Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the game relies on servers for data, online play, or other things that is a completely different beast. That isn't just, "oh it was rendered unplayable". No it was an online game and the servers were shut down. It sucks but thats the nature of moving away from p2p online games. A non-exhaustive list of games I have operated servers for: Freelancer, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Counterstrike, Space Engineers, Mi…
> Build games to be used after servers are decommissioned, or don't built games. To my knowledge you are talking about games that all of the core data is stored on the client side and don't rely on updates being able to be applied to servers on data required for the game to work. How would you propose WoW, FFXIV, or other MMO's continue to be run after? There are fan projects to make private servers for some of those…
Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
131–140 of 146 posts
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#132First people are not taking into account proprietary software licenses. We used software to build the servers we didn't have a distribution license for, only a server license. Ripping that out was non-trivial work if even possible. That doesn't include the proprietary internal platform stuff like crypto validation, telemetry, harm reporting, etc.
I was the only one from the studio working on the server feature directly, client and server. At the time I was the only one with that skillset. It would have taken me around 3 months to change the client to work with non-auth'd servers. This may sound long but we didn't have standard apis; it took me 2 weeks to get TLS working. Beyond that it would have been another 3-5 months to do legal and security review to make sure we hadn't introduced a platform vulnerability through a malicious server, work we skipped originally because we were able to lock everything down internally.
The servers would have taken another 2 months or so to setup. However they were built to some very specific software and specific to AWS, if I were to change it to not be cluster based, run in a single app, I'd call it 6 total.
None of this includes documentation or making it nice. So we're talking a year with marketing, documentation, testing, etc. Which is a large percentage of what it took me to build the server features in the first place.
This was also a little big planet / mario maker type feature, not full on multiplayer / match making. I would greatly increase my estimate for those.
Instead, with that same time I: 1) helped greatly improved the internal engine tools, speeding up all of the developers and artists enabling them to do more on the next game, 2) Built internal and external player telemetry getting us a lot better QA coverage and great details on what players were doing which helped our DLC, 3) altered the server feature for internal use as well, letting us publish several extra free missions for the main game and DLC to fill in parts that were missing, 4) build a render farm which improved the artists cycle time from weeks to hours. 5) taught several of the more technical artists C++ to bind UI to shader features saving developer and artist time. Not doing each of these would materially have diminished the game or subsequent titles.
And finally, before you downvote, I did in fact work to make the system work after we shut it down, just not the same way people want to mandate. I ensured that it would work locally and all of your downloaded content was saved. I also make it trivially easy for us to dump the database to s3 json for the top 10,000 missions, well into the long tail. And finally and most importantly, I spent time making the system as cheap as possible to run, which turns out to be THE key feature for businesses. It's been 13 years and I'm not at the studio anymore and and the servers are still running, mainly because they cost almost nothing to run.
Maybe big studios could amortize this over time. It'd make smaller studios much less likely to build the server features in the first place. Many might chose to close to not deal with it and re-form. It would have made us think twice, so really I think it'd have a chilling effect, not the effect you want.
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#133I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this as people seem to be very much of an opposite opinion, but my $0.02 based on having launched a server backed game. It was a AAA game by a major publisher and a well known studio. I was the only one at the studio working on the game with some help (~10 heads) from the publisher. First people are not taking into account proprietary software licenses. We used software to build the se…
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem with things like this is that companies expect to sell a product to me and then steal it back from me without compensating me.
you were compensated with months or years of usage. You bought a license not the IP.
6 years later, the manufacturer decides they want to shut down the factories producing replacement parts, and won't license anyone else to make them, so they push an update out and now your car won't start anymore despite functioning just fine.
Is that reasonable?
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#135Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if the publisher has placed themselves into a position where labor is required to keep the game running... The obvious and clearest response is simply this: If you as a publisher are so convinced that your game is obsolete... make the remote server source available under a permissive license to your existing license holders. Better yet - plan for releasing a copy of it at development time. You don't even need to…
Giving away the source does not protect the game creator and actively harms them since they are giving up trade secrets. You are basically just saying "give up all rights to the ip you've sank a ton of money and time into"
Then maybe they shouldn't have published the game in the first place. If you can't do the bare minimum that the market demands/requires by regulation then you can't engage with it. Simple as.
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
You yourself as the publisher are stating that you don't believe that those exact same trade secrets are valuable enough to continue selling (soooooo which is it????) And again - there's no reason to allow commercial use by competitors...
> (soooooo which is it????) Simple, they use that tech in their next game that they hope brings more steady revenue. if you think about it as opportunity cost instead of absolute valuee the logic lines up.
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the game relies on servers for data, online play, or other things that is a completely different beast. That isn't just, "oh it was rendered unplayable". No it was an online game and the servers were shut down. It sucks but thats the nature of moving away from p2p online games. A non-exhaustive list of games I have operated servers for: Freelancer, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Counterstrike, Space Engineers, Mi…
>Companies don't want to, because they make more money out of lock-in live service games. Operating servers paid with company budget makes more money than offloading the compute to customers' computers paid on customers' dimes? What? No, the reason multiplayer games have moved away from peer-to-peer to hub-and-spoke is because it's easier for the customers. Most people frankly cannot and moreover do not want to be sy…
Normies don't self-host - they go to a game hosting service provider and pay a few bucks a month to have hosting done for them.
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property ownership has been a right for quite a while now, actually.
we don't buy property when we buy a multiplayer game. Not unless you are fine going back to couch co-op.
And maybe we can also mandate that companies release detailed server specifications when they turn down a game. Everything that might be needed for someone to rewrite the server. Then someone else might step into a breach - a different company, an open source project - and continue providing the service.
Re: Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
#140My problem with things like this is that they mandate labor from others without compensating them.