How would Stop Killing Games affect a game that was free to play? For example, Super Mario Bros. 35 is a game that was free to download on the Nintendo Switch. Now you can't play it anymore, but I didn't lose any money on it because it was free, unless you count the cost of Nintendo Switch Online. And another one, Dr. Mario World, was a free mobile game by Nintendo for smartphones you didn't need to buy Nintendo Switch Online. How will SKG affect games like these? How will they affect mobile apps, and what even classifies an app as a game?

the only way it will get better is by getting worse

asdf

>>714545663
ghjkl

>>714544458 (OP)
This game was shit and the browser version was better

>>714545890
They should've never DMCA superinfero for it just to make a worse version.

>>714544458 (OP)
I would think that because they explicitly promoted it as only being accessible for a limited time and never made even a slight pretense about support, it wouldn't apply to games covered by the initiative. Not to mention it was free with no in-game purchases.

>>714544458 (OP)
mario 35 is not a game, is more like a promo

>>714544458 (OP)
>design the game to boot in offline mode stuck at last available patch
>company's servers that host customer data and transactions are wiped
>all cash shop items are converted to use in game currency
wow so hard

>>714544458 (OP)
Not good questions. Multiple gacha games got offline versions released already independent of this initiative. I never played Mario Bros 35, but nothing I read from it couldn't be handled without Nintendo's servers. The only thing needed is a connection to players. It can either be P2P or one person serving as the server and the others connecting as clients.

>>714546452
Oh! Most may not know, but the Dr. Mario mentioned ITT was the gacha. It's disingenuous to call it free when it's monetized, like any other gacha.

>>714546681
So SKG only affects free to play games that have microtransactions in them?

>>714546923
SKG states on their actual website "video games they have sold to customers". My statement is independent to what they say.

>>714544458 (OP)
For anyone who still has it, unlock the offline mode and allow peer-to-peer online games, no server hosting, no obligation to make the game available for anyone who doesn't still have it, allow users to host, maintain and distribute the game at their own risk

>>714547276
Since downloading a game for free doesn't count as a purchase, free to play games could still be shut down and left unplayable. Sounds like a big circumvention.

>>714544458 (OP)
>>714547384
>>714547490
https://smb35server.com/
Alive.

>>714547609
What the fuck? I never knew this was a thing

>>714547609
>it lives

>>714545805
>i

>>714548024
never mind my fucking retard vision is kicking into overdrive

>>714545890
>This game was shit
>I am le contrarian

>>714544458 (OP)
Mario 35 does have an offline mode, in that you can keep playing SMB's levels on it.
It's pointless, but it does technically follow SKG's demands.

>>714544458 (OP)
>liked Mario Royale
>Nintendo kills it
>liked Mario 35 even more
>Nintendo kills it
>someone apparently reverse engineered the servers and can play them on both PC emulators and hacked Switches
>nobody uses it
>if it did get popular enough to get full games Nintendo would probably kill it
I hate this fucking company so much

>>714544458 (OP)
>How would Stop Killing Games affect a game that was free to play?
It wouldn't.
Those who support SKG out of concern for game preservation may care about free games as well, but SKG is about games that are sold for money because only then is there any possibility of the government giving a shit. There is no legal recourse against the moral evil of taking a free thing that people enjoy and permanently destroying it.

>>714548483
Based

>>714544458 (OP)

Super Mario Bros 35 isn't free because you needed to access a paid subscription service to play it, so yes it'd need to remain playable in some form because people paid money for it.

SKG only doesn't effect non commercial releases that are completely free with no microtransactions.

>>714549636
I'm pretty sure SKG is explicitly limited to purchased games which the average customer would reasonably understand to be a product they own, and even if EU legislators do by some miracle decide to give a shit about the SKG initiative as written, I think you would have a hard time extending it to things which are clearly and explicitly presented as services.

>>714549178
>Mario 35 does have an offline mode, in that you can keep playing SMB's levels on it.
Are you thinking of PacMan 99? I'm pretty sure Mario was entirely online you can't play if it can't connect to anything

>>714550027
This, you can't. I have the game still installed and it won't let you into the main menu

>>714545890
Mario 1 in general is shit

>>714544458 (OP)
I guess rules as written, Nintendo would need to refund your purchase price... which would be $0. So probably not at all.

>>714550026
Q: Isn't it unreasonable to ask this of free-to-play games?

A: While free-to-play games are free for users to try, they are supported by microtransactions, which customers spend money on. When a publisher ends a free-to-play game without providing any recourse to the players, they are effectively robbing those that bought features for the game. Hence, they should be accountable to making the game playable in some fashion once support ends. Our proposed regulations would have no impact on non-commercial games that are 100% free, however.

the idea is that paid support means you should also have the ability to also make your game playable in some fashion after you're done supporting it.

The cost of making it playable should be baked into the profits generated by a non free to play game, either you're making money and your game should be playable or you're not and it doesn't need to which should create no grey areas because money is either invested for more to be made or it isn't.

>>714547609
Oh look, Nintendo isn't drowning in server maintenance costs or whatever bullshit anti-SKGtards are trying to push. Just make this legal and we're good to go.

>>714550603
I didn't see that part of the FAQ, lmao.
But also, free games with microtransactions are still different from subscriptions, in that it is understood that you'll lose access to something when you stop paying your subscription anyway. A microtransaction is still a one-time payment for a thing and you can still argue that you bought a "product".

>>714550603
SMB35 didn't have microtransactions though. You spent money for Online, not for SMB35

>>714550946
>>714551039

What I'm saying is that it was a game they invested money in so people would buy nintendo online, without that element it inherently wouldn't be effected by SKG but because it is it is.

Without this black and white language you could easily create a grey area where games are exempt simply because they're "Free" with a $60 subscription to the game but because you're paying they're not.

>>714551263
keep in mind games aren't effected retroactively, this would be kept in mind during the development phase of newly created games after SKG went into effect only.

>>714547609
>two people once had a seven-hour game
Holy shit

>>714550874
that take is retarded, but it is definitely true that the foreknowledge of even minor costs associated with maintaining the game later (altering it to hook into self hosted infrastructure is a form of maintenance) will result in even jewier microtransaction practices by production companies. gotta make sure the game rakes in enough profit to justify the long term. but it's a moot point because market pressures of other sorts are gonna have the same effect anyways. there's literally no winning with the video game industry because it is a major profitable industry now, simple as.