“Although Sweet Bandits had to close their doors, we don’t believe Deceive Inc. should quietly disappear because the services behind it aren’t sustainable forever,” the unsigned post reads. "We’re actively rebuilding Deceive Inc.’s backend to be sustainable indefinitely and support community-hosted dedicated servers.
Good guy devs and count me in for self-hosting a dedicated server.
They can have a ladder and matchmaking while still providing a server browser that goes to self-hosted servers. Even then, these are things that you set up with the assumption that your game is going to have a massive population, which is the foolish assumption all these live service games make. MMOs have been self-hosted for as long as pirates have been reverse-engineering the code. The only thing stopping it from happening more is the rights holders’ willingness to allow it. Competitive shooters started from server browsers and self-hosted servers.
If they wait until the game is a failure and about to close shop, I have no guarantee that this update will be its fate. But let’s say I know in advance somehow that the game is going to survive the servers’ decommissioning; I still end up with all the other negative side effects of an always-online game in the interim. Server queues, downtime that I can’t do anything about, no ability to play LAN with friends in a place with lousy internet, etc. SKG is looking for a minimum of preservation that I can get behind, but I don’t think it would be enough for me as a customer unless it was never always-online.
Looks like I missed it as I scrolled by a block on that page trying to recommend me other articles, as I was looking for the rest of this article.
True, but I explained that for a small team who has to choose where the spend their resources, supporting both can be prohibitively costly
False, I listed several features a game of any size might reasonably want.
That’s irrelevant to the discussion for multiple reasons, but the part that is relevant relates to the control over content, and an intended user experience. No one on a community MMO server is able to play alongside people on official servers, which is literally the point of an MMO. They can’t because there’s no control over the content; admins of those servers can (and do) hand out 100x the gold, XP, and top level gear, which is not the intended experience. Allowing the servers to exist is a completely separate legal matter (using a fully reverse engineered backend should not be a problem, but distributing copyrighted IP, much less charging money is a problem), but you can’t demand that a dev dedicate resources to support an unintended user experience.
It would be as simple as saying, “if you can’t release a proper server binary, then you have to make your source available to license holders” (There may need to be an audit step when selling a game in a country to prove that they have the legal ability to open source their backend if it comes to that, but that is tenable.)
Then make your own game. That’s an absurd demand. That’s like going to a theater or buying a bluray, and then demanding the director re-shoot various scenes on your behalf. They made the experience they made, they’re willing to sell you a license to experience what they made. No one is forcing you to buy it, and we should force them to ensure the license never expires and that experience can always be experienced.
I think you’re conflating a few things of what I said here. I know what SKG is asking for, and I’m not suggesting they change it.
What I personally want is a game that survives offline today, tomorrow, and indefinitely, for the reasons I’ve stated.
And I think that regardless of whether or not anything changes legislatively, it’s such a losing bet to design your infrastructure for online matchmaking only, since most populations drop off extremely quickly, that you end up with costly retrofits like this in a best-case scenario after that point, so you may as well prepare for low population instead. This game, for instance, went from thousands of concurrent players to hundreds in just two months. It’s not an absurd demand to get a game built for offline play. They still make those. No one is forcing me to buy a game that isn’t built that way, but it’s really fucking hard to know which is which sometimes, even when doing research. The only thing that necessitates a central server that only the company controls, even for an MMO, is the business model, and them not wanting you to remove opportunities for them to sell you subscriptions and microtransactions. Nothing needs one, especially when the odds are your game will end up with low pop in no time at all.
So, yes, there may be a breakdown in terminology here. When I hear someone say they “demand” something from someone, for ex.
I’m hearing that you want legislation to require offline play. To me “demand” means non-negotiable.
If you aren’t saying that you think SKG should introduce legislation to make your preferences legally mandated, and instead just indicating what you would like to see from devs, maybe a better word to use is, “ask”. I don’t think it’s an absurd ask for a game to be built for offline play. But for games where offline play doesn’t make sense, it’s absurd to make it mandatory.
Agreed, and there’s no legislation requiring devs to lay out their plan ahead of time, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the people to demand that information.
I disagree. By releasing a dedicated server binary for a game, you are inviting a fractured playerbase. “Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game”, and sometimes, letting players host their own game server gives them that opportunity. It is difficult enough to get people to play your game to begin with, it can be a deathknell to your intended experience if you allow players control over hosting your game.
I’ll give a tangible example: I played Sea of Thieves several years ago. The intended experience is that you are sailing on an open sea with your crew, collecting treasure, and always with the possibility of running into another crew. Sometimes those other crews would be friendly, and you’d team up and complete content with them, or maybe just pass each other by while keeping a sharp eye on them. Other times they would be openly hostile, and you’d immediately be thrust into a ship battle. But most interactions fell in the middle somewhere. They might help you defeat a boss, only to then turn on you and take the treasure for themselves. Because you’re pirates. That tension of not knowing who you can trust was core to the game.
But for the entire life of SoT, players complained about running into pirates in their pirating game. “Just give me a way to do the PvE content by myself” they would complain. Eventually, they caved. They were likely losing too many players to inconvenient experiences with other players. The result is that now all the peaceful players isolate themselves, never to experience any random human interaction in game ever again, and the vast majority of people playing on open seas are just cutthroats trolling for blood. You end up with, what I believe is a less interesting experience for everyone, none of it is the original intended experience. IMO, by allowing players more choice, they chose money over the novel experience I loved the game for.
But even though I don’t play any more, the moment SoT decides they’re done hosting their servers, I don’t care what they do, as long as I can still play that game with other people. I can’t demand that they preserve the experience I liked; that’s their art and they’ve done what they want with it. But I can demand that my license to play the game never expires for any reason.