Not that I really disagree with any of this, but do petitions really work? I’m fairly sure that you need to like, pass bills or laws to make companies do this. They’re not gonna do any of this unless forced
I really don’t understand how some people respond to this so insulting. It is kinda pathetic. In no way is this petition a bad thing for consumers.
Dragonfire14
People seem to think that people who support this do not understand development or are asking too much. That isn’t the case. They are not asking for a game to remain forever online, but rather be made to work after end of service. This would be the easiest to accomplish for single player games (or non-shared world multiplayer games) where the requirement to talk to the server just needs to be removed, and a P2P system could be implemented for the multiplayer elements. For multiplayer games that use a shared world the ability for home ran servers would need to be implemented or at the very least allow players to play by themselves (not ideal, but with this modders would eventually get it to a better state).
If this is enacted, then going forward companies would be able to keep in mind that their games would still need to function after EoS. So, future games would be able to plan a EoS solution. This may also influence development and push some games that don’t need a shared world server to just use a P2P solution.
HagbardCelineHere
Why would I ever develop a video game if the law required me to invest dev and support to it even if I only sell three copies? You couldn’t possibly hate indie developers enough to think this is a good idea just because you want the video games you enjoyed in middle school to remain stable forever.
DinoRexasaur
I love OPs optimism. Wish I could have half of it.
Conscious_Moment_535
Signed so quickly
splendiferous-finch_
I keep seeing people point out that this is somehow unrealistic because hardware changes or licencing deals or to protect software IP etc. I understand that.
If a game company wants to realise a game with online functionality or DRM tied to it in such a way that that it would become unplayable once they decided to turn off the servers, than said published be required to make the end of life expectation 5-10-whatsever year period for a game public before purchase.
**If buying a game is buying a licence as publisher wants us to believe then it should be clear how long that licence will last…you know like the way software licencing working in the professional/enterprise sector**
NowShowButthole
Nah, just enable offline mode so people can keep playing them and be done with it.
Masterdmr
At the very least, game developers should have to publish and honour a timeline, available from the time a game is made available to purchase.
They should have to tell us the minimum amount of time a game will remain playable. Regardless of popularity.
They should also have to publish what features will be available/lost after support ends.
We can’t vote with our wallets if we don’t know what we’re getting.
shinoff2183
Great petition. I’m in.
EnergyCreature
I’ll just keep supporting DRM-FREE devs that provide offline binaries that don’t need a launcher.
DukeRains
Best of luck.
At best, this would somehow get passed and it would effect any future games made past a certain date, but there’s absolutely zero way for this to effect current or previous games.
Snowballs chance in hell but here’s a sig.
Any_Secretary_4925
this is so delusional holy shit
Broarethus
Have there been other games like the crew with disabled single player ?
Obviously, things like dead MMOs happen, and not much to be done.
Kurotan
Not in UK, but your laws help affect everyone else. I still want to vote.
w4rlok94
I agree with the statement but I don’t see how it could be enforced for every single game. The argument is that people who purchase a game are robbed of retaining their property when servers shut down. But you’re not purchasing the ability to play a game online, your “ownership” is literally just an agreement that you have access to their products and services as they deem it. It’s THEIR property. The argument should be that games can’t be allowed to have fundamental core experiences made obsolete. That’s a different thing than saying it’s robbing who bought the game. Unless something fundamentally changes about digital licensing they aren’t obligated to continue providing anything. They could make a game, market it, launch it to a huge crowd, and shut it down the next day and it wouldn’t be different.
I’m not advocating against the goal of the petition but the basis of it isn’t strong.
Objective-Aioli-1185
Just don’t take away my digital copy and let me play offline God damn it.
Juan-Claudio
And how would you punish a company that doesn’t do it? Because realistically, if it’s just a small fine, those multi million dollar companies might just not give a fuck. Shut the game down, pay a fine, cost of business and all, move on.
liquifiedtubaplayer
The best scenario here is that future games/consoles have an offline mode (so only single-player/local multiplayer are affected). Maybe companies have to put a caution label somewhere for service-based games. Many issues with the state of gaming but idk how much further this cause would go.
thomas2400
I think this is fair, surely the simple solution is just include an offline mode as an end of service mode, with the caveat that certain features may not function as intended, surely in the years since the crew came out Ubisoft could have worked on it rather than choosing the nuclear option
How can I possibly trust Ubisoft or any game company that produces a similar game now, I know my £70 (at current prices) is just a rental only I don’t know when the return date is
I think the people expecting the online modes to be working forever as they are now are asking too much, that’s where it becomes unreasonable to me
Honestly people have been going on about the price of the gold/ultimate edition for Star Wars outlaws but what has put me off is the news of the disc needing to connect to the internet before I can play, sure my PS5 is always online anyway but why even offer the disc at that point
Blind-_-Tiger
How they gunna kill the previous game to force you to play the new (terrible) one? Is anyone thinking of the POOR CEO and THE SHAREHOLDERS here!? /s
JonnyB2_YouAre1
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to open up to independent servers when Dev support ends.
SilverKnightGG
Nah, allow IP rights to pass into public domain after like 5 years or so and publish their source unless they DO.
ChuggsTheBrewGod
With the sheer amount of money I’ve given these companies over the year the least they could do is do the bare minimum to maintain their titles.
cutter89locater
Our laws are way behind on technology/digital products. It’s a good start.
dxgn
That would only achieve all games be forced into requiring a 5£ a month subscription…
VanGuardas
Do your part UK people!
TakeoutEnjoyer
Tell me oyu have no idea about video game development without telling me you have no idea about video game development.
in-my-head365
What happened to call of duty modern warfare 2019 from 2021 going forward is a crime unto humanity
Turdinasock10
Just so you know none of that is ever gonna happen
32 Comments
Not that I really disagree with any of this, but do petitions really work? I’m fairly sure that you need to like, pass bills or laws to make companies do this. They’re not gonna do any of this unless forced
Nah, this is unrealistic.
And no matter where you are from, why not stop at https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ and take action.
I really don’t understand how some people respond to this so insulting. It is kinda pathetic. In no way is this petition a bad thing for consumers.
People seem to think that people who support this do not understand development or are asking too much. That isn’t the case. They are not asking for a game to remain forever online, but rather be made to work after end of service. This would be the easiest to accomplish for single player games (or non-shared world multiplayer games) where the requirement to talk to the server just needs to be removed, and a P2P system could be implemented for the multiplayer elements. For multiplayer games that use a shared world the ability for home ran servers would need to be implemented or at the very least allow players to play by themselves (not ideal, but with this modders would eventually get it to a better state).
If this is enacted, then going forward companies would be able to keep in mind that their games would still need to function after EoS. So, future games would be able to plan a EoS solution. This may also influence development and push some games that don’t need a shared world server to just use a P2P solution.
Why would I ever develop a video game if the law required me to invest dev and support to it even if I only sell three copies? You couldn’t possibly hate indie developers enough to think this is a good idea just because you want the video games you enjoyed in middle school to remain stable forever.
I love OPs optimism. Wish I could have half of it.
Signed so quickly
I keep seeing people point out that this is somehow unrealistic because hardware changes or licencing deals or to protect software IP etc. I understand that.
If a game company wants to realise a game with online functionality or DRM tied to it in such a way that that it would become unplayable once they decided to turn off the servers, than said published be required to make the end of life expectation 5-10-whatsever year period for a game public before purchase.
**If buying a game is buying a licence as publisher wants us to believe then it should be clear how long that licence will last…you know like the way software licencing working in the professional/enterprise sector**
Nah, just enable offline mode so people can keep playing them and be done with it.
At the very least, game developers should have to publish and honour a timeline, available from the time a game is made available to purchase.
They should have to tell us the minimum amount of time a game will remain playable. Regardless of popularity.
They should also have to publish what features will be available/lost after support ends.
We can’t vote with our wallets if we don’t know what we’re getting.
Great petition. I’m in.
I’ll just keep supporting DRM-FREE devs that provide offline binaries that don’t need a launcher.
Best of luck.
At best, this would somehow get passed and it would effect any future games made past a certain date, but there’s absolutely zero way for this to effect current or previous games.
Snowballs chance in hell but here’s a sig.
this is so delusional holy shit
Have there been other games like the crew with disabled single player ?
Obviously, things like dead MMOs happen, and not much to be done.
Not in UK, but your laws help affect everyone else. I still want to vote.
I agree with the statement but I don’t see how it could be enforced for every single game. The argument is that people who purchase a game are robbed of retaining their property when servers shut down. But you’re not purchasing the ability to play a game online, your “ownership” is literally just an agreement that you have access to their products and services as they deem it. It’s THEIR property. The argument should be that games can’t be allowed to have fundamental core experiences made obsolete. That’s a different thing than saying it’s robbing who bought the game. Unless something fundamentally changes about digital licensing they aren’t obligated to continue providing anything. They could make a game, market it, launch it to a huge crowd, and shut it down the next day and it wouldn’t be different.
I’m not advocating against the goal of the petition but the basis of it isn’t strong.
Just don’t take away my digital copy and let me play offline God damn it.
And how would you punish a company that doesn’t do it? Because realistically, if it’s just a small fine, those multi million dollar companies might just not give a fuck. Shut the game down, pay a fine, cost of business and all, move on.
The best scenario here is that future games/consoles have an offline mode (so only single-player/local multiplayer are affected). Maybe companies have to put a caution label somewhere for service-based games. Many issues with the state of gaming but idk how much further this cause would go.
I think this is fair, surely the simple solution is just include an offline mode as an end of service mode, with the caveat that certain features may not function as intended, surely in the years since the crew came out Ubisoft could have worked on it rather than choosing the nuclear option
How can I possibly trust Ubisoft or any game company that produces a similar game now, I know my £70 (at current prices) is just a rental only I don’t know when the return date is
I think the people expecting the online modes to be working forever as they are now are asking too much, that’s where it becomes unreasonable to me
Honestly people have been going on about the price of the gold/ultimate edition for Star Wars outlaws but what has put me off is the news of the disc needing to connect to the internet before I can play, sure my PS5 is always online anyway but why even offer the disc at that point
How they gunna kill the previous game to force you to play the new (terrible) one? Is anyone thinking of the POOR CEO and THE SHAREHOLDERS here!? /s
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to open up to independent servers when Dev support ends.
Nah, allow IP rights to pass into public domain after like 5 years or so and publish their source unless they DO.
With the sheer amount of money I’ve given these companies over the year the least they could do is do the bare minimum to maintain their titles.
Our laws are way behind on technology/digital products. It’s a good start.
That would only achieve all games be forced into requiring a 5£ a month subscription…
Do your part UK people!
Tell me oyu have no idea about video game development without telling me you have no idea about video game development.
What happened to call of duty modern warfare 2019 from 2021 going forward is a crime unto humanity
Just so you know none of that is ever gonna happen