stop killing games Petition

[anne O'nymous]

Making a game, not a service, playable after support ends is not "killing" anything.

The game they use to test the water is an online cooperative game. By definition, legally it is a service. What you buy is not the game, it's the piece of software needed to access the service (see below).

Nothing in the petition says: "Keep the servers up," "continue updating," or anything similar.

I agree with this, but it's either this or, at best, the release of proprietary technology.

Not that such thing is impossible, there's example in the past of editors that did it. But you cannot force someone to do so, not even through a law. Worse, depending on the way the whole game have been designed, most of the time it wouldn't even be technically possible to do so.

Take software as an example: support for Windows XP has ended, yet you can still use it.

The comparison do not apply. Windows do not require an online connection to works, nor does it store the core of its functionality online.

Once again, the issue isn't the "online" part, but the fact that "cooperative" come after it. This mean that the game itself is operated on a distant server (or series of servers). The software that run on your computer just handle the I/O interface, taking your inputs, and displaying the results sent by the server (after interpretation to limit the traffic).
You do not have the game, you only have its user interface. By extension, you do not bought the game, you bought its user interface and the right to access the game, as long as it exist. The only difference with a MMO like, by example, World of Warcraft, is that you don't need a subscription to play it.

I totally agree with the fact that it can be confusing for the consumer. But this is already (almost) fully covered by the current Laws and regulations. What doesn't mean that nothing can be done, but what is to do is to enforce the need to explain this explicitly in the description of the game.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

The fact that this petition is seen as "controversial" and some consumers are even fighting against it just leaves me dumbfounded.

1) this is a symptom of a much deeper issue, (services etc.). Push for change at the base level if you want it, not to treat a broken leg with a band-aid.

2) if you read the terms of service for any game, you will find they include region specific variations to ensure compliance with local laws. Also, forum shopping your argument to bring it where you want the most success is a scummy, disingenuous tactic.

If you are in the US, fight for change in the US, don't try backdoor it into another country (that may not even work, as companies may just change their regional ToS for that country/region or partition it off to its own server). Never forget, it was the US that broke the back of lootboxes (specifically the congressman for hawaii).

Finally, live service games are finite, you dont need to buy them. I dont buy a multiplayer game expecting it to last forever, as eventually the decline in player-base will leave it a husk.

I can still play the older call of duty games online, and enjoy the experience of sitting there in the search lobby for a few hours.

Online service games are online service games. I am honestly surprised some of them are still running.

I am also (if by some miracle this works) expecting massive issues/blowback to result. Force manufacturer to put an expiration date on? Expect movement back towards the subscription model (so they simply scale infrastructure to match subscriptions). Games will launch as they currently do, but have a clause that will allow them to switch to a subscription model at a future date. They will force those players who want to continue playing to pay for that privilege whilst retaining all rights and control (a huge part of this issue) themselves. They will at the end of the day force any increase in costs incurred in retaining control back onto the consumer.

3) as I said in the other thread - xbox tried to make it online required to play and the backlash it never recovered from. Idiots then ignored the warnings and let it creep in, fed the beast, and are now suprised it has bit them on the hand.

Just dont buy live service games from companies you do not trust.

 

[Aqwaa]

I agree with this, but it's either this or, at best, the release of proprietary technology.

Not that such thing is impossible, there's example in the past of editors that did it. But you cannot force someone to do so, not even through a law. Worse, depending on the way the whole game have been designed, most of the time it wouldn't even be technically possible to do so.

I don't care whether you call it a service or a game, you're playing a video game. And if you're paying for that experience, you should be able to access it, even after official support ends.

While it's true that some games are hard to make playable offline or after support ends, it's not impossible.

World of Warcraft was never meant to be playable offline, yet people have managed to do it. Technical limitations are often used as an excuse, not a final barrier.

I totally agree with the fact that it can be confusing for the consumer. But this is already (almost) fully covered by the current Laws and regulations. What doesn't mean that nothing can be done, but what is to do is to enforce the need to explain this explicitly in the description of the game.

That's not entirely accurate. While the terminology might be covered by current laws, the core issue is simpler: people sign this petition because they don't want their access to the games they paid for to disappear. And that’s completely fair.

Yes, publishers and developers currently have the right to shut down their games. That’s why customer protection exists, to balance that power when it becomes unfair to the buyer.

Let me take this approach:

What do YOU personally gain and lose if ALL games are playable after their support has ended?

+ You gain access to the game even if it is considered "dead"

+ You gain long-term value for your purchase

+ You gain the ability to revisit old games at any time or introduce them to new players

- (?) None

What do publishers/developers gain and lose if they make their games playable after they discontinue them?

+ Longer revenue for games, even if not played much (someone might still buy it)

+ A small chance for games to become popular again (see: Star Wars Battlefront II)

+ Increased community engagement through modding and preservation

+ Positive reputation and goodwill from players

- Technical or legal effort to enable offline mode or hand off server functionality, for games that will require that

In the end, no one is asking companies to release their code or business secrets. People just don’t want to lose access to something they paid for. That’s not entitlement, that’s basic consumer fairness.

The comparison do not apply. Windows do not require an online connection to works, nor does it store the core of its functionality online..

It does apply, because it would affect all games.
I would still like to know, how does this Petition "kill games" ?

 

[peterppp]

What do publishers/developers gain and lose if they make their games playable after they discontinue them?

+ Longer revenue for games, even if not played much (someone might still buy it)

+ A small chance for games to become popular again (see: Star Wars Battlefront II)

+ Increased community engagement through modding and preservation

+ Positive reputation and goodwill from players

- Technical or legal effort to enable offline mode or hand off server functionality, for games that will require that

here you forgot
- Loss of income when people play publishers'/developers' old games instead of buying their new ones

i bet that is an important point in their books. there's a reason gta 6 is taking so long to be developed, and it's because rockstar earns so much on gta online.

 

[Pretentious Goblin]

This is what happens when you don't buy movies, music and games in physical edition. When you buy a CD, you own the game. No one can force you to destroy it since only copying it and distributing it(pirating) could get you into trouble. I don't watch nothing on subscription services like Netflix etc, because they put movies and series for some time and then remove it.

Depends on how the game works. Discs of the game Tabula Rasa are glorified coasters now. Whereas GOG downloads will be playable on compatible machines forever.

 

[Aqwaa]

here you forgot
- Loss of income when people play publishers'/developers' old games instead of buying their new ones

i bet that is an important point in their books. there's a reason gta 6 is taking so long to be developed, and it's because rockstar earns so much on gta online.

Well, if you new game is shit and people like to play the older game, thats a YOU problem (as in the pub/devs). Which would also be + for the consumer side, no? Also when GTA 6 hits the market, this will set records. True, they have been milking GTA Online. But what holds them back to do the same with GTA 6? So this example would only make sense if their actually losing something, which in this case they are not. Only if they manage to somehow fuck up GTA 6's release, which i doubt, because its Rockstar.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

What do publishers/developers gain and lose if they make their games playable after they discontinue them?

A big negative is risking their IP - I believe that in many places to maintain copy-write you have to actively protect the IP or it risks becoming public domain. Giving it over for a server to mod and do what people please with hands over control & pretty sure that is a dangerous path for IP's. (thats why fanfilms have a million hurdles and are even taken down (aka astartes))

 

[takoko]

The law, if implemented, will ensure only the biggest studios can be competitive in online gaming industry. Medium-sized ones will be forced to make single player indie titles only (best scenario) or just die.

Studios won't just release private servers. It's simply impossible considering how server side works today. Everyone is using multiple third party API and infrastructure and to make the server runnable on every random player's PC, you'll need to negotiate a different license for each third party you rely on. It's technically possible but practically infeasible.

The result will be big studios that can afford a legal team trying to keep their games at a "minimal playable state the permitted by law" at a minimum cost, and everyone else will have to give up on making online games.

 

[_user]

Consumer knowledge have been lagging a lot on the digital front there past few decades... The fact that you don't even know that all rulings say that you can resell the digital products you "buy" and that it's illegal to ban you for this, is the proof of this.

And yet it's still right there in steam's TOS.



So if they ban me, what's my recourse, sue them? These motherfuckers don't even tell you why they ban you so that they can have plausible deniability. "Stop killing games" is just the first step in some very needed customer protection from these mega corporations that have overtaken the digital space.

 

[Icarus Media]

"The Law is the Law is Law citizen!"

 

[peterppp]

Well, if you new game is shit and people like to play the older game, thats a YOU problem (as in the pub/devs).

that if was not part of what i said. the new one can be a good game but people already having a good game are less likely to buy another game than people who have no game because it stopped working.
secondly, even if the new game is shit, how is a you problem not a negative for them? you were listing negatives. why are you fighting this negative? makes no sense.

 

[anne O'nymous]

I don't care whether you call it a service or a game, you're playing a video game.

And Law don't care what you think.

And if you're paying for that experience, you should be able to access it, even after official support ends.

When you go to a funfair, you are paying for that experience. Yet there's absolutely no reason for you to have access to it after it's official closure.
And it's absolutely not different for a purely online multiplayer/cooperative game. The fact that you need a special piece of software to access it change nothing at all.

World of Warcraft was never meant to be playable offline, yet people have managed to do it. Technical limitations are often used as an excuse, not a final barrier.

Running a local server is not playing offline.

That's not entirely accurate. While the terminology might be covered by current laws, the core issue is simpler: people sign this petition because they don't want their access to the games they paid for to disappear. And that’s completely fair.

And I want to be able to hear the 8 tracks records that I inherited... Life is not fair.

Yes, publishers and developers currently have the right to shut down their games. That’s why customer protection exists, to balance that power when it becomes unfair to the buyer.

And what is unfair for the buyer when a service you payed less than US$ 100 end after 10 years of existence? The answer is simple: Nothing.

You bought it and you used it. You had what you payed for, period.

What do YOU personally gain and lose if ALL games are playable after their support has ended?

It's not about me, it's about the real world where you live in and the reality of the Law.

I don't care if online games are playable offline or not. But this doesn't change the fact that this petition, and most of its defenders, have a enormous lack of knowledge regarding what they talk about. And it's this lack of knowledge, and it only, that I address.

Life isn't "you're either with me or against me", there's a tons of nuance in between.

What do publishers/developers gain and lose if they make their games playable after they discontinue them?

The millions and year needed to develop their game in a way for it to be still playable, and the property over their technology if this need for them to release the sources or specifications of their servers.

People just don’t want to lose access to something they paid for. That’s not entitlement, that’s basic consumer fairness.

You payed for an online cooperative game, and you played this online cooperative game. You had what you payed for, period. And, yes, wanting it to last all your life is entitlement.

It does apply, because it would affect all games.

Comparing a software that fully operate offline, with a service/game that is online and cooperative... Sorry, but no, the comparison it do not apply.

And yet it's still right there in steam's TOS.

1) ToS aren't Law. When they goes against the Law, they are become "unwritten" and can't be used against you.

2) What you quote regard Steam account in first intent, and subscriptions in second intent. Buying a game, even as a virtual copy, is not a subscription.

 

[morphnet]

They're effectively killing a game because they won't support it anymore.

Relatively few games require "online" for ALL modes and many of those that do including MMO's have had their communities release patches / mods / emulators allowing for their continued use.

Consumer protection has been lagging a lot on the digital front these past few decades, the fact that you can't even resell the digital products you "buy" without getting banned is insulting. The fact that you can get cutoff from products you "buy" without getting refunded is theft. The fact that publishers can unilaterally remove your access to the game you bought whenever they feel like it needs to change, and yesterday.

Trying to sell an opinion of ALL under one umbrella is only going to hurt your point. A very few do this and most allow
re-selling, DO NOT remove access and many even support (if not work with) the community to allow a longer game life.

That's not even remotely what this petition is about.

The petition wants publishers to allow players to continue playing the game after they have discontinued it, and no, not by forcing them to keep running their servers, but by letting players run their own servers AFTER the support has ended.

Most do, it's only a handful that don't. Also as I pointed out above in this reply many even support (if not work with) the community to allow a longer game life.

No, it's the whole original meaning. Go on the FAQ of the linked website.

and that would, depending on the timing of the shut-down give a VERY limited extra life span before the game became unplayable again UNLESS the community stepped in and patched/modded it to run on newer systems or created an emulator.

If what the petition is asking for is implemented, neither the publisher nor the game developer loses anything.

"This game ran fine on windows 11 but now it keeps crashing with window 13, they released a patch after they closed it so I can keep playing but now I can't play anymore what a BS move, how hard is it to make one little patch so I can play on window 13? stupid company"

Take software as an example: support for Windows XP has ended, yet you can still use it.

and what exactly can you run on it?

Software as a service is bad actually and should be viciously regulated.

"Service" was created at the request of consumers, it continues because of the acceptance of consumers. There is a lot of hate being thrown at publishers and companies and ZERO accountability being taken on the part of consumers. Consumers need to admit and take responsibility for their part in all this.

I don't care whether you call it a service or a game, you're playing a video game. And if you're paying for that experience, you should be able to access it, even after official support ends.

While it's true that some games are hard to make playable offline or after support ends, it's not impossible.

and in most cases you can and do still have access and in some of those you even have enhanced access through community patches and mods.

World of Warcraft was never meant to be playable offline, yet people have managed to do it. Technical limitations are often used as an excuse, not a final barrier.

Weird and bad example,

1) There are supported community servers for it
2) Changing a game into something it was not meant to be or advertised as is NOT the responsibility of the company that made it.
3) The MMO is not only still running BUT they added the classic mode in response to requests from players showing they are working with the community.

That's not entirely accurate. While the terminology might be covered by current laws, the core issue is simpler: people sign this petition because they don't want their access to the games they paid for to disappear. And that’s completely fair.

It's not completely fair, they are going to loose access to the game one way or another either through unsupported software or unsupported hardware.

Let me take this approach:

What do YOU personally gain and lose if ALL games are playable after their support has ended?

+ You gain access to the game even if it is considered "dead"

+ You gain long-term value for your purchase

+ You gain the ability to revisit old games at any time or introduce them to new players

- (?) None

+ You gain access to the game even if it is considered "dead"
Incorrect, you gain limited access for a limited time UNLESS the community steps in OR you go back on your word and expect official patches to be released as software and hardware advance.

+ You gain long-term value for your purchase
Almost all games already offer this, you guys want extra time, which again will still be limited by software and hardware advances.

+ You gain the ability to revisit old games at any time or introduce them to new players
Not unless the community has stepped in OR you go back on your word and expect official patches to be released as software and hardware advance.

What do publishers/developers gain and lose if they make their games playable after they discontinue them?

+ Longer revenue for games, even if not played much (someone might still buy it)

+ A small chance for games to become popular again (see: Star Wars Battlefront II)

+ Increased community engagement through modding and preservation

+ Positive reputation and goodwill from players

- Technical or legal effort to enable offline mode or hand off server functionality, for games that will require that

+ Longer revenue for games, even if not played much (someone might still buy it)
Most do this already because most aren't doing what you guys claim they are...

+ A small chance for games to become popular again (see: Star Wars Battlefront II)
Hardly an issue considering the "re-makes" / "re-mastered" etc. editions (AOE 2 etc.)

+ Increased community engagement through modding and preservation
Already do because, again most aren't doing what you guys claim they are....

+ Positive reputation and goodwill from players
Hardly, players opinions change on a whim and while some bad one are deserved, a lot of companies that have already allowed their games to continue after "shut down" still have a shitty rep... EA is a prime example...

In the end, no one is asking companies to release their code or business secrets. People just don’t want to lose access to something they paid for. That’s not entitlement, that’s basic consumer fairness.

In the end most companies allow access and some games are not designed to outlive their service. Sure you can single player WOW but good luck raiding and doing end game content on your own....

Gamers need to start taking responsibility for the environment THEY created and also need to stop trying to blanket everything together.

Petitions like this do more harm than good. Being poorly thought out they don't cover even the basics such as, patch life span expectancy, advances in technology, support for licensing, legal states such as moving from supported to abandonware etc. They also completely ignore that there is another party / entity involved in this, that being the consumer and what responsibilities and requirements they should have and live up to and that is just covering a few of the negative aspects.

 

[woody554]

I can't believe we have people here against the petition. is that some new form of ntr?

 

[MarshmallowCasserole]

(smugly) I can.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

I can't believe we have people here against the petition. is that some new form of ntr?

Advocating for game companies on a piracy forum is certainly a new one.

 

[XforU]

I don't really care what the anti SKG people say. I've made 24 people sign it so far.

If you can't build a game with this in mind, this isn't your industry.

 

[MissCougar]

Indemnification is something that protects businesses from these kinds of losses. I don't think you can expect a company to keep spending money on a product that is no longer able to sustain itself without loss. Some companies will do this because it keeps a product or people inside an ecosystem, but that system of loss is around only because it's seen as leading people into the profit leader area and turns a profit for the whole. Like a company selling consoles at a loss to make the money back in game purchases later, or creating a sort of ecosystem of similar products that all work together and one of the bunch is not profitable but its existence still makes the greater look more complete as perception.

Not sure how this petition will go but I don't think it will change anything unfortunately. You can't force a company to lose money indefinitely because you bought a license for something from them.

 

[Aqwaa]

You're repeatedly dismissing every point I make with sarcasm or emojis instead of addressing the actual arguments. I asked for a respectful discussion, not talking to a wall. So let’s clear some things up with facts and logic.

And Law don't care what you think.

True, but law evolves based on what people think. That’s the entire point of this petition, to push for better consumer protection around digital goods. Laws aren’t static. They adapt to new technology and new consumer needs.

When you go to a funfair, you are paying for that experience.

That analogy fails because when the funfair closes, it doesn’t uninstall the rollercoaster from your hard drive. Games are software. They don’t need power, land, or staff to continue existing. Preserving digital experiences is vastly more feasible than keeping a physical park running.

Running a local server is not playing offline.

It is functionally the same thing for many people. Whether it’s a server emulator or a private offline instance, the point remains: technical solutions exist. Just because Blizzard didn’t design WoW for offline doesn’t mean it’s impossible, which is exactly what the petition pushes back against. Don’t confuse "not supported" with "not possible."

Life is not fair.

That’s not a valid counterargument. People petition for change because something is unfair. Saying "life isn’t fair" is an excuse to avoid accountability, not an actual defense of anti-consumer practices.

You bought it and you used it. You had what you payed for, period.

Not really. You’re assuming the only value is during the game’s lifecycle. But when consumers purchase games, especially full-priced titles, they expect reasonable access, not sudden and complete removal. If access to the game dies completely, that’s a loss of value and a broken expectation. That's exactly the sort of scenario consumer rights are designed to prevent.

It's not about me, it's about the real world where you live in and the reality of the Law.

Really? Then why are you arguing against it here, claiming that this petition would kill games?
This is a conversation about what should change. If you're not interested in the bigger picture, or the human side of consumer rights, then yes, you're technically correct. But that’s a lazy position when the petition is actively trying to improve things. "It is how it is" is not a reason not to try and make it better.

The millions and year needed to develop their game in a way for it to be still playable, and the property over their technology if this need for them to release the sources or specifications of their servers.

This is misleading. No one is asking for developers to rewrite an entire game from scratch. Often, simple patches, documentation, or community support can go a long way. Many modders and fan projects have done what studios won’t.



For the third time now: how exactly does signing this petition "kill games"? You've thrown that claim around, but never backed it up.


If you're not willing to have a respectful, adult conversation without facepalms and sarcasm, then I'm done wasting my time here.
This applies now more then ever: If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

You can't force a company to lose money indefinitely because you bought a license for something from them.

Nowhere in the petition is asking companies to keep the games running themselves. It explicitly says that's not what is being asked.