Comment DQ Re: One way or another


Should companies offering online services be required to maintain them?


One way or another (Score: 5, Insightful)

by on 2014-03-08 14:35 (#B0)

Barring actually running the servers themselves, the publishers should provide their customers a way of hosting their own servers. This should be baked into the code from the beginning; "if PUBLISHER_SERVER=DOWN, then ENABLE_LOCAL_HOST_SUPPORT". Or this functionality can be added by a patch held in escrow until the game reaches end-of-life.

Of course, publishers will never go for it. Aside from adding complexity to the code, they reap too many benefits from controlling the online server, not least of which is that it enables a forced obsolescence into their product. They don't WANT the customers to keep playing the same game year after year; they want you to buy the new model.

Publishers get away with this because the industry have managed to convince consumers that they do not OWN the product, but merely license it. Customers are merely paying for the privilege of temporarily using the product so long as the publisher allows it. More, they have been known to actively pursue hobbyists who try to add in this missing functionality. It's one of the great rip offs of 21st century.

I have games from 20 years ago that - with the correct hardware - I can still boot up and play. But some games that are only a few years old I'll never be able to play again.

Re: One way or another (Score: 2, Insightful)

by on 2014-03-10 21:43 (#DQ)

I agree 100%. When the publisher EOLs the online services they aren't going to make any more money out of it, and maybe letting the community run their own services will keep interest in the product so they can sell you a sequel sometime later.


Time Reason Points Voter
2014-03-11 00:01 Insightful +1

Junk Status

Not marked as junk