this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
79 points (95.4% liked)
Games
32491 readers
2080 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The demand for LAN skyrockets to 100% as soon as it isn't profitable for the developer to run a server for the game anymore. LAN (or private server, or direct IP connection) games can be played via low-latency VPN when there is no official infrastructure for the game anymore. Devs like to pull out the excuse that LAN isn't used very often for why it doesn't get implemented, but it's a dishonest answer. It does take development resources to build, and playing with official online infrastructure is in fact the path of least resistance, but the death of that infrastructure is inevitable, and even when it's running, you can run into an issue like Helldivers 2 is right now where it just isn't reliable. If you want to omit the feature because most people never use it, you may as well design cars without seat belts or air bags. Grim Dawn and Titan Quest will be playable in multiplayer indefinitely into the future, because they have LAN.
ARPGs have basically been live games since Diablo 2 and only gotten farther down that route ever since.
If it is at the point where the developer can no longer justify maintaining the master servers, the game is (generally) dead as a doornail and the "100%" demand is a very small number.
I always prefer to have the option to do whatever I want with a game. But I fully acknowledge stuff like LAN mode for a live game is something that only benefits a small subset of players and is very much about "What happens after we have all lost our jobs?".
Its the same reason that any studio that claims they will make all the DLC free or remove the DRM or whatever before they shut the doors are, at best, naive. And most likely lying. Because that is the farthest thing from a priority when you are trying to rip the copper out of the walls before you get called in for your layoff.
For me, it's a stamp of forced obsolescence on a game that didn't have to be. If they don't want to put in LAN, they can offer the server binaries, and people can and will figure it out if it's an option. But let's be real; the reason it isn't there is because it creates a dependence on them that helps them sell you more stuff. I'm okay with them trying to sell me more stuff. I'm not okay with them destroying the longevity of a game to get there.
Its not "forced obsolescence". Its about there being limited time and resources involved in any project. And stuff like this is very specifically about making sure the game will still be viable for the people who still want to play it after the project/company is over.
The Internet so any metaphor will immediately lead to anger but: It is good practice to document processes and design decisions so that someone who comes after you can understand them. And yes, there is an argument for "job security" if you are the only person who understands how the backup server works. But it is not "job security" to slack a bit on properly documenting and filing that information because you have a million and one other things to work on.
And a lot of the "We need LAN/offline mode in case you go out of business" can feel a lot like "So... we need you to make sure that this will work if we fire you tomorrow". Yes, a good developer will do that (because it really does reduce support burden down the line) but that is not going to be your priority when you have other deliverables or stuff you actually enjoy working on.
The server can, and often does, shut down when the business is still around. Nexon is still around, but Warhaven is going away. Ubisoft is still around, but you can't play The Crew anymore starting in April. I know that there are limited time and resources involved in any project, but I also know they should have spent those resources on making a product that will last, especially when their competitors in V Rising or Titan Quest II managed to do so. This is forced obsolescence, whether they intended it to be or not, but they almost surely intended it to be.
So... the problem is they should just make better games? Really?
Also: While I have a LOT of fucking issues with ubisoft and insist they have the resources to keep those content servers up (if not the multiplayer servers) for games like Splinter Cell that used DRM models that involved streaming game logic, they also aren't killing the latest and greatest games. The Crew 1 is shutting down in April (apparently, hadn't heard). That is a 2014 game that very much underwhelmed and has had a sequel for 6 years now.
While it is possible that the Uplay client is where EVERYONE is... anyway. SteamDB says The Crew has 21 concurrent players right now https://steamdb.info/app/241560/ and peaked at 76 in the past six months. I don't think all that many people are going to be impacted by shutting down the servers.
There are very much arguments for games like Madden that have a two to three year life span (if memory serves). And that IS "planned obsolescence" but also... is kind of support for the game. Because just look at the old expansion pack model of FPS where a new expansion/DLC would splinter the playerbase drastically and run the risk of killing Battlefield or even frigging Starcraft. Keeping everyone on the same two or three versions works wonders at keeping the game alive (and is why they should just be live games with a new DLC every year but that is a different discussion).
We see similar with the various open world areas in Guild Wars 2 where the vast majority are ghost towns if they aren't part of the latest DLC or event. And that is why Destiny 2 decided to disney vault their story.
But that is not the same as not dedicating significant developer resources to something that has 20 concurrent players. Moreso if the team/company is shuttering.
Man, this thinking sucks.
No, the problem is that there's no reason these games should have to disappear except that they were engineered to. All games are worth preserving, even bad games, even old games. It doesn't matter that my friends and I were perhaps the only people in the world playing Rainbow Six 3 at that moment in 2014, because that game having LAN meant that we could still play it, and we would always have the opportunity to play it. The Crew, much to my surprise, actually found a substantial audience, and it is a different game than its two sequels, but now Ubisoft can force obsolescence in that game that people today are still enjoying in an effort to get them to buy one of the sequels. They shouldn't have to buy the sequels to keep playing, and more than that, they should be able to go back to the old game whenever they want.
Again. Ideologically, I agree with you.
When devs are already crunching 60-80 hour work weeks to launch a game and are increasingly worried about their studio being shuttered because they only have one or two fan favorite games in the pipeline? I don't at all blame them for not taking the time to prioritize it to the 10 people who want to play the game three years after their unemployment benefits ran out.
Then they can't blame me when I buy from their competitors instead, who prioritized a critical feature in the development of their game. (And also, building the game this way is a larger drain on their resources than if they built it without the server requirement. They just want microtransaction dollars.)
Okay? Obviously you should buy what you value and if LAN support is a high priority, buy based on that.
The point I have been making is that preventing the 50 people left playing a game after ten years from continuing to play is not "planned obsolescence". It is just the reality of software development.
It is planned obsolescence. I'm quite familiar with software development and its realities. They knowingly built a game that won't continue to function in multiplayer after the plug is pulled.
In any case, you and I aren't going to agree, but I take issue with their definition of "full offline" for the reasons we've already discussed, and I'm disappointed that the answer I found in this thread is that they're not interested in adding LAN to this mode.