Thread 714566957

I don't see the big fuss about it.
>Well, now they have to either keep their servers always on and spend more money on these games, increasing costs of an already expensive industry, or declare it on the package that the online service might come to an end
That's not exactly what I consider in the top priorities as far as consumer rights go.

Nothing stops them from selling it as a service on a subscription model, or just stop making live service games that aren't playable without serverside access.

Yeah, my opinion from the beginning was that this initiative doesn't go far enough and the amount of power that companies exercise over consumers has to be curbed in a lot of different aspects, but it might be "the first bird of spring," so to speak.

>>714566957 (OP)
it's not complicated dude. charge a subscription if it's a live service and be upfront about the service being sold instead of pretending to sell somebody a game. or if you want to sell a game license, you must have a plan to make it reasonably usable offline should the game be "sunset." look at wayfinder for a good example of this
SKG doesn't involve any requirement to keep servers online, that is a strawman.

>online
I never gave a shit. Thought it was for file preservation which I am for.

>>714566957 (OP)
It doesn't ask for any of those.
SKG just demands that if a game is reliant on something other than what's in the package a person buys - there is a clear EoL plan/path to keep the game playable to a reasonable degree.

It's like right to repair, or right to own shit you buy. If you buy a microwave, GE shouldn't be able to end of life your microwave with no path of you to fix it because they want you to buy Microwave 2.

>>714566957 (OP)
>Well, now they have to either keep their servers always on and spend more money on these games, increasing costs of an already expensive industry, or declare it on the package that the online service might come to an end
You never played a multiplayer, post-support game, didn't you?

>>714567238
Planned obsolescence needs to be fought in general, because it's getting ridiculous

>>714566957 (OP)
>normalfags (the only niggers that care about live service slop & co) are retarded
say it ain't so

The whole Stop Killing Games is vague, maybe by design. It intentionally promises everything gamers want, but every back-end game developer I have talked has said they want to shoot Ross in the head.

>>714569258
>vague
What part is vague?
>Back end developers
I'm a data guy but I work with server monkeys, what do they hate him for? Wanting to bring back the standards of 90's and 2000's when it comes to vidya?

>>714569258
And that's a good thing. Developers aren't you friends, if you haven't already noticed.

>>714566957 (OP)
Allow people to host private servers - this was the norm decades ago. Was the technology lost or what?
And yes games should be telling people exactly how much time their payment is good for. You know, like a subscription.

>>714566957 (OP)
>Another "dude don't try to push any initiative this doesn't help focus on other stuff bro stop bullying billionare corpos please dude bro just stop let free market decide *slaps lootboxes and battlepasses on games aimed at kids* bro vote with your wallet you are smart right? Stop thinking for well being of people who haven't educated themselves too much on this just let corpos milk them without quality control or regulations [Brand/company] is my friend bro like they care about us if we do anything back we will lose all vidya and we have to pay more bro companies only raises prices if we push regulations or let unions happen bro you have to pay $120 for a game if we criticize them or push this initiative bro stop CEOs are good people and the shareholders are working so hard bro..." thread

>>714569483
The problem I think is twofold, less competent developers and more reliance on pre-made boilerplate code and microservices. One of the biggest signs for that for me is when people keep bringing up anti-cheat and account verification services being "impossible" for private servers, making the faulty assumption those types of services are needed for the game to function. The assumption existing to me indicates that they have coded the core of the game around these services instead of having a plug and play type system, which is really horrific to think about when it comes to boilerplate code and leads into the bigger issue of legacy code and how much it has rotted inside of modern software.

>>714569258
>>714569336
See this is what I hate about these threads, someone will make a claim
>SKG is too vague
Someone chimes back with
>What about is vague?
And there is no response, it just hangs in the air.
Hang corpo shill niggers.

>>714569258
>ack-end game developer
You are a retarded faggot shill.

I am a full-stack dev and this is not an issue whatsoever. Literally just give the players api documentation on what calls the client makes and let people write it themselves. At most remove the guards on endpoints and that's it.

>>714566957 (OP)
>, or declare it on the package that the online service might come to an end
No that doesn't save them from not having to release a working game when it ends.

>>714566957 (OP)
either way kikes lose money so it's a win

>>714566957 (OP)
>have to either keep their servers always on
retard

>>714566957 (OP)
>OP
>sucks cock
it all checks out

>>714569258
>every back-end game developer I have talked has said they want to shoot Ross in the head
lol you have never spoken to a dev about anything you fucking poser. This shit is just about releasing files instead of throwing everything in a bin once a game is killed.

>>714569258
Nobody cares Jason.

why do these threads seem to lure out more retards than usual

>>714566957 (OP)
Are you intentionally misunderstanding what SKG asks or can't you really fathom that games used to be playable afyer the company stopped supporting them?
all it asks is for an EOL plan so that the games remain in a playable state. It can easily be done by letting the user manage the multiplayer server.

>>714569258
Not my problem they're shit programmer chop chop guys I want to be able to play Concord 2 until I retire.

>>714575994
It is getting a lot of attention, especially by game lobbyists wanting to shut it down. Yesterday there were lots of posters lying about it to make it look bad. And some eceleb apparently has been seething about it, and you know how some people here worship their ecelebs. Its a bad combo of posters intentionally trying to shut it down and/or lie about it to make it look bad.