Stop Killing Games is a new campaign to stop developers making games unplayable
Stop Killing Games is a new campaign to stop developers making games unplayable
We've all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection and a couple of years later the publisher decided they're done with it and shut it down leaving you with a broken game. Annoying.
Publishers and corpos are ruining games. Not developers.
165Agreed, if anything developers are the reason games are playable!
60So why is it the devs are the ones to decide to end support for a game finally killing it? All a publisher can do is delist it so it can’t be sold by them anymore, sometimes the dev can find a new publisher or reself publish if the game was good enough. But by then there would be almost no point, since there wouldn’t be any more meaningful amount of sales coming in.
-54
I think the world "developers" means the studios here, which is mostly because the suits who know how to extract value from stuff others create like to cosplay as experts in the industry they are leeching off of.
Look at Musk, he's a rocket scientist / web developer / automotive engineer / civil engineer. Of course he is.
9sometimes these words are used intechangeably, i think most people are aware the suits are to blame
4Sometimes? A company that makes video games is literally called the developers of the game….. a game can’t be made without some company developing a game, they also have developers, as well as a host of other jobs completed by other employees, like artists, designers, actors, etc. So to not include all the others is extremely disingenuous.
In fact, an employee developer already has another term for them, programmers, so why they are trying to use another specific industry term to refer to their craft (programming) is just fucking wild.
Words have multiple meaning, developer means multiple, but a programmer trying to say a game development studio isn’t a a developer, but they are, is just pedantic as all fucking shit….
A publisher is also an entirely different company, a developer can also publish though too. Publisher and developer cannot be used interchangeably, unless they WERE both. But sometimes it’s different divisions, as in the case as Ubisoft, they have both development, and publishing studios.
-3
It’s the developers killing off a 10 year old game when their third finally comes to steam. (Literally in the article and it’s only a couple paragraphs…)
Publishers and corpos don’t decide when to end support, that is entirely a dev decision.
So no one is immune to sucking.
-31
Permanently Deleted
76Not all games allow for that unless there's a private server developed for it. The idea is to require companies to provide those tools once the game is taken down.
2Permanently Deleted
1
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
Refers to publishers, not developers
They want server based games to release individual hosting capabilities at end of life, like games used to twenty years ago.
I feel like the language they're using (a game as a good/product) could just result in server based games being labeled a service and switching to a monthly fee model. Or setting a predetermined end of life date (changeable to extend but not shorten)?
29Monthly fees and published sunsets are fine, because then customers know what they are getting in to. Selling you a single player game for 50 euro, then yanking the game away 3 months later is not.
4But still, why not provide server tools?
1
I don't play AAA games, but if I were you I would simply not buy games from big corps who have a long and notorious history of shutting down games. Don't complain about bad business practice when you're rewarding it.
16The point of this campaign is not that it's trying to stop a "bad business practice". There's a strong possibility that this is illegal in many countries. Just because America is a hellscape of terrible consumer protection rights doesn't mean people in other countries don't deserve the products they paid for.
7I know that, but the title and body text of this post implies a different subject, which is what I was responding to.
0
That kind of reminds me of Control on the Switch; it's a cloud based version so if the company running the hosting service closes you're out of luck.
I'm pretty sure in the situation of The Crew there is a built in offline mode but it's disabled.
11That's actually fantastic. I so hope they'll be successful.
6Legislate it that they have to submit the source code to the government when they release it in your market
Then when the game is shutdown the government releases the source
You can put X number of years in between
2First and foremost: Maybe don't rally this around a game where basically everyone's response was "... that was still a thing?" and we were looking at very low (was it outright double digit?) concurrents leading up to it being killed.
That said: I also think this... completely ignores the realities of development and is dangerously close to a "lazy devs" rhetoric? The idea that devs "just" have to make an offline unlocked version before they sunset a game sounds great. Same with building out self-hosting infrastructure and... emulators for MMOs. Okay
(numbers might be slightly off, roll with me) January alone saw about as many layoffs across gaming as we had in all of 2023. The people who work in those studios don't have time to sit down and test out some self hosting infrastructure for the game they put their heart and soul into for the past two years. They are busy frantically calling anyone they know to find leads for a job, updating their linkedin, and ripping copper out of the walls in the hopes of making rent.
We are well past the era where "Well. This was a good run but let's quietly put down this game and get started on the next" is the norm. The reality is that you have smaller studios frantically trying to spin up two or three development pipelines to make sure they always have "a hit". And corporate studios who fully understand that the moment they are "done" with a project they are ripe to be laid off to increase profits for that quarter.
So I can definitely see an Embracer group signing this for the PR. And, having lived similar bullshit in a different industry, I can see them using this as a weapon against the workers. "Hey guys. I know we are all down because of the announcement that all of you are gonna go fuck off and die so that I can get a bigger parachute. But we have a responsibility to our shareholders and customers to finish this one last project. So we are going to pay you an extra two or three weeks to do these tickets. And if you don't accomplish your responsibilities we will fire you with cause and take your severance. So... get the fuck to work, I got a hooker coming at 10. Oh, and we don't need art assets so security will come and escort Johnson out of the building. Go team!"
I dunno. On the surface... this still looks naive. But I like the spirit and do wish more games would be developed with an offline mode (even if I know, as a developer/engineer, that that just means a lot of work for minimal benefit to customers). But this REALLY feels like it is going to be right up there with the other insanity if/when people talk about "gamergate 2.0". Like, I am getting MASSIVE Total Biscuit vibes where he is saying stuff we all are thinking but rapidly becomes a rallying cry for chuds and never does anything to really reject that.
-1I want to point out that the reason The Crew is being pointed out and focused specifically is because it was a large game sold to 12m people and it's a game from France, a country with fantastic consumer protection laws.
It's being focused because it's the game with the best shot of having legal action success NOT because it's the most loved game of all time.
1312 million sales isn't actually all that much relative to major games. France definitely is nice (even if the track record of EU rulings having meaningful impact is very hit or miss).
But it still undermines this as "a movement". When the first response is "no shit that game got delisted?" you immediately give ammunition for why this is untenable.
As a formal complaint/lawsuit to bring to the government (I actually don't know how a semi-functional government works because 'merica)? I would still be wary of something that could be deemed as "reasonable" to drop. But it is probably one of the better examples. But that is still more the kind of thing that you have people say "Wait... we are complaining about fucking The Crew?" rather than starting from that standpoint.
-7
January alone saw about as many layoffs across gaming as we had in all of 2023.
This is what they should stop doing.
3Yup. But discussions of the impact of venture capital/investors largely abandoning gaming and the importance of Week One sales don't line up with "Fucking scammers are stealing our games and you are a traitor if you buy any game before it is 90% off on g2a" talking points.
Wheras "lazy devs don't want to put the effort in to finish their games" is what gets you views and an army of rabid supporters.
1