416
Stop Killing Games is a new campaign to stop developers making games unplayable
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
Publishers and corpos are ruining games. Not developers.
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
416 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
3272 readers
196 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Agreed, if anything developers are the reason games are playable!
So why is it the devs are the ones to decide to end support for a game finally killing it? All a publisher can do is delist it so it can’t be sold by them anymore, sometimes the dev can find a new publisher or reself publish if the game was good enough. But by then there would be almost no point, since there wouldn’t be any more meaningful amount of sales coming in.
They aren't.
The developers at Ubisoft Ivory Tower
?????
It isn't the developers making those kinds of decisions. It's the bean counters and executives.
It’s still the ones at the development studio than the publishers. Every company can have assholes….
You’re mixing game studio company and the developers working for that company.
Errrmmm no…? that’s still a development studio, the terms mean the same thing. If you want to be technical it would be a game development studio.
You literally said the “devs” working for them, that’s still a dev company… and still the ones deciding to pull the plug….. a game development studio, is the developer of the game, they also have developers (employees, not type of business) working for them.
I’m a software developer for years and I’ve never done any business decision ever. I just do what my managers says. I don’t think this reality changes for game development.
You’re using “developers” for development studio, which is still a company with managers. So real people devs are not responsible for anything.
So real people devs are not responsible for anything.
And I never said that now did I? The developers did decide to shut it down, I’m sorry words have multiple meanings, why would you assume I meant the specific employee, instead of the company like my comments specify? Thats on you.
Edit Maybe you’re confused since Ubisoft has both development and publishing studios…?
I don’t care your own word meanings. Your original comment is just wrong. Even if you mean the development studio it is still Ubisoft executives. The company hierarchy doesn’t matter.
My own words…? It’s literally a term used to describe a studio that develops software. It’s an industry term…
Even if you mean the development studio it is still Ubisoft executives. The company hierarchy doesn’t matter.
It’s the development studio, the hierarchy does matter. Since it changes from the publisher who controls sales, to the development studio, who controls the development and service. A developer can always choose to use their own funds to keep a game alive, it’s just never worth the cost, so why would even the employees want to burn money on that, since they know it’s a waste of a paycheck in the end? Good employee developers would inform upper management that it’s not a wise decision, if they didn’t, well that’s on them still now isn’t it?
Yea thats not how things work. A developer company doesn't have only developers. The good ones will have managers and such that may have been developers in the past or have a good working knowledge of whats going on, but its not the developers making the overall decisions.
. A developer company doesn't have only developers.
Did I say otherwise…?
The good ones will have managers
Of course, why are you assuming I don’t know this?
and such that may have been developers in the past or have a good working knowledge of whats going on, but its not the developers making the overall decisions.
Huh, it’s almost like I’m talking about a company instead of employees…. Where did I specify employees? Because it’s quite obvious I am talking about the development company here……
Maybe you’re confused since Ubisoft has both development and publishing studios…?
Not everyone in a game studio is a developer
Nope, but it’s still a game development studio that makes the games and I never claimed otherwise…
You intentionally leaving out a term to describe the company doesn’t suddenly make you right. These developers also have programmers, designers, artists, etc. working for them. To ignore them in the argument and circle on just developers is disingenuous as hell.
I think the world "developers" means the studios here, which is mostly because the suits who know how to extract value from stuff others create like to cosplay as experts in the industry they are leeching off of.
Look at Musk, he's a rocket scientist / web developer / automotive engineer / civil engineer. Of course he is.
sometimes these words are used intechangeably, i think most people are aware the suits are to blame
Sometimes? A company that makes video games is literally called the developers of the game….. a game can’t be made without some company developing a game, they also have developers, as well as a host of other jobs completed by other employees, like artists, designers, actors, etc. So to not include all the others is extremely disingenuous.
In fact, an employee developer already has another term for them, programmers, so why they are trying to use another specific industry term to refer to their craft (programming) is just fucking wild.
Words have multiple meaning, developer means multiple, but a programmer trying to say a game development studio isn’t a a developer, but they are, is just pedantic as all fucking shit….
A publisher is also an entirely different company, a developer can also publish though too. Publisher and developer cannot be used interchangeably, unless they WERE both. But sometimes it’s different divisions, as in the case as Ubisoft, they have both development, and publishing studios.
Funny that, I don’t make games but my job title is developer or software developer and my degree is in software development. It seems to me that the employee and corporation title being the same word is a quirk of language more than anyone insisting on taking the others name. The same thing happens to some degree with consultants, architects and dentists. I don’t think either of them conspire to flip the meaning, and I know that no developer I’ve ever talked to definitely doesn’t either.
It’s the developers killing off a 10 year old game when their third finally comes to steam. (Literally in the article and it’s only a couple paragraphs…)
Publishers and corpos don’t decide when to end support, that is entirely a dev decision.
So no one is immune to sucking.
What are you basing this on? Publishers fund development, and that funding dictates where development time is spent. Publishers also absolutely can decide when support ends, see WB getting ready to delist a bunch of games adult swim games published from steam. The devs have no say over that.
Not every game needs funding and lots are self published.
And how many of those devs have made their own effort to get their games back out there? Lots. Publishers only control where the game is sold. It would make zero sense for these devs to spend the money to republish on their own since they would never recoup the costs. That’s why they have been listing them for free or providing a link to download them for free. They couldn’t before since the publisher controlled sales and they could t just give it away either.
Unless the dev sold the rights to the game, the can choose to spend their own money on continuing it, why would they need external funding for that?
Yes, obviously games without publishers aren't controlled by publishers. Even in those situations funding dictates development, because devs have to eat.
So even with funding a dev studio should have profits coming in, they can either choose to pocket all of that, or save some for literally saving their game.
So it’s the publishers fault the devs spent it all instead of using some to protect their IP? I think you’ve just shot your argument in its foot with that last comment.
So even with funding a dev studio should have profits coming in
No, the dev should have revenue coming in, revenue that pays salaries that allows them to survive. If those salaries aren't put towards efforts that will bring in more revenue then the revenue will stop and the business will no longer be sustainable.
And if the studio doesn’t profit and have a slush fund they won’t be able to spend a little money to protect their game with their own funds… don’t spend every cent, and you would be able to use some for this good will everyone expects.
This is a circular argument that’s not going to go anywhere, everyone can be an asshole, but it’s the devs that decide if they can support the game or not. They always have a way, whether they thought ahead or not is another story entirely….
load more comments
(6 replies)
We've all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection
Yes I've been there. I immediately refunded the game and then downloaded a pirated copy that worked offline.
Not all games allow for that unless there's a private server developed for it. The idea is to require companies to provide those tools once the game is taken down.
I understand what "the idea is". The only way to make that happen is to get people to stop buying them. And I think it's abundantly clear at this point that that is not going to happen.
So yes, piracy is and will be your only recourse.
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
Refers to publishers, not developers
They want server based games to release individual hosting capabilities at end of life, like games used to twenty years ago.
I feel like the language they're using (a game as a good/product) could just result in server based games being labeled a service and switching to a monthly fee model. Or setting a predetermined end of life date (changeable to extend but not shorten)?
Monthly fees and published sunsets are fine, because then customers know what they are getting in to. Selling you a single player game for 50 euro, then yanking the game away 3 months later is not.
But still, why not provide server tools?
I don't play AAA games, but if I were you I would simply not buy games from big corps who have a long and notorious history of shutting down games. Don't complain about bad business practice when you're rewarding it.
The point of this campaign is not that it's trying to stop a "bad business practice". There's a strong possibility that this is illegal in many countries. Just because America is a hellscape of terrible consumer protection rights doesn't mean people in other countries don't deserve the products they paid for.
I know that, but the title and body text of this post implies a different subject, which is what I was responding to.
First and foremost: Maybe don't rally this around a game where basically everyone's response was "... that was still a thing?" and we were looking at very low (was it outright double digit?) concurrents leading up to it being killed.
That said: I also think this... completely ignores the realities of development and is dangerously close to a "lazy devs" rhetoric? The idea that devs "just" have to make an offline unlocked version before they sunset a game sounds great. Same with building out self-hosting infrastructure and... emulators for MMOs. Okay
(numbers might be slightly off, roll with me) January alone saw about as many layoffs across gaming as we had in all of 2023. The people who work in those studios don't have time to sit down and test out some self hosting infrastructure for the game they put their heart and soul into for the past two years. They are busy frantically calling anyone they know to find leads for a job, updating their linkedin, and ripping copper out of the walls in the hopes of making rent.
We are well past the era where "Well. This was a good run but let's quietly put down this game and get started on the next" is the norm. The reality is that you have smaller studios frantically trying to spin up two or three development pipelines to make sure they always have "a hit". And corporate studios who fully understand that the moment they are "done" with a project they are ripe to be laid off to increase profits for that quarter.
So I can definitely see an Embracer group signing this for the PR. And, having lived similar bullshit in a different industry, I can see them using this as a weapon against the workers. "Hey guys. I know we are all down because of the announcement that all of you are gonna go fuck off and die so that I can get a bigger parachute. But we have a responsibility to our shareholders and customers to finish this one last project. So we are going to pay you an extra two or three weeks to do these tickets. And if you don't accomplish your responsibilities we will fire you with cause and take your severance. So... get the fuck to work, I got a hooker coming at 10. Oh, and we don't need art assets so security will come and escort Johnson out of the building. Go team!"
I dunno. On the surface... this still looks naive. But I like the spirit and do wish more games would be developed with an offline mode (even if I know, as a developer/engineer, that that just means a lot of work for minimal benefit to customers). But this REALLY feels like it is going to be right up there with the other insanity if/when people talk about "gamergate 2.0". Like, I am getting MASSIVE Total Biscuit vibes where he is saying stuff we all are thinking but rapidly becomes a rallying cry for chuds and never does anything to really reject that.
I want to point out that the reason The Crew is being pointed out and focused specifically is because it was a large game sold to 12m people and it's a game from France, a country with fantastic consumer protection laws.
It's being focused because it's the game with the best shot of having legal action success NOT because it's the most loved game of all time.
load more comments
(3 replies)
January alone saw about as many layoffs across gaming as we had in all of 2023.
This is what they should stop doing.
Yup. But discussions of the impact of venture capital/investors largely abandoning gaming and the importance of Week One sales don't line up with "Fucking scammers are stealing our games and you are a traitor if you buy any game before it is 90% off on g2a" talking points.
Wheras "lazy devs don't want to put the effort in to finish their games" is what gets you views and an army of rabid supporters.
That kind of reminds me of Control on the Switch; it's a cloud based version so if the company running the hosting service closes you're out of luck.
I'm pretty sure in the situation of The Crew there is a built in offline mode but it's disabled.
That's actually fantastic. I so hope they'll be successful.
Legislate it that they have to submit the source code to the government when they release it in your market
Then when the game is shutdown the government releases the source
You can put X number of years in between
view more: next ›