• ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    You didn’t create those games. Games are products people work to produce. Radical Heights was a free to play game that was shutdown in a month. What would you force them to do? Release their server code for free so anybody can run a Radical Heights server that people can connect to and play? So a whole bunch of people who never gave the developers a cent have the right to demand the game be given to them simply because it existed for 1 month?

    • NekuSoulA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If a game asks for money in any kind of way: Yes. That should be the cost of (trying to do) business.
      Alternatively, a full refund for everyone involved, even Kickstarter backers, would also be acceptable.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The cost of trying to do business? They made a product and nobody paid so now they have to give it away for free because they’re the greedy ones?

        • NekuSoulA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          nobody paid

          That’s just blatantly false. People bought the founders pack were never refunded for example. Those people being entitled to the server software or a refund is anything but greedy, even if that only applies to a single person.

          • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            So the devs give all the founders an empty map they can run around offline in and that fixes everything? The game hasn’t been killed? It’s been saved?

            • NekuSoulA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If they can play against bots, which already exist in the game, or band enough people together with access to the game to play on a server one player is able to host, then yes. That’s what I’d expect at a minimum.

                • NekuSoulA
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  If they want to keep some form of DRM then that’s not my job to figure out. This wasn’t a problem back in the day when server software being distributed was the norm, so it shouldn’t be a problem now.

                  Though personally I’d be in favor of abolishing online DRM entirely, but that’s another story.

                  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    that’s not my job to figure out.

                    So you want people to follow a law without knowing how it should be followed? You signed a petition and now it’s someone else’s problem if they get in legal trouble or not? This makes the world a better place because it protects theoretical people?

        • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I have no authority over anything, so yes, they can. What I’d like to see is an option to buy an offline copy of the game and any add-ons I bought, but no one does that. What Stop Killing Games is looking for is for the server to be made available after the game’s end of life so that you can continue to use anything you paid for.