>>714436016>Isn't "Stop Killing Games" movement about "you don't own the game even if you paid it" deal shit?All it's asking is for companies to make sure there is some way to play games people paid for after end of life/service. It's not asking companies to host their own servers after end of life/service, it's not asking companies to make modding or server SDKs to run the things, it just wants it so that games you have purchased or spent money on have a plan from the onset of development to allow offline, singleplayer, or functional play after the companies/devs sunset them.
So for example, when Suicide Squad and Marvel Avengers died and knew they were going to sunset their live service ambitions they created one last patch that turned the games offline indefinitely. In Avengers' case it gave you access to all the paid content in the game (Skins, nameplates, etc) and everything but the raids were possible offline. They also made it so the online component because P2P instead of based on a server if I remember right.
Another example is Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Game and Friday the 13th: The Game. Both games were online-only. They sunset and they released a final patch for each of them that converted the multiplayer function from server-based to P2P-based. TCM itself has a bunch of bugs that will never be fixed, including games crashing because a killer DCed, but it is still playable right now as long as you have seven people searching for a game.
It's also asking for games that are heavily tied to online components like say Assassin's Creed games have some way to still play the content despite not having access to them in the future. When Ubisoft dies or ceases to keep up servers many of their games are going to have issues going forward because of how intertwined the online aspects are with the singleplayer game.