>>714963359
>SKG isn't advocating for private servers for games that are still alive and you can still play them through official servers.
Try reading the aims and goals of SKG again. SKG wants all games to have an EOL plan during the development stage. Why would any company who is planning on releasing private servers for a game they're making do it near the end of the life cycle? They would likely make private servers a function in the game on release so they don't need to devote more resources to the EOL patch, working backwards is considerably more difficult at that stage and is not what SKG wants at all since it wants devs to consider the EOL stage before the game has even released.
Even if they were to potentially release private servers in an EOL patch, that just means players will wait for the game to die before buying all the slop microtransactions that they would've needed to buy during the game's life cycle, so my point is still applicable even in that case.
>why would users gain access to any sort of spyware when they could just have basic peer to peer private server functions
Most games don't use P2P anymore. That's something that they would need to add on top if they were to release private servers.
>Again there isn't going to be a weird divide of a game that is actively being milked having official and private servers.
They literally admit to it in their article on SKG. Their excuse for not having an EOL plan is "hate speech" which they feel would make them liable. They don't care whether it's during the life cycle of the game or past it, they still want that control.
>I'd recommend reading into SKG's aims because you make it sound retarded and as if there is going to be some stupid community vs corp war in games they haven't bricked and abandoned.
You're incredibly short-sighted and low IQ if you think this won't have ramifications on game monetization, moderation, and the likes.