Dans la réalité, ça signifie que les devs devraient payer pour toute l’infra online jusqu’à ce que plus aucun joueur ne se connecte pendant (par exemple) cinq ans consécutifs.
Pas du tout. C’est expliqué dans la FAQ :
Non, nous ne demandons pas du tout ça. Nous sommes favorables à ce que les éditeurs mettent fin au soutien d’un jeu quand ils le souhaitent. Ce que nous demandons, c’est qu’ils mettent en place un plan de fin de vie pour modifier ou patcher le jeu afin qu’il puisse fonctionner sur les systèmes des clients sans que le soutien de l’entreprise ne soit nécessaire. Nous convenons qu’il est irréaliste de s’attendre à ce que les entreprises soutiennent les jeux indéfiniment et nous ne prônons pas cela de quelque manière que ce soit.
M’est avis qu’ils (les devs) se sont mis des bâtons dans les roues dès le début en faisant un jeu qui ne peut fonctionner s’il n’est pas connecté à leurs serveurs
En regardant plus large, cette initiative relève un problème récurrent : c’est qu’on ne possède plus le contenu de divertissement que l’on achète, on achète juste les droits d’accès, et donc les ayant droit peuvent du jour au lendemain décider de tuer ledit contenu
Effectivement. Ne serait-il pas juste possible d’open sourcer les serveurs? C’est pas comme s’ils allaient encore faire beaucoup de blé avec ce jeu de 17 ans, d’autant plus qu’ils ont décidé de fermer eux-mêmes les serveurs officiels…
C’est une solution ; quand les serveurs GameSpy du premier Star Wars Battlefront (2004) ont cessé de fonctionner, il y a eu la petite communauté survivante qui a réussi à implémenter leur propre “Master Server” pour ne plus dépendre de GameSpy, et continuer de jouer en ligne, il y a une histoire similaire pour Titanfall 2 quand le jeu était sujet à des DDOS, où une communauté a créé son propre client pour pouvoir jouer en ligne ; bref il y a toujours des solutions pour les plus téméraires, mais c’est triste d’en arriver là alors que ça serait plus simple pour les devs originaux de prévoir sur le long terme à ce qu’il adviendra de leur jeu quand tout support ne sera plus offert…
La qualité reconnue de nombreux logiciels libres en matière de sécurité (Apache, Mozilla Firefox, GnuPG) est une bonne illustration que l’ouverture ne nuit pas à la sécurité.
Il y a un aspect sur lequel je pense que le jeu vidéo est un peu spécial: c’est qu’on ne veut pas forcément que les joueurs puissent savoir exactement comment sont calculées certaines choses (imaginons, les impacts dans un jeu de voiture).
Là-dessus ça me semble un problème possible, après c’est plus une question business que vraiment technique
C’est intéressant, j’ai recherché la question, et j’ai trouvé deux exemples de cas où le code serveur avait été rendu public aussi:
World in conflict, un jeu Ubisoft justement
The game offers multiplayer functionality, supporting up to 16 players online or over LAN. In December 2015, Ubisoft shut down the official Massgate servers that supported multiplayer functions,[13] though the player community restored these functions in 2016, through an unaffiliated version of Massgate.[14] Ubisoft revived multiplayer through published open-source Massgate in 2017.[15][16][17][18]
Après, il y a sans doute effectivement des spécificités techniques, mais toujours est-il que dans certains cas c’est possible, mais dans le milieu du jeu vidéo
So Ubisoft has just pulled the server plug on The Crew rendering the game useless for everyone who bought a copy? Obviously a ploy to get people onto the new entries but the only issue is that since it’s not an offline game, they have rendered a good inaccessible. This was probably in the TOS, but even so I think one could argue that is a terrible position to put a customer in who may have spent more money on DLC and likely spent a lot of time on progressing in the game.
Arguably, if Ubisoft is going to make profit off DLC, they should be forced to at the bare minimum either refund a fair amount of the purchase back to the users or allow the DLC to be used in a later release, along with giving pre-existing players a discount towards the newer entry. That’s how you treat your customers right.
Nah fuck that, that’s not a deterrent and businesses will just see that as the cost of doing business. They should be forced to refund everyone for the entire game no questions asked. There was no disclaimer when purchasing this game that says “we may completely disable this game and render it useless, even single player, on short notice at any time.” What are you supposed to do, buy the game, then read the terms of service and maybe interpret it as them having the ability to do that and then return the game? Absolute BS.
I don’t think any reasonable consumer would purchase a game if they knew it could be made completely unplayable in the next 3 months. Which is exactly what happened here. It was still on sale in December and was shut down in March…
This puts undue hardship on the consumer to make sure they’re not getting ripped off and there’s not even a clear way to be able to do that. This is the exact situation regulations are for.
OK. Let me spell it out. The laws aren’t there to protect the rights of the ordinary citizens. It’s there to keep them under control. The rich and powerful are not only exempt from it, but the laws exist to protect their interests. That’s why cracking and jail breaking are illegal.
I used the example of the UK post office because they didn’t even need the evidence of theft to send hundreds of sub postmasters to jail. But even after it became clear that the post office management lied and extorted, those responsible still roam free.
Yeah, most laws have nothing to do with justice and are merely threats made by social elites to working people. I don’t need that explained to me. I think you misunderstood my politics from my initial comment.
Setting legal precidents and regulating the industry are musts to curb this behavior. But we also have power as consumers. The ol’ “vote with money” if you will. There are too many uninformed consumers for this to have a huge impact, but keeping our money away from bad publishers and giving it to good ones will help.
Too few people care to vote with their wallet, they see shiny new game and buy it. If theres anything to be learned by all the shitty game launches and the early access trend its that gamers in general have poor impulse control and short memories
for everyone who thinks about what they buy, there are so many those who will just buy and scream how they will do what they want with their money. Relying on people to do intelligent decisions or even care about their own interests is fools errand.
I want to apologize in advance for the aggressive tone in this comment. It’s the only thing that comes out. I’m not angry at you, not at all - I’m angry at videogame publishers and at the current situation.
Has “vote with your wallet” ever worked? Literally ever? Maybe when the stars align. If the path to a better world requires everyone to be educated, and it’s more convenient for the vast majority of everyone to just keep going with whatever shitty system is currently being used, then nothing will change.
You know what works? Government regulation. Remember the ozone layer? Have you noticed how it’s not a problem anymore? That’s not because everyone got together and agreed to “vote with their wallet” by never buying anything that depleted ozone, which requires a crazy amount of research with every purchase. No, it was solved by the government (or governments?) banning the sale of anything ozone-depleting and cracking down on it. That’s what works.
Importantly, “vote with your wallet” is also straight up enabling discussion where those who have the most dollars have the most votes is taken for granted.
This is not how we want to run a society. We can already see the results of it, and they’re incredibly not good.
Plus, it’s not really a matter of being able to withhold your money from a company, when you bought a game 20 years ago and don’t want to see it disappear, or if you’re trying to buy a game from 20 years ago that is no longer sold. People would literally throw money at companies if they just kept games available somehow. But “I won’t buy the next game you release if you delete my digital purchases” isn’t a viable method of protest. The money the company thinks they’re “saving” by doing so far outweighs any losses from your non-purchases
I agree with you. The ozone layer is a great example of this being successful. And there are other examples of this kind of issue elsewhere. Like the we have to push for user repair rights or against planned obsolescence (which one could argue this is planned obsolescence, in thinking about it).
A small number of informed users won’t disincentiveize companies from abusing the masses. Because most companies are garbage so of course they will if they can. And regulations are the solution. I’m not suggesting we ignore that. But those of us who are informed can still incentiveize those companies that do treat their customers well in the interim.
I concede to the point though. I said, in effect, that supporting businesses that treat us well will help. But I suppose it’s more accurate to say that will, at best, stop things from getting worse.
stopkillinggames.com
Hot