297
At least let people run their own servers. What fucking scum bags, man.
But how else will they sell you the same 'remastered' game 10 years from now?
Think of the corporations!
Now I'm picturing a video game version of the Disney Vault. "Play now through the end of the year for just $129.99* before GTA 9 goes back in the Vault for another decade! *Not including Microtransactions, Online Pass, BattlePass, Totally-Not-A-Lootboxes, or Megalodon Cards"
If they could, they would. But a lot of the time, they don't even bother to keep the source code of the games that they make. It's estimated that more than 50% of all games are lost to history because the companies that made them never kept the source code or a copy.
I remember there being a little scandal a few years ago when a remaster of a game came out and it still had the cracker's logo in it from the pirated copy they used for the source code.
Piracy is preservation.
I mean they essentially already released it with The Crew 2. How else would they sell copies to the people who played the first?
I hope Ubisoft loses.
I always hope that Ubisoft loses.
First off, I support both this campaign and linking to it. More awareness is always good.
However, as Ross himself posted, the problem with this comparison is that the "Stop Killing Games" campaign is aiming to end the tradition of simply turning off game servers. This Californian lawsuit, though not a bad thing, is very likely to simply change the labeling of games, which doesn't help the end goal of Stop Killing Games.
I want both to succeed and am not attempting to attack your post, just provide clarity.
For more context: https://youtu.be/sitLQg02Mn4
IMO if every such game came with a large "Playable until [Date]" sticker, a lot more people would care about preserving them. And just the market pressure may save a lot of games.
That seems like an optimistic but reasonable take.
I'd also probably care a lot less about buying them.
I feel like Ubisoft is like a European EA. But somehow worse.
"Why is EA the most hated American game company? Because Ubisoft is based in France."
Ubisoft pulled the ol’ snippy Johnson
They... Circumcised it?
The oldie judges need some analogies they can relate to, nothing wrong with that.
I still fondly remember how Spellbreak just dropped the tools to run dedicated servers when they shut down. I don't think forcing companies to run servers forever is tenable, and slapping an expiration date on the games is less helpful than it seems. Would be nice to enforce distributing those tools on shutdown, but that seems like a difficult fight considering what right to repair looks like.
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
297 points (99.0% liked)
Gaming
3248 readers
29 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS