>>714990025
>why should a business be compelled to give player the ability to continue playing their game via the community made servers
cause it's what they always did in the past and it never hurt new games sales
>what if they want to incentivize players to move on to a sequel?
you do that by making a sequel that is as good if not better than the previous game, that's the entire point of a sequel and how sequels have always been made, and if they fail at that(which has happened), then they're not worth being played and being able to keep playing the previous game is a must
and i already explained this here
>>714984383
picture this
Game 1 is an excellent game, everyone loves it
their devs announce Game 2, and as soon as it launches, they shut down the servers for Game 1, so everyone is forced to move onto Game 2
Game 2 however is a complete mess, not fun, not up to par with Game 1, with features no one asked and which no one enjoys, to the point most people decide to not play it at all, or even refund it if they can
Result? Game 2 is a flop, not enough players play it, so the servers for it are shut down as well, and now no one can play Game 1 either.
Does that seem like good scenario to you?
Or, Game 2 might be good for most players from Game 1, but not for all, and those still prefer to play Game 1, but now can't simply cause Game 2 exists.
Does that seem like a good scenario to you?
To me it doesn't, and to keep the NFS example i made in my original post, if i want to keep playing NFSU2 even if NFSMW came out, I can, and arguing that making it impossible to play NFSU2 when NFSMW is out is something the devs should be able to do is borderline dystopian insane