525
Is this the fastest video game death of all time? Not even Lawbreakers died this fast.
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
525 points (98.9% liked)
Games
32663 readers
1518 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
Didn't they give out refunds? That seems like the right thing to do when a massively multiplayer game is dead on arrival.
Yeah, they did handle it correctly. All things considered. Even in an utopian future where the stopkillinggames.com campaign is successful. Personally I would still prefer to keep all games alive.
Atleast offer a self hosted option to keep it alive, don't even include the anti-cheat or denuvo as that can be proprietary stuff.
Honestly, I'm a bit skeptical of StopKillingGames. It feels like a good thing, but it also comes off as naive. Like the whole "just distribute the server" requirement is impossible with the way modern games are developed, and may be cost-prohibitive to implement for most developers well into the future. Besides, some games really are less like a painting and more like a musical; performance art necessarily has to end at some point, so it's all about the experience and the memories. Nobody complains when the actors take a bow, because that's the expectation.
Louis Rossman sometimes rubs me the wrong way, but he usually makes really good, nuanced points: https://youtu.be/TF4zH8bJDI8?si=m4QGHfHY1fOtITpw
Keep the debate alive, because we all love playing games.
"Just distribute the server" isn't a requirement. It has never been a requirement. Who said that's a requirement?
It's just a possible solution. And to me it seems to be the easiest since that is the exact way it used to be done.
What exactly publishers will have to do depends entirely on if the campaign is successful and how the resulting laws are written. And may be as simple as an expiration date on all future game sales.
Doesn't change the fact that the few fans it had can't play it ever again, game is still killed because it had no support for community servers, just matchmaking.
I for sure would prefer to host my own The Crew and not getting a refund.
I feel it's rather fair to give them a pass on this one. Games with a player base and longer than a passing fart of time in the market? Sure. This was a failed product. They issued refunds. This is a situation where pushing your luck just backs someone into a corner.
We can hope they'll flip the assets and remodel into another title.
I believe the game was 10 days old when they shut it down. There are no concord fans. You can't have fans in 10 days.