92
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
92 points (98.9% liked)
PC Gaming
8568 readers
341 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
For single player games, I absolutely agree. If you're going to stop supporting the game, send out one last patch turning off any always online DRM and let people keep playing their game.
For multiplayer games, it seems like it's a bit more complicated. Who should be shouldering the cost to keep the game servers alive?
I know it would be radical, but you could require that they release the server code open source. So it's not their responsibility to run it, but if the community wants to run it, they can.
Or, if that's complicated due to licensing etc, they could release a minimal server implementation that maybe doesn't scale the same way, but at least has the interfaces covered so the community can take it from there. The game could at least still be played.
They don't need to release it as open source. They could just do what games used to do, have a server executable so people can host their own sessions.