We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws. Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position with policy makers and those who have led the European Citizens Initiative in the coming months.
    • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
      216·
      2 days ago

      I tried to pick the most obvious example of an online only title.

      What’s the plan with a 100 player battle royal game?

      Edit: the guy I replied to chose to quote someone saying a game is online only, and their suggestion was to change that.

      And then ya’ll come in with replies about keeping it online only, and they have 55 upvotes as of this edit.

      • Whitebrow@lemmy.worldEnglish
        18·
        2 days ago

        As long as people can host a server instance, does it matter?

        Hypothetically, even if it costs 1000$ per hour in AWS fees to get the required hardware to run that, at least you have the option to, alternatively have a peer to peer option to play smaller version on a LAN with a max of however many players your own network can support, there could be many implementations, which at the end of the day would still allow you to play the game when the official servers (authentication or room hosts) are shuttered and inaccessible

        The main point of SKG is that currently, we, as customers, are not even getting the short end of the stick, we are getting no stick, despite having paid for it.

        And ultimately, at the end of the day, not our problem to try to figure this out, the point is we’re unhappy with the current situation and want things to change.

        Also note that none of this is retroactive, will only apply to games released in the future, so having an end of life plan as a requirement from the get-go is pretty simple to work on when nothing was done yet.

      • UnbrokenTaco@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        Hosting your own server and playing multiplayer games over LAN is playing offline. Is that what you’re asking?

      • Davin@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 day ago

        You can host the server on the same machine the game is running on, it’s not uncommon during development especially the early stages.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        2 days ago

        I can find a community for a fighting game from 2012 to get together every Thursday night for a 30-person tournament via Discord. 100 people in a battle royale could work much the same.

        • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
          112·
          2 days ago

          That fighting game is not online only, I bet.

          I replied to someone saying that an online only game should change their design.