You remember how we can still play 15 year old Ubisoft games without servers because they all added LAN? Pepperidge Farm remembers but on a serious note? what happened? why has everyone stopped adding LAN to their games? Why do I have to rely on shitty online only servers from game publishers who pull the rug on every game after 5-10 years. We need a new LAW that forces game companies to open source their games after 20 years and to add LAN to the game after 10 years. Making it unplayable should be unacceptable
> Why do I have to rely on shitty online only servers from game publishers who pull the rug on every game after 5-10 years.
Because LAN (and dedicated servers, by effect) allows people to bypass the publishers servers, and makes it easy to still play multiplayer even though the game is "cracked" (DRM bypass).
Most game publishers do whatever they can to avoid making it feasible to play cracked games, even if some of the techniques they use hurt players who actually bought the game legally.
This case is more egregious than not having LAN in a multiplayer game. The Crew has always online single-player, allegedly with an offline mode simply disabled.
my point is geared towards in general like The Crew is not the only game getting shut down, have you seen the list? https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/help/connectivity-and-performa... This happens every year and they make a dozen games unplayable every year. This should be ILLEGAL without providing a means
Digital purchasing has gutted consumer rights. Remember when you could sell your used games to other people? Someone buying a digital game/book/movie/album usually has few rights besides consuming the content in question, and even then only until the seller decides they don't want to host the content (or sometimes DRM servers required to run it) anymore. Returns on digital purchases are often impossible (Steam being an exception) as are typical retail niceties like price matching against sales within the return period (e.g. you buy something and it goes on sale the next day).
I don't know what the solution is because a lot of these functions would require complex DRM systems to make a digital product behave anything like a physical one. So legislating to enforce digital consumer rights is effectively legislating for DRM everywhere. The crypto dream of tying every digital good to a token or NFT was effectively an implementation of this kind of DRM using blockchain. However many digital storefronts already implement complex DRM systems, so perhaps at least enforcing some kind of right to return digital goods (including game MTX) would be beneficial.
It should be, but the argument is a lot more clear for a game sold on its single-player mode being killed entirely like this. All of that list is "You will be unable to play multiplayer, link Ubisoft accounts in-game or use online features." There's no more multiplayer, and then there's no game at all.
AFAIK, anyone with an old disc of Assassin's Creed 2 for Xbox 360 will still be able to play the single-player this Thursday. A disc for The Crew will become just junk when the server is killed.
> why has everyone stopped adding LAN to their games?
Ultimately, for business reasons:
1. A good LAN-play UX requires game/host discovery; solutions involving network broadcast will only work in small (i.e. home) LAN environments where everyone is in the same broadcast-domain - but this won't work in larger networks, which then means players will need to manually type-in IP addresses (which is acceptable for IPv4, but less-so in IPv6). Using an internet-based matchmaking and host/game directory service eliminates this problem when, and thesedays it's incredibly unlikely that a user will have a LAN available without Internet access. Internet-disconnected LAN-parties haven't really been a thing since ~2005 (excepting military/naval/antarctic scenarios) so the business-case just isn't there.
2. Providing technical support for games costs money; speaking from my second-hand experience with a major console game publisher: when a (console) game features LAN-play (with discovery/broadcast/manual-IP-addresses) it's inevitable the company will receive support calls/tickets from people having issues with their home networks that the company can't really do anything about; even if there's an explicit warning to users that the game's technical support team won't assist with local network problems they'll still receive those calls and need to triage (and reject) them, which all costs money.
3. The vast majority of a game's players aren't interested in such a feature; so when a game has a dev budget, it's just good business-sense to spend that budget on things that bring the most revenue, such as fixing bugs/glitches (which directly lead to bad IGN review scores and purchases legitimately demanding costly refunds) instead of netplay features (and omitting LAN-play isn't going to lose them that many potential customers; I suspect no-one already in the market for a AAA game is going to not buy it solely for that reason alone).
I've been at the Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition release event in Berlin. It was held at a Microsoft store with German YouTubers. Head of European Marketing for Xbox was there as well.
They couldn't play a multiplayer game because right at release, the servers were overloaded and the new version did not have a LAN mode at launch.
The whole purpose of the event was to have a kind of LAN / multiplayer gaming with the community and stream it.
> But as people embrace [the model of subscription video games], they will see that these games will exist, the service will continue, and you'll be able to access them when you feel like. Thats reassuring.
-- The Ubisoft director of subscriptions just the other day.
What is going on at Ubisoft? Is it incompetence? Like, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?
They do understand how terrible this looks, right?
God bless and long live and please never betray us Larian Studios. The large success of Baldur's Gate 3 is a large contrast to Ubisoft and underlines the lie that this is necessary.
No, see, you don't understand. The users needed to keep paying for the service in order for it to stay up. It's their fault that the service ended; Ubisoft is just trying to run a business.
/s
Anyway, I kinda get the point of view even if I dislike it. People really do continue to buy the newest CoD and sport franchise games despite the predatory monetization. Those are the people who are predicted to "embrace" their business model. And Ubisoft may actually keep some services running, though I suspect it will be only after they've sufficiently perfected the ~gambling~ ~Skinner box[0]~ ~money-grabbing~ gaming experience.
Yeah; maybe that is the point of "Subscription" gaming.
Netflix frequently removes shows from their collection. Maybe they don't want us to pay for - and own - specific games. Maybe the idea is to convince us to pay $10/month for access to Ubisoft's "complete" collection of titles, with new games coming out regularly and old games being retired at a steady rate.
That would surely mean, not paying sticker price for a new game, right Ubisoft? Riiight?
Even with music I'm increasingly missing my old CD library. I miss knowing that I'll always be able to play my favorite songs even if some music lawyers have a fight, or my internet connection drops out. The subscription economy sure seems brittle.
when myst online was going to shut down, the players rallied together to fund the operation. i don't know the details, but from what i know the company listened and set up a donation meter to share the funding status of the server operation. the servers will keep running as long as there is enough funding to keep the people needed for that. if there is additional funding they may spend that on features and bugfixes. they also allow community contributions, and i think the first of those contributions have gone live not to long ago.
in the end i think besides releasing the sources this kind of crowdfunding is the most likely way how an online game can be kept alive.
- "We looked at the consumer behaviour and how people were interacting with our offer and we saw an opportunity for us to evolve," explains Philippe Tremblay, director of subscriptions at Ubisoft."
- "[...] One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. That's the consumer shift that needs to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That's a transformation that's been a bit slower to happen [in games]. As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don't lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That's not been deleted. You don't lose what you've built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it's about feeling comfortable with not owning your game."
Of course we got comfortable not owning massive disk collections. What we're still not comfortable with is not owning the things we buy, no matter the medium they arrive on.
This line is really telling of our "digital feudalism" future. I get that the audience is investors and other people who regularly wear suits and that "needs to happen" is leaving unsaid "in order for this to be a viable business". Still, once upon a time the line was "the customer is always right" and here's how we'll be what they want us to be.
I feel like game companies should have to disclose the minimum length they're going to keep the servers running for a game before release. Be it 12 months, 3 years, 10 years, but the consumer should have that knowledge before making a purchase.
It's ridiculous that the responsibility falls to the consumer to even be aware that this is a possibility. I don't think most people understand a game labeled "Internet connection required" is really saying "Developer-hosted server required", so someone could pick up a physical copy of The Crew a few months from now, say "no problem, I have Internet", and not be able to play the single-player game (The Crew does have multi-player, but the appeal to me seems to be the single-player campaign) they thought they had bought.
> a game labeled "Internet connection required" is really saying "Developer-hosted server required"
Because it literally isn't saying that! It is hinting at it.
Having an internet connection is a subset of the requirement to access to the developer-hosted server. If the actual requirement is "Must have access via the internet to a service that we run but may shut down whenever we feel like it won't harm our reputation too much" then that is what they should write.
Another issue I've thought about is a lot of the time a company doesn't just go bankrupt and then everything suddenly ceases to exist, parts get bought by other companies. Will there be a transfer of this liability to continue service as part of buying anything connected to it, or otherwise that they must release the crown jewels that may undermine the value in buying it.
Even in the case where it does trigger a public domain release, when the company is shutting and staff are trying to find new jobs, are they going to spend the time auditing they are able to release it?
I all seems like wishful thinking by gamers where their 'skin in the game' might be $60, or less if they got it on sale or a free to play title, or a trail of microtransactions that presumably they want to keep online but wasn't enough to keep the game going.
I think it'd be acceptable to see the necessary server code to be open-sourced, if for no other reason than to get the APIs reverse-engineered (weren't some Blizzard servers like World of Warcraft and Starcraft figured out a very long ago?)
An even bigger issue is discontinued servers for hardware that winds up in the landfill. I have three perfectly good "smart plugs" that went dark about a month ago. Supposedly Matter will solve this, but I see no reason why better consumer protections shouldn't be in place.
I think it is acceptable if that is what you promise.
But if I were to mandate some sort of "IoT Facts" label I would keep it simple. How long can some consumer with little to no technical knowledge keep using this device? If after 5 years they need to hack it to use a third-party server which may or may not be run by some third-party, they may have to pay extra for or run their own then I don't think they get to write ∞ on the "IoT Facts" label.
They can say 5 years + open source server code afterwards. But that is a different promise than running the server for 10, 20 or 100 years.
I run Acme Inc making IOT devices. I say 10 year guaranteed support. I go bankrupt next week, the company doesn't exist. Who is keeping the servers running exactly?
E.g. the company that bought the IOT department of Acme Inc after a court order forced Acme Inc to sell it in order to pay off the debt.
E.g. Pebble was sold to Fitbit due to insolvency. And the cloud services continued to run for a year.
Bankruptcy does not necessarily mean everything is gone. Deleting everything is actually the _worst_ outcome as it destroys value.
Not having any promise means it will pretty sure be gone. Having a support promise increases the chances of future support, even in case of bankruptcy.
This is definitely a big flaw of the system. And I can see abuse with spawning new companies for every product. However I still think this "IoT Facts" label would help consumers make informed decisions. If a reputable company that is unlikely to go bust makes a promise there is a good chance that I will get the promised lifespan. However if I buy from SHDUWN on some random website then I am rolling the dice.
This does give some advantage to established companies but I don't think that is a major problem. If anything it gives companies a reason to build a reputation, which is something that we see a major lack of these days.
And it doesn't make the situation worse. Right now if you buy some Internet of Shit light switch from some effectively anonymous online seller that depends on their HTTP API there is a good chance that it does stop working within a few years. At least now reputable companies that don't go out of businesses do have to start behaving properly.
They're saying that there's no one to obligate in that scenario. The company made one product, then disappeared. Unless you mean their cloud providers should release their setup, but that would have bigger issues.
This could be solved with a state-mandated escrow service.
When selling anything that relies on network services, companies should be forced to provide server and client source code to an authority, which will keep it in escrow indefinitely. The company is then required to renew their "IP lock" every X weeks/months; if they fail to do so, the code is made publicly available (maybe for a small fee, to cover operational costs).
Extra red tape? Maybe. A perfect system? Probably not, as companies would likely fail to upload updates after the initial market debut; and probably someone would occasionally forget to renew locks on products they still sell. Still better than the terrible status quo? For sure.
And who is going to care to do anything with an open source smart fridge stack that maybe 10,000 or 50,000 people use? Open source only helps if someone cares..
I would expect the Ubisofts and EAs of the world to give a year (just enough time for you to buy the next installment on release!) with a "better" studios giving relatively long guarantees.
And yet I can put a Gran Turismo DVD in my old PS2 (was that GT4 or GT5?) and play with it. No networking (it never had that) but perfectly playable.
If your game needs a server to be played, you also sell the server. Somebody will put it on a machine somewhere and manage it. I have no direct experience of Minecraft but it used to be more or less like that, right?
Minecraft can work perfectly well without a central server, provided you have downloaded the game. They do have an authentication scheme to tell the server you own a legit copy of the game, but if that were to go down, the game would still be playable. Server software includes a "online mode" property that can easily be set to false to accept all clients regardless of central auth status. This of course opens a new can of worms but there are solutions that already exist.
Building games that you can only multi-play on official servers is short sighted. I started playing early-access ARK with my 5 year old who was super into dinosaurs. He's now 13 and still loves playing ARK with his friends. He was really worried to hear they were shutting down the official servers, but I reassured him that he'd still be able to host the game himself as he had been doing. We have a lot of memories playing that game, and I suspect he'll be playing the sequels for years to come.
When my current 3 year old wants to learn to play a game with his dad and brother, there are many choices - and I'm sure not going to get us into one that we can't play in a few years.
Of course they should. The alternative is sending otherwise perfectly capable devices to the landfill.
Companies should be required to release everything a costumer needs to build and use a new update for their own device or software after EOL. This means source code for relevant servers and clients, signing keys, device communication tools, the whole lot.
It's not a huge can of worms, it's just a logical extension of existing laws for warranties on consumer products: No-one is saying things must last forever, but that things must be supported (i.e. updates, security, etc) for at-least the statutory minimum on warranties (which is two years in the EU+UK+etc) - and that the length of the supported lifespan should be clearly displayed when purchasing.
