![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here's yet another article that completely misconstrues the goal of Stop Killing Games.
"There are consumer campaigns, such as Stop Killing Games, which are lobbying governments to introduce legislation to dissuade publishers and developers from taking titles offline."
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. Stop Killing Games is not trying to "dissuade publishers and developers from taking titles offline."[1] Stop Killing Games is trying to dissuade pubs/devs from completely shitcanning games when they inexorably do take them offline and is, instead, trying to encourage pubs/devs to modify the games so that they will continue to be at least partially playable even offline, without requiring perpetual pub/dev suppport, or at the very least give gamers themselves the ability the modify the games in that way, without suing them for IP infringement or what-the-fuck-ever, when the inevitable point is reached where the pubs/devs no longer want to support said games.
That's what Stop Killing Games actually wants.[1]
What I, personally want is for the modern video game industry to stop sharting out "live service"/"GaaS" games altogether. I am wholly in favor of "killing" those games while they're still in the womb. While I am completely fine with what SKG wants (i.e. preserving, at least in part, such games that have already been created and released[1]), I'm also perfectly fine if the end result is "fewer games may come out" (i.e. they don't make that shit at all, in the first place). If the pubs/devs in question are unwilling to make/incapable of making anything other than those shit-sucking "live service"/"GaaS" games, then I'm perfectly hunky-dory with those pubs/devs going out of business entirely.
[1] From the FAQ, linked above, fourth question:
Q: Aren't you asking companies to support games forever? Isn't that unrealistic?
A: No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree that it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way. Additionally, there are already real-world examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way, such as:
'Gran Turismo Sport' published by Sony
'Knockout City' published by Velan Studios
'Mega Man X DiVE' published by Capcom
'Scrolls / Caller's Bane' published by Mojang AB
'Duelyst' published by Bandai Namco Entertainment
etc.
"There are consumer campaigns, such as Stop Killing Games, which are lobbying governments to introduce legislation to dissuade publishers and developers from taking titles offline."
Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. Stop Killing Games is not trying to "dissuade publishers and developers from taking titles offline."[1] Stop Killing Games is trying to dissuade pubs/devs from completely shitcanning games when they inexorably do take them offline and is, instead, trying to encourage pubs/devs to modify the games so that they will continue to be at least partially playable even offline, without requiring perpetual pub/dev suppport, or at the very least give gamers themselves the ability the modify the games in that way, without suing them for IP infringement or what-the-fuck-ever, when the inevitable point is reached where the pubs/devs no longer want to support said games.
That's what Stop Killing Games actually wants.[1]
What I, personally want is for the modern video game industry to stop sharting out "live service"/"GaaS" games altogether. I am wholly in favor of "killing" those games while they're still in the womb. While I am completely fine with what SKG wants (i.e. preserving, at least in part, such games that have already been created and released[1]), I'm also perfectly fine if the end result is "fewer games may come out" (i.e. they don't make that shit at all, in the first place). If the pubs/devs in question are unwilling to make/incapable of making anything other than those shit-sucking "live service"/"GaaS" games, then I'm perfectly hunky-dory with those pubs/devs going out of business entirely.
[1] From the FAQ, linked above, fourth question:
Q: Aren't you asking companies to support games forever? Isn't that unrealistic?
A: No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree that it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way. Additionally, there are already real-world examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way, such as:
'Gran Turismo Sport' published by Sony
'Knockout City' published by Velan Studios
'Mega Man X DiVE' published by Capcom
'Scrolls / Caller's Bane' published by Mojang AB
'Duelyst' published by Bandai Namco Entertainment
etc.
