• Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Looks like some of those are games that were cancelled, some were online multiplayer games that had the servers shutdown, some were simply removed from the Microsoft Store and some were single player games with always online DRM for which they shut the servers down. So it’s not all super scummy nonsense

        • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Taking away a game you bought because the game was intentionally made to rely on a server is always scummy behavior. That’s the whole point.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            If it’s a game like an MMO (which several on that list are) they’d have to publish the server software in order to avoid fully killing the game. And to publish the server software that was only ever expected to run in their own datacenters they’d then have to publish documentation, dependencies, etc. and this is all assuming that it can be contained in a single installer for a single machine without relying on additional services they host, and assuming it has reasonable system requirements for average users to self host.

            That’s also assuming playing an MMO alone/with only 1-2 people doesn’t suck. Play some 2009scape single player without adventure bots. It feels lonely as all heck

            Plus there’s all of the legal and PR hurdles to ensure you’re not exposing yourself to undue risk.

            Basically a million reasons for a company to not spend a thousand work hours ensuring their crappy MMO (I’ve tried out a couple of the listed MMOs, they were unsuccessful for a reason) can continue to be played after they’ve divested from it

            • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              Licenses and middleware can be chosen more proactively to preserve and distribute the server if they know during development that it’s a requirement. There are tons of people who functionally play MMOs single player already, when the server is already running. And I play a 12 year old fighting game that’s easily able to coordinate 20-100 people to play it multiple times per week with nothing but Discord; there’s no doubt in my mind you’d be able to get 40 people together for a raid on a private server.

            • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The other answer from @[email protected] already covers most points, so I’ll just a few things:

              • Most game servers out there are already built in a way to allow for easy deployment. After all, devs have to have way to test changes, so being able to run a small server locally for debugging purposes is hugely beneficial to development.
              • I also can’t imagine that there’s any game server out there that shouldn’t be able to run on a single system. The heaviest one game I can imagine is Minecraft, due to the whole open world terrain generation, world streaming and physics calculations, and even that can be run off a Raspberry Pi for a small number of players.
        • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          With the possible exception of games that were canceled, those are all examples of super scummy nonsense.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh no! Not Microsoft Bingo! That’s a list of D list games nobody has ever heard of that all shutdown years ago. I don’t think the world would be a better place if the devs of Radical Heights, a free to play arena shooter that was launched and shutdown a month later in 2018 were forced to give their game out to everyone for free after.

        • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Hello, sole arbiter of a game’s worth.

          Of course not every game is a certified banger, but there’s more than enough notable games on that list that made an impact on the industry and should’ve been preserved for that fact alone.

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

            • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 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
                ·
                2 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?

                • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 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
                    ·
                    2 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?

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