“It’s a weird, challenging problem, though, because I think that at the same time, if we’re going to have any games that are sincere live services, it seems mutually exclusive to have something that’s going to be a living thing that can’t be allowed to die. I don’t know how to get around that.”
Dedicated servers. Let people host their own servers. How is this so fucking hard to understand? When the company is ready to move on and retire their official servers they can do so without invoking ire from the playerbase.
Or keep the live service model, but label things correctly:
You’re getting a subscription to the service that’s guaranteed to last at least until [planned minimum end date]. Make it illegal to label anything using “buy” that doesn’t grant a permanent, non-expiring license to the software or digital good.
There’s nothing wrong with charging for a subscription. If that’s their product, and the only way they can offer the product, then clearly market it that way and there’s no legal problem under the proposed rules.
Granted, that still sucks for videogame preservation, but at least it’s honest. And I’m not sure how many people will be willing to shell out $80+ for a “minimum 24 month subscription” to a new game, or pay $9.99 for a "micro"transaction they’re guaranteed to keep access to for 8 7 6 5 months.
Dedicated servers. Let people host their own servers. How is this so fucking hard to understand? When the company is ready to move on and retire their official servers they can do so without invoking ire from the playerbase.
Yup. Even just release the match matching server as a Linux app would be better than what they do now which is just kill it all.
Or keep the live service model, but label things correctly:
You’re getting a subscription to the service that’s guaranteed to last at least until [planned minimum end date]. Make it illegal to label anything using “buy” that doesn’t grant a permanent, non-expiring license to the software or digital good.
There’s nothing wrong with charging for a subscription. If that’s their product, and the only way they can offer the product, then clearly market it that way and there’s no legal problem under the proposed rules.
Granted, that still sucks for videogame preservation, but at least it’s honest. And I’m not sure how many people will be willing to shell out $80+ for a “minimum 24 month subscription” to a new game, or pay $9.99 for a "micro"transaction they’re guaranteed to keep access to for
8 7 65 months.