- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Some people fundamentally disagree with the concept of progress and a better future.
I call them regressives.
I’m going to borrow this and start calling all conservatives “regressives” instead.
I just prefer calling them wankers
i prefer anti-intellectual personally.
They spit in the face of the value of the free knowledge, art, and society they’ve inherited tbh.
Are people actually advocating for game publishers to have to keep the servers running forever? That would seem a bit of an unreasonable ask. I think a reasonable compromise would be that if they plan to shut down the servers, the publisher should have to release the server side software.
“IrateAnteater”? More like “IlliterateAnteater” or “AnteaterThatCantReadTheFirstParagraphOfTheFuckingPetition”.
No “running the servers forever” is a bad faith argument against the initiative making it seem “unreasonable”
It’s also subtly re-enforcing capital’s position games need to operate on a centralised server model. I look back at many old multiplayer games where all I need to play with my friends is a local network. These days we get sold single player games that can’t run under those conditions.
They aren’t scared of being made to run servers forever. Quite the opposite, they are scared of us not needing them to.
Doesn’t even have to be local.
Still plenty of Enemy Territory servers going around. No need to set up a VPN or anything to play with your friends.
I mean, it could be interpreted as such. Easiest way to deal with this interpretation is by providing clear and concise explanations what precisely is being fought for. Not for those of us who are keeping an eye on things, for those who hear about it suddenly or purposefully use bad faith arguments.
Gotta communicate STRONGLY nowadays.
i think the simplest explanation is this:
If your game requires a server component to be played, let players run the server. Ideally from day 1, but at least as part of shutting down your game.
it’s really not hard, that’s how multi-player games worked until lootboxes took off and replaced modding.
WoW was server side long before that… RuneScape…
Don’t make shit up, it doesn’t help get people on your side of the argument, it actually pushes them the other way.
i bring you, the incredible concept of a dedicated server.
A few games, small ones, like minecraft, have discovered that you can just release a server binary, and people will figure everything else out, regardless of whether or not you document anything, or tell anybody how to do anything.
Even if you have a huge MMO with a centralized server, i see no reason you shouldn’t have a dedicated server infrastructure.
i am not making shit up, I promise I’ve ran many game servers over the years. I am obviously generalizing as of course there are counter examples especially MMOs.
But then there is warcraft 1 through 3 that were peer to peer and quake, half life, unreal, painkiller, enemy territory, and just about every fps game of the era that came with the software to run your own dedicated server, or could host a listen server while playing.
If you want to just look at a single very mainstream example, look at call of duty. Everything up to and including cod4:mw came with the software to run your own server. nothing after it did, though a few let you ‘run your own server’ by paying their approved hosting provider to run a copy for you, but it was always under their control and not something you could just set up on hardware you already have.
Your idea is exactly what the movement is trying to achieve. But people keep repeating these bullshit arguments instead of listening for five seconds.
No, that’s not what stop killing games is about. What’s demanded is that the games remains in a playable state even if servers are shut down.
What about multiplayer games? The server side is always going to be a necessity for those games.
So then release the server side data. Or unlock the game from the need of a server, or allow users to create their own servers.
They should open source the server if they are going to shut it down.
This is clearly the best option. Sometimes they can’t, though, because they have deals with 3rd party companies for libraries they depend on and they don’t have permission to release.
Personally I’d prefer they just rip out all the 3rd party code and release whatever they have left, leaving it up to the community to fill in the gaps with open source alternatives.
I think what they really want is to shut down the game and release the sequel so that everyone is forced to upgrade. I hate that. If they do that then they should forfeit their copyright.
I love that I can still play Quake… 28 years later
Even Thor of PirateGames only had absolute shit opinions on the matter.
I watched too many of his shorts before realizing he had a lot of dogshit takes
