Atleast offer a self hosted option to keep it alive, don’t even include the anti-cheat or denuvo as that can be proprietary stuff.
Yeah, they did handle it correctly. All things considered. Even in an utopian future where the stopkillinggames.com campaign is successful. Personally I would still prefer to keep all games alive.
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 week ago
ExFed@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Honestly, I’m a bit skeptical of StopKillingGames. It feels like a good thing, but it also comes off as naive. Like the whole “just distribute the server” requirement is impossible with the way modern games are developed, and may be cost-prohibitive to implement for most developers well into the future. Besides, some games really are less like a painting and more like a musical; performance art necessarily has to end at some point, so it’s all about the experience and the memories. Nobody complains when the actors take a bow, because that’s the expectation.
Louis Rossman sometimes rubs me the wrong way, but he usually makes really good, nuanced points: youtu.be/TF4zH8bJDI8?si=m4QGHfHY1fOtITpw
Keep the debate alive, because we all love playing games.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 week ago
“Just distribute the server” isn’t a requirement. It has never been a requirement. Who said that’s a requirement?
It’s just a possible solution. And to me it seems to be the easiest since that is the exact way it used to be done.
What exactly publishers will have to do depends entirely on if the campaign is successful and how the resulting laws are written. And may be as simple as an expiration date on all future game sales.