Ross Scott's 'Stop Killing Games' Campaign

[The_Mask]

Can you guys even name one game worth playing that is no longer playable?

Nosgoth.

Don't @ me.

[rusty_shackleford]

Can you guys even name one game worth playing that is no longer playable?

Nosgoth.

Don't @ me.

It's playable

[sheet]

I refuse to argue in favor of game developers.

[rusty_shackleford]

What if a game removes content? Are they required to provide an offline version with that content?

[Xenich]

Can you guys even name one game worth playing that is no longer playable?

Well, I define playable as in "legally" accessible and there are several MMOs I would enjoy playing that are either very lacking on private servers, or no longer exist. The may not all be the "best" games, but they were still fun for what they were and if they were "legally" allowed to be up by various interests, it would be fun to play them.

As for "worth playing", well... highly subjective.

Vanguard
Tabula Rasa
Asheron's Call
Dark Age of Camelot
Shadowbane
Warhammer Online

Vanguard I was really into and then they sunset it shortly after I go back into playing again (came out of nowhere).

The rest while not games I was dedicated to playing constantly, I still would have phases where I would play them due to their unique features or style. Some were a blast to play with friends, others were just fun to mess around it.

Point is, if a company is going to shut them down, there should be a means for someone to pick up and run the servers however they want to allow it. The idea that they shut them down and then sit on them indefinitely is kind of crap.

[rusty_shackleford]

Can you guys even name one game worth playing that is no longer playable?

Well, I define playable as in "legally" accessible and there are several MMOs I would enjoy playing that are either very lacking on private servers, or no longer exist. The may not all be the "best" games, but they were still fun for what they were and if they were "legally" allowed to be up by various interests, it would be fun to play them.

As for "worth playing", well... highly subjective.

Vanguard
Tabula Rasa
Asheron's Call
Dark Age of Camelot
Shadowbane
Warhammer Online

Vanguard I was really into and then they sunset it shortly after I go back into playing again (came out of nowhere).

The rest while not games I was dedicated to playing constantly, I still would have phases where I would play them due to their unique features or style. Some were a blast to play with friends, others were just fun to mess around it.

Point is, if a company is going to shut them down, there should be a means for someone to pick up and run the servers however they want to allow it. The idea that they shut them down and then sit on them indefinitely is kind of crap.

Every game you listed except one is playable

[rusty_shackleford]

What happens if I make a game on a platform I don't own and the platform shuts down?

(If you think this is a minor quibble, just remember that Roblox exists)

[The_Mask]

What happens if I make a game on a platform I don't own and the platform shuts down?

(If you think this is a minor quibble, just remember that Roblox exists)

This is the perfect argument to never buy anything on Steam. And it used to be the #1 argument back in 2004, but most people decided to be midwits.

[Xenich]

What if a game removes content? Are they required to provide an offline version with that content?

The company should not have to "provide" anything, be it "developing it into the game" (as this is forcing a private company to spend money through a dictation of how to make a game) or have to keep a server up when they decide to shut down.

That said, I think there can be some solution that doesn't force a responsibility on a company, yet also allows others who wish to continue to carry the torch to continue on without being strong armed by companies to manipulate and control. I think this being able to sit on abandonware for decades keeping complete control over works while never providing any use of it should be looked into. It gets to the point where the people pulling this crap are just financial institutions that have nothing to do with the product at all.

I admit I don't know all legal details of things or have weighted every aspect of it, but certainly there is an issue here and I think it is reasonable for some type of solution to be had outside of simply dumping content into a black hole.

[Stack of Turtles]

I understand not wanting to watch videos, but guys, please. Scott has been endlessly clear that all they want is the ability for the consumer to continue playing games after the developer has stopped supporting them, whether that be with private servers, an offline-play enabling patch, or some other form. He has been abundantly clear that SKG is not demanding that publishers maintain official servers at their own expense indefinitely.

I know, but what I think you're not getting is that doesn't matter.

[WhiteShark]

Would someone go say something disparaging about **** in a different thread? Maybe praise Europe a little? We seem to have a concern troll infestation.

[rusty_shackleford]

Would someone go say something disparaging about **** in a different thread? Maybe praise Europe a little? We seem to have a concern troll infestation.

I'm sorry your wish of asking a foreign government for ponies may be experiencing some problems

[Xenich]

What happens if I make a game on a platform I don't own and the platform shuts down?

(If you think this is a minor quibble, just remember that Roblox exists)

This is the perfect argument to never buy anything on Steam. And it used to be the #1 argument back in 2004, but most people decided to be midwits.

Yep, and eventually they are going to get burned. I stopped using Steam quite a while ago and through "various" means have every game I had on it in an offline means.

I mean, this isn't the first time a company burned the consumers (DivX 90's and Walmart's online movie service they did with that one company I can't remember the name).

Eventually, they are seriously going to **** people with these services and when people throw tantrums and try to sue, they will simply point to the contract you signed which says "You don't own **** idiot!"

[J1M]

Can you guys even name one game worth playing that is no longer playable?

At some point live service games peak but keep updating. I want to be able to play the launch version of Marvel Snap, for example. There's a version of Hearthstone I wish I could go back to as well.

Basically OSRS, WoW classic, and such but at a less profitable scale.

Anyway, to Rusty's point, unless you make it possible for people to always play every version, a company could just patch a game to make it awful as a way of effectively shutting it down since a server for zero users would be cheap.

[rusty_shackleford]

Anyway, to Rusty's point, unless you make it possible for people to always play every version, a company could just patch a game to make it awful as a way of effectively shutting it down since a server for zero users would be cheap.

I'm the bad guy for pointing out that developers would act in bad faith and asking what has been presented to deal with it

[Stack of Turtles]

Just have the EU make a new law that says this law is not allowed to have any unintended consequences

ez

[Tweed]

Developers should be legally obligated to provide the sourcecode to every game after a certain date because I said so.

[asf]

good luck with that when the slobs often just lost the floppies and source

[Stack of Turtles]

Developers should be legally obligated to provide the sourcecode to every game after a certain date because I said so.

Make that date the day the game releases and I'll agree

[Stack of Turtles]

By the way, I checked with the oracular tablets and I got the following message from the future about this law:

"For our mandatory end-of-life support strategy, we have contracted with Tencent Holdings Ltd. to release the game onto Tencent's Perpetual Server Solution platform, guaranteeing indefinite availability on Tencent's servers."

[rusty_shackleford]

Some people prefer to see something they love raped for perpetuity rather than letting it die. Weird!

[Xenich]

Can you guys even name one game worth playing that is no longer playable?

Well, I define playable as in "legally" accessible and there are several MMOs I would enjoy playing that are either very lacking on private servers, or no longer exist. The may not all be the "best" games, but they were still fun for what they were and if they were "legally" allowed to be up by various interests, it would be fun to play them.

As for "worth playing", well... highly subjective.

Vanguard
Tabula Rasa
Asheron's Call
Dark Age of Camelot
Shadowbane
Warhammer Online

Vanguard I was really into and then they sunset it shortly after I go back into playing again (came out of nowhere).

The rest while not games I was dedicated to playing constantly, I still would have phases where I would play them due to their unique features or style. Some were a blast to play with friends, others were just fun to mess around it.

Point is, if a company is going to shut them down, there should be a means for someone to pick up and run the servers however they want to allow it. The idea that they shut them down and then sit on them indefinitely is kind of crap.

Every game you listed except one is playable

Legally available and equivalent to their official release state?

[rusty_shackleford]

Well, I define playable as in "legally" accessible and there are several MMOs I would enjoy playing that are either very lacking on private servers, or no longer exist. The may not all be the "best" games, but they were still fun for what they were and if they were "legally" allowed to be up by various interests, it would be fun to play them.

As for "worth playing", well... highly subjective.

Vanguard
Tabula Rasa
Asheron's Call
Dark Age of Camelot
Shadowbane
Warhammer Online

Vanguard I was really into and then they sunset it shortly after I go back into playing again (came out of nowhere).

The rest while not games I was dedicated to playing constantly, I still would have phases where I would play them due to their unique features or style. Some were a blast to play with friends, others were just fun to mess around it.

Point is, if a company is going to shut them down, there should be a means for someone to pick up and run the servers however they want to allow it. The idea that they shut them down and then sit on them indefinitely is kind of crap.

Every game you listed except one is playable

Legally available and equivalent to their official release state?

Server emulators are completely legal, and operating one is generally legal as long as the original service is unavailable.

[Atlantico]

operating one is generally legal as long as the original service is unavailable

lol no

[rusty_shackleford]

operating one is generally legal as long as the original service is unavailable

lol no

US law has large carveouts for interoperability, ymmv in shitholes

[Xenich]

Every game you listed except one is playable

Legally available and equivalent to their official release state?

Server emulators are completely legal, and operating one is generally legal as long as the original service is unavailable.

Not the same. I am talking about being able to not only run a server, but to be able to invest in it, develop new content for it, even have a sub to access it.

I am not talking about being allowed by "see no evil, hear no evil" companies who choose to ignore it until they find need or use for it. For instance, if Brad took Vanguard after they shut it down and abandoned it and continued developing his own server, cleaning it up, polishing it, finishing off the content and getting it fully ready for public presence, that would be legal?

No it wouldn't and if at any moment Sony decided they wanted him to stop, they could make him. If they decided they wanted to take all of his work and start the servers up again, they could I would imagine. Brad wouldn't be able to charge for the server, he wouldn't be able to do anything other than spend a lot of time and effort where it could be stripped away at any moment.

What I am talking about is abandoned projects after a certain point being legally protected under something where the work transitions into a new public license format of some kind, where not only would people have the complete authority to run it, but modify it , expand it, etc... and even "charge" for that effort under some limited capability if they chose.

If companies don't want that to happen, they don't abandon it. They find purpose, continuation, etc... or they let if fall to the public as they chase some new idea or concept. Basically a "use it or lose it" type of license system, not this "Smaug" style hoarding of various intellectual and digital property that the owner often didn't even create or has no focused intentions of seeing any practical use to, they simply are buying up, waiting, sitting, hoping they can leverage some use of it, but often never doing anything with it.

[rusty_shackleford]

Legally available and equivalent to their official release state?

Server emulators are completely legal, and operating one is generally legal as long as the original service is unavailable.

Not the same. I am talking about being able to not only run a server, but to be able to invest in it, develop new content for it, even have a sub to access it.

I am not talking about being allowed by "see no evil, hear no evil" companies who choose to ignore it until they find need or use for it. For instance, if Brad took Vanguard after they shut it down and abandoned it and continued developing his own server, cleaning it up, polishing it, finishing off the content and getting it fully ready for public presence, that would be legal?

No it wouldn't and if at any moment Sony decided they wanted him to stop, they could make him. If they decided they wanted to take all of his work and start the servers up again, they could I would imagine. Brad wouldn't be able to charge for the server, he wouldn't be able to do anything other than spend a lot of time and effort where it could be stripped away at any moment.

What I am talking about is abandoned projects after a certain point being legally protected under something where the work transitions into a new public license format of some kind, where not only would people have the complete authority to run it, but modify it , expand it, etc... and even "charge" for that effort under some limited capability if they chose.

If companies don't want that to happen, they don't abandon it. They find purpose, continuation, etc... or they let if fall to the public as they chase some new idea or concept. Basically a "use it or lose it" type of license system, not this "Smaug" style hoarding of various intellectual and digital property that the owner often didn't even create or has no focused intentions of seeing any practical use to, they simply are buying up, waiting, sitting, hoping they can leverage some use of it, but often never doing anything with it.

have you considered just making your own thing tho

I think the owners of something should be allowed to say "OK, we're done with this, and taking it any further would just make it worse"

[Xenich]

Server emulators are completely legal, and operating one is generally legal as long as the original service is unavailable.

Not the same. I am talking about being able to not only run a server, but to be able to invest in it, develop new content for it, even have a sub to access it.

I am not talking about being allowed by "see no evil, hear no evil" companies who choose to ignore it until they find need or use for it. For instance, if Brad took Vanguard after they shut it down and abandoned it and continued developing his own server, cleaning it up, polishing it, finishing off the content and getting it fully ready for public presence, that would be legal?

No it wouldn't and if at any moment Sony decided they wanted him to stop, they could make him. If they decided they wanted to take all of his work and start the servers up again, they could I would imagine. Brad wouldn't be able to charge for the server, he wouldn't be able to do anything other than spend a lot of time and effort where it could be stripped away at any moment.

What I am talking about is abandoned projects after a certain point being legally protected under something where the work transitions into a new public license format of some kind, where not only would people have the complete authority to run it, but modify it , expand it, etc... and even "charge" for that effort under some limited capability if they chose.

If companies don't want that to happen, they don't abandon it. They find purpose, continuation, etc... or they let if fall to the public as they chase some new idea or concept. Basically a "use it or lose it" type of license system, not this "Smaug" style hoarding of various intellectual and digital property that the owner often didn't even create or has no focused intentions of seeing any practical use to, they simply are buying up, waiting, sitting, hoping they can leverage some use of it, but often never doing anything with it.

have you considered just making your own thing tho

Would that be easier than continuing on an existing project that is abandoned?

[rusty_shackleford]

Not the same. I am talking about being able to not only run a server, but to be able to invest in it, develop new content for it, even have a sub to access it.

I am not talking about being allowed by "see no evil, hear no evil" companies who choose to ignore it until they find need or use for it. For instance, if Brad took Vanguard after they shut it down and abandoned it and continued developing his own server, cleaning it up, polishing it, finishing off the content and getting it fully ready for public presence, that would be legal?

No it wouldn't and if at any moment Sony decided they wanted him to stop, they could make him. If they decided they wanted to take all of his work and start the servers up again, they could I would imagine. Brad wouldn't be able to charge for the server, he wouldn't be able to do anything other than spend a lot of time and effort where it could be stripped away at any moment.

What I am talking about is abandoned projects after a certain point being legally protected under something where the work transitions into a new public license format of some kind, where not only would people have the complete authority to run it, but modify it , expand it, etc... and even "charge" for that effort under some limited capability if they chose.

If companies don't want that to happen, they don't abandon it. They find purpose, continuation, etc... or they let if fall to the public as they chase some new idea or concept. Basically a "use it or lose it" type of license system, not this "Smaug" style hoarding of various intellectual and digital property that the owner often didn't even create or has no focused intentions of seeing any practical use to, they simply are buying up, waiting, sitting, hoping they can leverage some use of it, but often never doing anything with it.

have you considered just making your own thing tho

Would that be easier than continuing on an existing project that is abandoned?

Maybe it's not abandoned but finished?

[rusty_shackleford]

This reminds me of how I recently learned they're adding new content to Guild Wars and my reaction was one of complete disgust.