this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024

194 points (97.5% liked)

PCGaming

6497 readers

2 users here now

Rule 0: Be civil

Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy

Rule #2: No advertisements

Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions

Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.

Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.

Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts

Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments

Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

CSFFlame@lemmy.world

194

Ubisoft is being sued for making The Crew unplayable (www.videogameschronicle.com)

submitted 3 days ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/pcgaming@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 46 points 2 days ago

Reminder to sign Ross Scott's StopKillingGames EU Citizens Intitiative (which carries legal weight if it reaches 1 million) if you're an EU Citizen! Ubisoft killing The Crew is what kicked the whole thing off.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago

Good

[–] Exeous@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Ubisoft give players server running access. Game live. Ubisoft no lose money. Win win.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 24 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Or just patch the game to fool it into thinking it's connected, and allowing offline play.

I'm sure my off-the-cuff suggestion is in no way difficult to implement! It's probably just a switch somewhere. Check under the stack of papers over there...

[–] Jimbo@yiffit.net 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If players can make it work, developers can definitely make it work.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Someone tell that to Bethesda.

The difference is how much the players care. Also they aren't bogged down by any chain of command for development and can address issues however they see fit.

[+] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works -16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pretty much why the stop killing games initiative should be called "kill games I don't like" initiative.

[–] ThoGot@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

what

[+] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

The initiative just puts all the hard work onto people who are ignorant about the topic, who then put all the work onto developers to figure out how to not go out of business while implementing whatever insane bill gets pushed. It's dropping a nuke on a city to close down a restaurant that failed a health inspection.

Ross seems like a naive child who expects "an easy win because politicians hate work" except there is no bill, so politicians still have to do work.

If the goal is to save games, it fails because companies just won't put in the overhead to make live service games if they have to make them offline available. Certainly when there is proprietary licensed technology that they legally cannot distribute that way.

If the initiative was called "kill live service games" then it would be accurate. Either Ross is dishonest about his intentions(bad) or completely ignorant.(Really bad) I'm not even against the idea of live service games dying, but this ain't it.

[–] Catpurple@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

These talking points sound like those of Thor from pirate software. I hope that's not who you got this opinion from, because that man is just an industry shill.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 days ago

"You sound like this other guy so you're wrong" is... a take...

I disagree with Thor on a lot of things, so I wasn't influenced by his opinion on this. Since I watched Ross' video myself.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 7 points 2 days ago

i mean that's the point though, to codify the will of the people.

and honestly, if that makes live service games go the way of the dodo, good riddance. it's a predatory practice that uses fomo for players retention.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yes. A limit on how long before announced server shutdown a game is allowed to be sold (with it otherwise having to allow refunds) would already go a long way, and that is something I'm in full support of. I'm not signing that petition though because it seems disconnected from reality.

"Just make games playable in offline" works for some games (and if planned from the start wouldn't be that hard to implement), but ranges from "define playable" to "utterly insane" for others (imagine WoW servers shut down, is it in any way sensible to require allowing offlinr access?).

A more extreme but imo still reasonable variant would be forcing the open sourcing of server code and everything required to make networking work, with the license allowing self hosting of game servers. But even this can still be obstructed, because "open source" doesn't have to mean "publically accessible code repository"

[–] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 days ago

People continue playing the game and doesn't buy every future releases and dlcs. Massive imaginary losses and company doesn't grow as fast (boo very scary). Lot of assholes do this sort of shit like Nintendo going after emulation and old games.