• 2 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 24th, 2024

help-circle

  • If, as you said, as the game is EOL it doesn’t make profits, then it can’t cause losses either. Otherwise it’d have to be kept alive.

    I mixed up words, what I meant was that the company could be harassed before it’d go bankrupt and EOL the game

    Uh… If they’re 3rd-party servers then hosting isn’t paid for by the publisher. Additionally, game publishers don’t pay for hosting of Discord/Reddit/ Lemmy communities. And even if they did if the game is EOL they’d axe that too if it induces any COst.

    Now you misunderstood the statement. When the game is still hosted by the original devs/publishers, in-game bots would 1) tank the user experience (imagine tf2 but like half a year after launch) 2) put strain on the servers, the ones that still belong to the devs/publisher While that is going on, bots spamming media related to the game would tank engagement (who would want to play a game filled with bots that also has like no public community around it that isn’t ruined by other bots). All that would make the revenue crash, and turn the game into a huge financial burden, causing the eventual drop of support/bankruptcy

    I won’t pick the rest of the comment apart, since you didn’t quite get how this extortion scheme works (partly due to my poor explanation, but still)


  • Lan patches cost money to make, big money if the game was originally massive multiplayer. Since the game is at EOL it cannot generate any profits, meaning any money spent on development of such lan patches is going to just burn a hole in the company’s budget.

    Releasing server side source code opens up a route for abusing the game studio making the game. Since if some 3rd part wants to profit off of running private servers of that game, all they have to do is make a flood of bots in-game and on the game’s communication platforms (eg discord servers, communities on Reddit or even Lemmy), which is not that hard to do nowadays, especially if you’re a corporation. This coupled with finding as many in-game exploits as possible can drive up costs enough to bankrupt the studio, forcing them to release server side source code, which the corpos can then grab and monetize the crap out of. Since the bot flood can be made nigh untraceable by having them operate out of an unfriendly state (say, Russia or China), and there’s no studio acquisition necessary to get server side code, this would be a perfect extortion method that’d fly under the radar of antitrust legislation


  • “Stop calling it buying” now that’s a good start. Clearly showing the player at the time of buying that the license will expire at EOL is a great way to set expectations properly

    As for the exact time the license may expire: that would vary greatly based on the amount of concurrent players and the revenue the game generates, so the best estimate we can really have is whether or not the game generates enough money to continue supporting it (running servers costs money after all)

    Overall, clearly setting expectations is the goal that this initiative should have been gunning for, but unfortunately that wouldn’t make as much of a sensation in the news



  • “No, it’s not about this thing, it’s about the same thing but worded differently” “Providing the offline patch” is precisely what I meant when I was talking about bleeding money, since, again, for online only live service games, the offline patch would take a LOT of work to implement, with no return on investment since this is an EOL game. Who’s gonna be paying for that? The underpaid game devs?

    And as for tools for hosting private servers, that will allow someone else to come in and harass the game with bots (both in-game and in the community) and exploits to drive up maintenance costs, forcing the studio to shut down and allowing the offender to take the tools, open and monetize the private servers.

    As perfect as this initiative may seem in theory, in practice it creates a lot of dangerous scenarios for developers









  • Isn’t it part of the human right for healthcare?

    Since the WHO defines health as so:

    Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

    , the “mental wellbeing” part makes it a human right, according to the Article 25 section 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.