing enshittification of entire industries.
The consumer is “entitled” for wanting businesses to not be able to legally hide behind unsustainable licensing practices that provide no value to society and further entrench the ever-growing rent/subscription model that is squeezing people dry for no reason.
The entire point - the entire fucking point - is that these licenses are not okay. So, no, I don’t pay for these licenses, but I don’t think anyone should be able to pay for these licenses, because I don’t think anyone should be able to “sell” these licenses.
These licenses - like many unethical business practices - put the corporation that offers them at a financial advantage over the corporations that don’t.
Regulations - in every industry - should level the playing field. They can allow ethical business practices to be viable and competitive, instead of being liabilities and risks. The copyright/IP system is an example of those regulations instead being weaponized against the consumer, and needs a massive overhaul.
And guess what? In a functioning society, consumers are entitled to get what they want. They are entitled to oppose unethical business practices, and use their collective power to try to stop it. Why the fuck would we want it the other way around? Why are corporations entitled to get whatever they want?
We have every goddamn right to protest those business practices whether or not we do business with those companies - just as we have every right to protest unethical or discriminatory hiring practices by companies that we don’t work for. Even if plenty of people applied for those jobs and signed those contracts, we have every right to protest anyway.
But enjoy the taste of corporate boots!
It is entitlement. When I signed up to play Fortnite BR I agreed to a limited license to play the game as they intended to run it. If Epic kills Fortnite do I have the right to force them to make a version of BR be playable offline? No, because that isn’t what we agreed to.
Nothing about this is predatory. You simply aren’t getting what you want and are throwing a tantrum over it
Well, that’s certainly an… Interesting take on someone saying things should be better…
Everything about the “rent/subscription” model is predatory, but we weren’t even talking about the truly fucked up stuff, like deeply unethical microtransaction marketing to children ala Fortnite.
Amazing that you think its okay for children to sign contracts where they agree that any money they give to Epic is gone forever, and that any worthless digital assets they are manipulated into purchasing can be voided and deleted at any time without any recompense!
(Lol inb4 “it’s the parents job to monitor their kids at all times in case a predatory corporation sneaks capitalism and FOMO advertising into their apparently harmless child-friendly free-to-play game or app”)
But sure, keep on defending predatory corporations! Enjoy the taste of boots!
I’ll be over here advocating for stronger consumer business protections! Sorry, I mean, I’ll be throwing an entitled tantrum lol.
“ Amazing that you think its okay for children to sign contracts where they agree that any money they give to Epic is gone forever, and that any worthless digital assets they are manipulated into purchasing can be voided and deleted at any time without any recompense!”
At no point have I said anything that would lead to this conclusion.
For the record Fortnite is rated “T” for teens because of the microtransactions.
Your “inB4” is moronic. It IS parent’s job to do this. If they don’t have the energy then dont get them a system.
You as an adult are responsible for the agreements you make. It is childish to pretend otherwise.
You absolutely said everything that leads to this conclusion.
People sign agreements with Fortnite that give Epic the right to sell them microtransactions that don’t belong to the purchaser. They also give Epic the right to take down Fortnite and therefore remove access to any of the content that they paid for. This is the license that every player agrees to when they play the game.
You claim that protesting the usage of that license is “throwing a tantrum.”
Lol I forgot that teens aren’t children, apparently. That makes the microtransaction okay, because the players are (supposed to be) teenagers. As if teenagers aren’t vulnerable to manipulation, or as if the ESRB actually does a goddamn thing anyway.
Just couldn’t help yourself, could you? You just have to defend the corporation’s right to advertise to children, and blame everything on the parents. We already had this fight with cigarrettes, you know. People would say that it’s the parents’ fault if kids were attracted to cigarettes.
How did that turn out? That’s right. Nearly every developed country in the world agreed that advertising that shit to children was not okay. Full goddamn stop.
“Oh but it’s on the parents to make sure capitalism doesn’t poison their childrens’ bodies and minds through cartoon villain levels of social manipulation”, you say.
Corporations advertising harmful shit to children should not be tolerated under any circumstances, and functioning societies are entitled to make that a goddamn law, which they have done before, and can do again.
No I claim that agreeing to those conditions and then complaining when they do not alter those terms in ways you want them to is childish entitlement. Do you see the difference? If you have a problem with the license you do not agree to it and you do not play the game.
The rest of your post is just more of the same whining about why you can’t have things the way you want them when they are not being offered on your terms to begin with.
Finally, you are complaining about video games. You should keep that in mind so you have better perspective on this.
So… exactly what I said, then? You think Epic’s licenses are okay, and it’s entitlement to complain about them. I genuinely don’t see the difference you’re trying to describe.
Lol but enjoy defending unethical business practices, I guess. Keep imagining that I’ve bought these licenses at all, and keep imagining that it’s entitlement to want things to change for people’s best interests.
I hope the corporations thank you for defending their right to walk all over consumers. Manipulating children into gambling and renting worthless digital products is “just video games” after all. I’ll try to keep that perspective in mind.
And I hope you grow up and learn how engage maturely one day.
Hard to hear when you are so angry huh.
Ohh, yes, my comments are just dripping with seething rage. I couldn’t hear you over my blood boiling in my ears, sorry.
Want to explain what I missed?
You sound mad now, too. I don’t need to explain anything, go re-read the conversation. I can’t make you see someone else’s perspective, but I can mock you for being so obtuse.
Ahh, the pinnacle of internet discourse - pretending that one wins an argument by minor differences in tone, rather than content. Only… suggesting over and over that someone is throwing an entitled tantrum certainly sets a tone, don’t it?
Strange, that I am the only emotional one here. Perhaps if you take a deep breath, and read my comments slower? Maybe ask a chatbot to read them in the voice of David Attenborough or Morgan Freeman?
Maybe you’re right, and I’ve just gone deaf from all this blind rage. At this rate I’ll never achieve my dreams of being acutie…
Youll always be acutie on my mind.
“You want to purchase something and use it the way you want to? How entitled can you get?”
Right, and the way licenses work should be illegal. If I purchase something, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, for as long as I choose to. That’s what purchase means.
If I rent/subscribe to something, that only lasts for the duration of my contract.
Sure, I’m not entitled to get things the way I want, but am entitled to get things the way they were advertised. If I buy a game, I should be able to play it even if the publisher shops selling it. They have options on how to handle that, either by releasing the server code so I can self-host it, removing the server bits so I can play offline, or continuing to keep servers online for existing owners.
Just to reinforce your point, if you rent/subscribe to something, the duration should be known at the time. The fact that they can pull the plug at any time without a prior warning is what makes it a scam.
You know you bring up a really great point. We’ve finally hit post-scarcity in an industry (information) and look at what it has done to us. Are we really ready for this in other areas yet. Should we use this as a chance to figure out how to integrate such a creation into society such that the next time this happens it doesn’t kill us all.
Out of the games I’ve been fortunate to work on, 1/7 require internet, and the 1 was my first industry job as QA. Everything else has been mobile, online required. 5/7 are no longer playable / removed from the internet.
It makes me sad because my kids will never play a bunch of things I made. I can’t revisit them nostalgically. If I had made something in the 90s, it would be preserved still.
I played the cards dealt to me to follow a dream and make a living, but I wish the industry wasn’t like this. The money has always been a role, but nowadays, it’s distorted so badly.
That’s the difference shareholders make.
Gotta save up for some hard drives to download and keep my GOG games, plus some
piratedtotally legally acquired titlesI call em full version demos. Specifically because I buy when it’s good. The 2 hour steam thing sometimes, just isn’t enough to really know. It usually is tho.
I boycott single player games that require online login/validation. Rockstar and Ubisoft are on my blacklist
I returned Red Dead Redemption 2 on steam after seeing I needed an entire Shitstar account.
5 years ago I would have just forgotten about it and moved on but in today’s climate, fuck em. They don’t even deserve my $1.40.
It’s astonishing to me how even right here on Lemmy so many people still misunderstand what this is about with comments saying that piracy fixes it or that downloading the game installer solves the issue. The games where those things are options aren’t what this effort is about, this is about games like Darkspore, Defiance, Tabula Rasa, and our prototypical example The Crew, where there is no one who can play them no matter where, how, or when, they acquired the game, it is impossible to play for anyone, the whole piece of art has been destroyed.
Honestly if we can’t even communicate what the movement is about to those who aught to be our base it really does not bode well for gaining any kind of wider traction.
I think the issue is that, as with reddit, a lot of people are only reading the headline and commenting.
Also many young people are so used to games requiring online connection and being shut down, that they can’t imagine a better way.
.
That does seem to be an influence, though oddly there are some modern wildly popular games, Minecraft being a prime example, that still allow you to self host your own server, so it shouldn’t really be as foreign of a concept as it appears to be to some younger folk.
I’m not young and I disagree with this petition. I don’t think developers are doing anything wrong or immoral, and they should be free to make the design decisions they think are best. If the consumers end up not liking their decisions, then they won’t buy the companies product. I think creating a law or regulation around this is too far.
Sure, but when the link is to a video, I don’t blame them.
Here’s a link to the Stop Killing Games campaign, of which the video is about.
The thing is when you created your account you agreed to the fact that it isn’t your game. What you agreed to was a game that they own and control and you can participate in. You might not like the results when they close the game but you chose to start playing that game to begin with.
People aren’t used to this as a concept, especially when there are so many terms and conditions screens (that have been shown in multiple jurisdictions courts to not be legally binding) they click through on a daily basis as well as many other “as a service” models that are reliable enough that people don’t realise what the pitfalls are (people playing for Netflix are fairly certain it won’t close next week, for instance), even the more technically minded expect sunset clauses - which would be a pretty good legal baseline to improve the situation.
Or people are used to this concept and accept it as normal instead of unethical behavior that should be illegal.
That’s basically like saying g all mmo’s should illegal. Or that it is illegal to go out of business and close up shop without giving away all your code.
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m saying. If you offer software that requires outside servers to run, you should be legally obligated to release the code used to run the servers if you discontinue supporting that software. That doesn’t make mmo’s any different, just a minor change to how they handle end of life.
If you don’t like how a company handles their end of life then don’t buy from them. Trying to make it illegal is unnecessary as companies are already facing negative consequences for making poor EOL choices. I don’t like forcing developers to create in a specific way, I’d rather they have freedom to choose.
What does releasing the code have to do with development decisions? I am a developer and this sentiment really confused me, so please elucidate.
They should be able to decide whether to open source or not. If people don’t like their decision they shouldnt buy their game.
At what point in the purchase cycle is it known that they won’t? Because the right reserved in a EULA is not a guarantee of occurrence, so how does one make a decision when or when not to purchase?
Also, when single player games are being forced to be always online and are being affected, there is a real problem. If there is no valid tangible benefit to the player for a game to be online, and require the online component to play the game, it should be illegal.
Well, I knew the crew would be decommissioned and dissapear from day one. I’m not sure why people expected it to live forever. I understand people want to change things to be different, but the norm before was that online games are sunset. Its happened over and over.
And you would base your decision on prior actions of the company. Dont buy ubisoft until they prove they have fixed this problem. You already shouldnt be playing online games hosted by shitty companies, exactly for this reason. Most companies actually don’t fuck their fan base over, and so its not an issue.
You’re damn right I don’t like it, I especially don’t like how it destroys art history, which is why I’m part of this campaign to make that practice illegal.
Its sort of like complaining your favorite pub got shut down though, isn’t it?
If that pub has been around long enough that it can reasonably be argued that it is part of regional heritage, then yes.
I don’t know any video game thats been around long enough to be called a historical landmark or whatever terminology.
The general minimum for a National Landmark is 50 years. This would make any game released prior to 1975 eligible. That is a good chunk of games. That said, protecting works of art are usually much shorter terms. Works of art can be justified to be protected almost immediately depending on the artist and work.
Okay thats fair, I actually didnt know there were video games that old. I wouldnt day all of them should be archived as a rule but if they are available why not.
I don’t know any current publishers that would qualify for the day one protection you mentioned. Can you give an example of something being declared historical nearly immediately though?
I know I could find examples, but I am exhausted after coding all day on one thorny problem, so I am just going to make educated guesses from what I know of US history. I would bet that the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore received National Landmark status before the general 50 year mark. I would hazard that the presidential monuments on DC did as well.
That said, this was an exercise in examples of things that need to be protected as part of history. Works of art have a much lower bar than national landmarks for this. Games that are transformative or innovative in a way that we still feel today, or games that are massive parts of the cultural zeitgeist for a period definitely deserve preservation. Rogue, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy VII, Super Mario Brothers, Zork, etc. The reason this is such a big deal is that it might be hard to measure in a moment what is or is not going to have that long reaching impact. Imagine you are an art historian in 30 years and you are doing a paper on the growth and history of game mechanics. How are you going to research that. If you were doing one on painting and how techniques grow over time, you go look at the paintings, study them. The game paper will have no source material to study to draw new conclusions or find previously unnoticed connections if 70+% of the source media disappears in the next 10 years.
One persons historical piece is another’s bit of oppression, using mount Rushmore is a great example of this. I’m pointing out that I find it impossible to agree on what’s historical as a country when it comes to things like that. I literally never touched dark souls the entire time its been popular, its not historical for me.
Then theres the fact that you can’t really delete anything from the internet. Sure online games can be “disconnected” but even the crew has a private server going live this year. WoW did the same thing and eventually the company started supporting their old games again. Funny thing about that, they didnt have the old code anymore and had to rewrite it.
I would like the same result as you would, I just don’t want laws to force it that way. I think its already changing and its unnecessary to regulate. This might not be the case in this instance but regulations tend to be easier to handle by larger companies as well, and I wouldnt want to unduly stress small development teams. Art should largely be unrestricted.
Yeah, but a contract that you cannot negotiate before signing isn’t really a contract is it? It is a gate keeper. A gun to the head. An “agree to this or else”. In the modern world, one can do essentially nothing without signing a EULA. Want to get a job without signing one? Good luck. Want to play a game? Not many of them. Want to shop online, look at art, communicate with friends and family. Many of the most integral parts of maintaining our mental health are being put behind abusive “contracts” that strip us of any rights we think we have. Community, leisure, socialization, entertainment, all of the primary avenues in the modern world have predominantly become privatized and every one of those comes at a pretty steep nonmonetary cost.
You can choose to accept their terms or not play the game.
You are not entitled to have everything on your terms.
You can also choose to call them out on having anti-consumer practices. You are entitled to criticize shitty business practices.
I wouldn’t call this a shitty business practice. You agreed to a game they own and control. You went into the game knowing this. If they are losing money on the game why should they lose more just to “preserve” the game after shutting down?
They don’t have to. They can release the code and let people run their own servers once they’re no longer interested in doing so. This costs them nothing.
Your last sentence is incredibly incorrect. Does exaggeration usually win you arguments where you are from?
Instead of just saying it’s incorrect, say why. I can just as easily say that you’re incorrect.
It doesnt cost them nothing. There.
That is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal requires evidentiary support of your stance. For instance, as support for saying it costs them nothing, one might offer the following:
There, 3 salient points which support the position that releasing the codebase for the game when sunsetting it costs the company nothing. I could even make points about how it is actually profitable for the company, but I want to give you your turn to rebutt me now that you have a good example of how to provide a good argument.
Okay, if the crew was released at EOL, it would have cost ubisoft money on sales of the crew 2. I would not expect them to choose to lose money in that situation. It was only later with multiple issues with multiple games that ubisofts market value tanked and they had to assess a new position/direction for the company.
Also, we are talking about video games, not a basic right like food, water, and air.
And by what mechanism would it have affected sales of the sequel? Historically, and demonstrably, greater access to a game increases the sales of sequels. Why do you think developers put games in a series on sale when a new game in a series is coming out? I would definitely argue that having released the server hosting code for The Crew to allow people to host private servers would have potentially added to The Crew 2 sales. Also, if they release the server code, but not the game code, they could continue the sales of the game on storefronts at a reduced price having it marked that it will no longer receive updates and still made even more money from those sales. I would definitely prefer if they just release the whole game, but either would have worked.
Its just as likely to do either, its all speculation. I still don’t want to force a developer to do anything really. Prohibiting things is a bit different though.
In this case, it is a prohibition on sunsetting a game without providing the means for purchasers to continue playing without your support. They are taking an action in their sunsetting decision, this is a prohibition on one choice made in that process.
Except… For a contract to be legal it must be agreed upon by both parties free of manipulation or coercion. Now, usually this is specified to be manipulation or coercion on the part of one of the parties, but what I argue is that in the modern era that is insufficient to encompass the growing complexity around the way society works and how it will continue moving forward.
Pulling the numbers out of my well educated ass, 40 years ago the average person would encounter EULA-like contracts a handful of times per year. Maybe for a mail order service, or a piece of software. Today we encounter them daily. The amount of information in them is intentionally made dense and overwhelming so the average person becomes numb very quickly and opts to click through on most of them without reading them. This enables all sorts of personal liberty and information abuses on the part of corporations.
40 years ago you did not have one to find a job, a lover, buy a car (still had a loan contract, but if you paid up front you had 0 contracts other than the bill of sale). You would not encounter them to work most jobs. You could go years without having to risk signing your rights over to a company and usually when you did you had negotiation power. This is not true today. You work for a company, they use Zoom, Slack, Google Workplace, a Virtual Timecard service, all of which have individual EULA that you as a private citizen, not an employer, must agree to and be bound by. Microsoft can put in their EULA that they are allowed to take a screenshot of your computer every 15 seconds and transmit it to their servers. This could be intercepted, or the servers could be hacked and have the entire database compromised and you have 0 say other than public outcry or to airgap your system, which then complains constantly that it cannot connect to the internet and becomes virtually unusable for about 80% of why you want to own it.
Being required by an employer to use software which requires that you as an individual sign a EULA is coercion. Having 0 recourse for alternatives in a marketplace which do not require signing a EULA is coercion. Having the terms which strip your rights irrevocably and transferrably buried and written in confusing ways is manipulation.
I should never have to worry that my copyright is being stripped from a piece of art I create just because I share it to a friend on some website.
You are acting like an EULA is going to ruin your life. Restaurants have EULAs too, like requiring shirt and shoes. Its not some crazy concept that if you want to enter someone else’s establishment (online game) they might have expectations on how you behave.
“No shirt, no shoes, no service” is a health code, not a EULA.
Also, you are conflating social contracts with actual legally binding ones. If you had to sign a contract to eat at a resteraunt which gave them the right to photograph you and record all of your conversations while you ate then use all of it for marketing without compensating you or to sell the contents of your conversations and likeness to unknown 3rd parties without informing you of who they were sold to and what the intended use was, would you still eat there.
Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand and what abuses of rights are done in digital spaces.
There are many restaurants, especially the largest fast food chains, who do have you sign an agreement to allow them to do everything you said. And no I don’t eat at those places because I don’t like the practice personally. I don’t buy games if I don’t like the game company or their actions.
But this isn’t about data collection and privacy, its about trying to prevent a game from shutting down because it feels upsetting. I’m sorry but if you are upset about it don’t support the company.
I will agree we need laws around data privacy and collection of course, but thats a different topic.
I don’t really see it as an entirely separate topic. It is still an abuse of rights. In this case, it is an abuse of ownership. If I make a purchase of a good, I should own that good. If the company later decides that they no longer want to support the services which support that purchase, they should be required to provide the opportunity that all purchased goods remain valid and operational. If we take a different good as a stand in, cars, a manufacturer may eventually decide to stop supporting a vehicle, but they do have to sell the component rights to aftermarket manufacturers (or at least make good faith attempts) when they drop support so people who own those vehicles have the chance to maintain and use them. I see this as no different than that. Their dropping of support means that products purchased are removed from use or function without the owner’s consent.
And I know you are going to say “well the EULA says you don’t own it and you agreed to it” which is precicely the problem we are arguing. Purchase should mean ownership and forcing people to agree to whatever you want is wrong. Legislation is required because no company will protect the rights of customers, that is the duty of legal systems.
Noones forced to agree to anything, thats why its legal. Dont support shitty companies its that simple.
But people are forced by circumstances to agree. I have to use Slack for my job. I cannot keep my job if I do not agree, thus, I am forced to agree.
This is what I mean by the current definitions are no longer sufficient to cover the modern world.
You don’t have to accept your job. Stop acting like choice doesnt exist, its an obnoxious way of enabling shitty decisions. You aren’t forced to agree to use slack, and you aren’t forced to play a game. You want to have your cake an eat it too.
Although I’d be shocked if someone who argues the things you are is actively supporting shitty game companies so surely you can see when you choose to do something vs not.
.
Yes, you did agree to these terms. It’s usually in the first few paragraphs. Try looking them up sometimes and look for words like “limited” and “conditional”
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they’ll never actually die, unless the server source code gets taken down and nobody archives a copy. I mean, WoW Classic only happened because a private server running vanilla got too big, despite Blizzard bullshit of “You think you want it, but you don’t” and “We don’t have the code to roll back”.
Star Wars Galaxies, Phantasy Star Online, City of Heroes, Warhammer Age of Reckoning all still exist and can be played, despite being “dead”, thanks to private/pirate servers.
Marvel Heroes Omega is one I recently discovered has private servers now. I really miss that one. The whole campaign is playable, but the server will be wiped once 1.0 of the emu comes out, possibly early next year.
That only works if the server code gets leaked or someone reverse engineers it. Both of those options shouldn’t be relied on, especially for more complex or less popular games.
That happened to Ragnarok Online. Iirc the early server code got leaked by hackers (it seems it’s still being developed on GitHub lol), so all throughout the game’s 20+ years lifetime it has had a flourishing private server scene with hundreds of servers still online, so I don’t think it will die in our lifetimes.
Good.
This is true. I’ve been grieving the loss of Isekai Demon Waifu, which shut down only a few days ago on the 19th of this month. I had been playing it over 3 years, and had unlocked most of the girls, become the #1 on my server, and had grown attached to seeing my harem girls every night when I play the game before bed. I missed the server shutdown notification and I was messed up the next day. It hit me hard.
I hope there is another harem game with succubi and monster girls. IDW had a lot of charm. The music, art style, aesthetic. Amazing monster girls. I’m going to miss seeing Ephinas, Fiadum, Hastia, Scardia, Palotti, Ymir, and all the others.
It doesn’t seem fair that we can spend years of our life, hundreds or even thousands of dollars, make a game experience part of our lives, and then one day it just goes poof and it’s all gone. Part of you vanishes in that moment. It’s like a bandaid being ripped off a wound, or a light in your life going out. Because someone else decided it cost too much to keep a server running?
They should be required to transition the game into an offline mode!
You paid this money knowing you do not have the ability to run the game. Why does the developer have the obligation to change the user agreement you signed off on when you created your account? You chose to play a game that you cannot run yourself.
That’s weasel speak. Hiding behind a user agreement is a pathetic excuse for bad behavior on the part of the developer. The developer decides what is in that agreement. It can be changed at any time, and 'but you agreed to this" is a poor excuse for laziness and disrespect for the community that supported them for so many years.
Transitioning the game into an offline mode could be done with some development time spent on a final update. Take out the multiplayer stuff, let the game run offline, and put the game up for sale as an idler for like $5 or $10. It might not make much money but it lets players continue to play a game that they love. It shows that you as a developer care about your product and the customers who have supported you for so long.
Weasling out of things is what separates us from the animals… except the weasel of course.
That’s the point of agreements though. If you buy a game and don’t like the agreement you should be allowed to return it. If they change the agreement you should be allowed to return it. Agreements aren’t inherently a bad thing. There just hasn’t been enough backlash about bad agreements or the business models they create.
Seems to me like this would be good business sense too. Wouldn’t people be more likely to buy their next online game if you felt there was a good chance you could keep playing it after a few years? Instead they’re going to get a reputation for making products with a short shelf life.
I can’t tell if this is satire or not.
Given the username I’d guess not. Good username btw
Depends on whether they have heard of Josh Strife Hayes.
Can’t you use that money to see a therapist now?
.
I’m still upset about Atelier Resleriana: Forgotten Alchemy & The Polar Night Liberator
This is why it is so important to find exploits for current gen consoles. It is not about piracy, it is about preservation. You don’t own a game that requires the internet, or a fucking download code Nintendo.
<img alt="" src="https://i.imgflip.com/9uzcnr.jpg">
Nice. Did you make this?
Slapped it together real fast, yup.
Nice.
First original content on lemmy
A PS3 with Evilnat custom firmware is truly a thing of beauty. A great era for videogame creativity and experimentation, when F2P was just a twinkle in Tim Sweeney’s eye.
If your game requires a server for single player content, I ain’t buying it.
I’m not paying full price and getting a rental.
Only exception to this is if I can run the server myself. Even multiplayer games I feel somewhat cautious about now.
Me building mega castles on my one man modded Rust server.
V rising kind of does this but a single player game is just called a server it’s on your local machine though.
And I kind of hate that
It shouldn’t require a server that I can’t control for multiplayer either.
<img alt="" src="https://jlai.lu/pictrs/image/d350b95c-d7f5-430e-ada6-1c7298cfda94.jpeg">
Out of curiosity what are the 16 dev preserved ones?
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/…/htmlview
Why doesn’t that graph show at risk games?
<img alt="" src="https://jlai.lu/pictrs/image/b8409aa6-6113-43b5-8955-5f5fe6c9b3b4.png">
That’s why the first thing I do when I buy a new game is to turn off the internet and boot the game. If it doesn’t boot or work offline, I refund it. And I just don’t buy games that have Denuvo.
There ought to be a law…
I still miss GhostX.
Technically 100% do, games that require the Internet require the Internet, which means by design you’re relying on someone else hosting servers which means it may not be available, 50, 100, or even more years into the future. That’s not the case with single-player/offline-available games.
As the graph breaks down, some games are patched by companies to allow them to function offline or to enable self-hosted servers. Mostly its fan efforts to reverse engineer the server code, though.
The point of the stop killing games campaign is to legislate by law that going forward, developers/publishers would have to account for a way to allow the player to host a server or patch the game to run offline when they become unprofitable and are shut down.
My point was more that games that require the Internet itself, and not just LAN-capable servers, are games that are inevitably going to disappear.
It may seem like I’m splitting hairs but what I said is technically true.
I understand, but I’m not really sure why you’re pointing out the exact problem that this campaign is actively trying to solve.
An MMO i played from 1999-2007 shut down in I think 2017. I still remember the landscapes and landmarks and it is really strange knowing the shared experiences in those places are just flat gone. Inscribed items with messages to other players: deleted.
I have emulated the game world but only fragments were saved by collective efforts in the community before shutdown. Regardless there’s simply no people or things to interact with so it feels even more soullessly dead and empty.
Its a depressing perspective sure, but it mirrors real life pretty closely. Nothing lasts forever, buildings change, towns die out. Still a good idea to take some pictures or videos in either case.
I still love Lord of the Rings Online. It still has enough people to feel alive, to the point where they even upgraded their servers recently, and still keeps that old school feel. You can even earn LOTRO points through hunting monsters and quests, so if you put the work in you don’t even need to buy anything.
Do I miss the days before MTX? Yeah, but I feel like they are fairly less greedy about it than other games. Fairly. There’s still the VIP subscription while double-dipping into MTX that rubs me the wrong way a bit, but they still actively try to listen to the players. I’ll be sad when its gone…
Its mostly much older generations that play, though, but that really cuts down on a lot of the toxicity. I’ve had so many polite conversations in world chat with programmers and sysadmins offering advice. One of the most helpful players I met was a 72 year old vietnam veteran. He helped me get started and gave me a ton of gear just for having a nice talk with him.
I love lotro. I played it for 10 years. From release, until mordor.
I was madly inlove with lotro. It was a beautiful game. the only MMO where you actually read lore and quest text and anything else, because of how immersive it was all… and the game was perfect (before mordor). Casual, relaxing, but challenging in all the right places.
and the community was just absolutely amazing. Kind, considerate, helpful, generous. Like you said, i think the average age of lotro players was over 40… Until there was there was some issue with WoW that caused a lot of WoW players to immigrate to lotro… Then chat got less friendly, and more obnoxious, and the community got less kind, and less helpful… cause all the kind helpful people got burned by the jackholes being jackholes… Still a pleasant community overall, but no where near what it was before that WoWpocalypse.
My love and faith in the game changed with Mordor, though… Mordor broke me, It was just so pointlessly difficulty spiked on even the landscape mobs were slaughtering raid-ready players, that most of my kin, myself included, ended up just quitting the game. A few people eventually got the gang back together again for southern mirkwood, but that mordor level of difficulty was still there. No one in the kin, except for the hunters and the champions, seemed able to even 1v1 the landscape mobs. that also reflected group content… no one wanted anything but healers and hunters. was the same with mordor, but even worse with southern mirkwood. Mobs were so dumbly overpowered that only the lotro character equivalent of tactical nukes were wanted in groups… I, sadly, was not a tactical nuke class.
It really breaks my heart. I loved that game. I made great real life friends in that game… I met my Ex in that game (though in retrospect that probably shouldnt be viewed as part of the happy memories lol), Spent so many evenings bullshitting in voice chat while we did instances and group content, or just ground out old content for deeds. Was such a magical fucking experience, that I’ll probably never experience again for the rest of my life. The pre-mordor game was absolute perfection. Especially with the revamps to some less ideal/polished game areas like Moria.
And killed, to me, because devs listened to a vocal minority that wanted moar harderer.
I’m sad now.
I absolutely love LOTRO, too. I understand what you mean. The endgame content is pretty advanced, but I had this conversation with someone on Reddit years ago.
It doesn’t have to be hard. There is so much content in LOTRO to last you years of playing new classes and enjoying the world. Throw out all of your max level up items, they’re going to ruin the game for you. Just go out adventuring. I’ve had a good time during anniversary helping people through old dungeons (I hate you, Saruman).
The endgame is hard, because half the community beats endgame and complains that there’s no content, and half the community just plays casually. They don’t really have the power to keep pushing out quantity in content, so they have to make ridiculously hard and rewarding content to make up for it. It’s really a lose-lose either way, and they chose to keep the community that has been faithful for years over trying to pull in new players.
It sucks, I agree, but I think I would have made the same choice. I still love playing and wandering around; leveling new classes, and you can now get new titles for playing new difficulty modes they made. You can change the world difficulty starting at level 10, I believe.
Respectfully, I have to disagree with some of what you said… I don’t mind end game being a challenge, or even difficult.
Because the end game has always been in instances and raids. I don’t mind raids being challenging. I dont mind 3/6mans being challenging. Cause they are content you can typically choose to do or not, you need a group to do them, and they have the tier system that lets you select how difficult you actually want it.
Thats a good, healthy system to introducing challenge to the system.
And that meshed very well with the otherwise relaxed/chill nature of lotro. Because before mordor, Turbine/SSG/Whatever they are now, did a fairly admirable job at balancing and spacing out the challenging aspects amongst the fun and relaxing stuff to keep playability and fun high, while keeping a sense of satisfaction by overcoming the challenging bits.
Landscape wasnt a cake walk, unless you were ridiculously overeveled, but it wasn’t a torture session either. Any class could get through their landscape quests with an acceptable amount of challenge.
But then Mordor came in, and you couldn’t solo landscape unless you were one of the chosen classes, with Hunter being the king of them, because their DPS was insane, and they were range, so they could power down anything without taking damage. A poorly equipped hunter was solo survivable, when a very well equipped not-hunter could barely survive, if survive at all.
Mordor landscape wasn’t fun, it wasn’t a challenge. it was just naked brutality for brutality sake. They listened to a vocal minority that hadn’t played the game for long, comparatively, and wanted to turn lotro into a souls-like difficulty game, at the expense of all the people who had made lotro their evening stable for a decade+. and they lost players because of it. It really changed lotro from a fun way to spend an evening, to a way to ruin your evening because you just want to do these handful of landscape quests without having to deal with generic orc 37 that’s as strong as a 3/6 man miniboss (slight hyperbole).
I dont know if they’ve re-balanced the areas since then, or introduced mechanics to take the edge off, or what. I hope they did. I hope they’ve brought the fun and play-ability back so new players don’t hit the same wall that destroyed a generation of players, but no matter what changes they may or may not have made… ultimately, I just cant see myself ever mustering desire to play lotro again… and that saddens me as much as the state of the game that made me quit to begin with.
I don’t want to even think of how many thousands of hours i poured into lotro over a decade of almost nightly play. Thats too terrifying a number to ever think about, lol.
Ohhhh, no no. The raids and dungeons are challenging and ridiculously hard. I get what you’re saying now. It hasn’t been like that since I started up again, which was right when Gundabad released. It’s very easy to solo, and now there’s an NPC that lets you change world difficulty if you want to opt for it, making it so that the hardcore players and the casual players both get what they want.
I hear you. I haven’t touched it in a while because I will literally lose months of my life to it. Its harder for me because its one of my gf’s favorite games and when she plays I can’t help but play.
Are people still playing MS-DOS games or listening to the 50s music. I bet there are a numbered few. But everything will die eventually
MS-DOS games are pretty much what GOG built their business on, they still sell quite well. 50’s music is still listened by many (over 57 million views on that one song alone), and often used in movies, though that’s a bit of an odd comparison, almost as if old things aren’t worth keeping around. I mean, people still listen to classical music that’s hundreds of years old at this point, read ancient stories, and look at art from artists long dead. I consider games to be an art form like any other, and worth preserving.
Being for the destruction of all art history is certainly the wildest take I’ve ever seen on this issue.