> 10 year old online game, if you paid $60 for it in 2014 you’ve got plenty of value for money for your entertainment
How about people who aren’t born yet who would love to play this game? Should we also burn all books that are older than 10 years because enough people read them?
> I feel like it’s very silly to expect every single game to have a single player mode. Yes, multiplayer games cost money, and yes, most of them shut down at some point.
We are not talking about single/multi player games. No, multiplayer games don’t always cost money.
What we are talking about is people buying a software thinking they will be able to use it forever, but 10 years later seller destroying what people have bought.
There are 2 correct solutions to this problem:
1. Let people know the shut down date at the time of purchase.
2. Allow people to play game without of having to rely on a server that people don’t control. For example, Ubisoft could open source their The Crew server (or at least release binary) so that people could run that server themselves to be able to play the game.
Ultimately Ubisoft is the author of the work, the holder of the copyright, and can do what they want. Yes, an artist can withdraw their painting from public viewing so that people in the future don’t get to experience it. They can charge you an entry fee to their exhibition and tell you to leave at the end of the day.
As far as the shutdown date, there’s no way to predict that at time of launch. Companies can only promise what is financially viable. A mediocre selling game of this type going for 10 years of working online is considered pretty decent in the gaming world. Many game studios don’t even last 10 years.
It would be nice to get a dedicated server but not every multiplayer game type is suited for it and Ubisoft has to pay someone to develop that free product that doesn’t make them a dime. A game like Fortnite would be difficult to offer as a dedicated server product. You need 100 players just to play a match, and the game’s multiplayer infrastructure is built with a huge player base in mind. It is not likely something that can be practically offered as a simple executable that can be run on a consumer system without major changes.
(What I meant by saying that multipayer games cost money is that despite having a purchase price for the license it’s generally understood that they’re not guaranteed to be “open forever” types of experiences. People who buy call of duty know that that year’s version of the game will not have a player base forever and will eventually be shut off. Like I’ve pointed out in other comments, there’s a literal disclaimer on the box that says that much).
How about people who aren’t born yet who would love to play this game? Should we also burn all books that are older than 10 years because enough people read them?
> I feel like it’s very silly to expect every single game to have a single player mode. Yes, multiplayer games cost money, and yes, most of them shut down at some point.
We are not talking about single/multi player games. No, multiplayer games don’t always cost money.
What we are talking about is people buying a software thinking they will be able to use it forever, but 10 years later seller destroying what people have bought.
There are 2 correct solutions to this problem:
1. Let people know the shut down date at the time of purchase.
2. Allow people to play game without of having to rely on a server that people don’t control. For example, Ubisoft could open source their The Crew server (or at least release binary) so that people could run that server themselves to be able to play the game.