I already posted about this on facebook, and I doubt that this will be read by even a single solitary person, but still, if you're interested in my opinion on the topic, I thought I'd elaborate here...

So, there is this new EU citizens initiative, which; at its core, is about digital ownership. And it aims to make proper legislation to protect consumer rights, specifically as it pertains to video games. Even more specifically the video games that are tied to remote servers, some of which are connected frivolously... just because...

These servers will all inevitably go down, and they will take your copy of the games down with them (even though you have paid money for it). Unless of course they are developed with an exit strategy in mind, which is what this initiative calls for.

This past week, I have been listening to opinions both for and against this initiative, but from the start I have found myself pretty strongly agreeing with the initiative and that we need consumer protections.

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

My general opinion of the issue can be summed up like this:

Developers should have the following rights:

• Should be allowed to create any kind of game they want, in whatever way they want to, using whatever middleware or licenses they want.
• Should be able to stop selling/supporting any game, for any reason, at any time. (within reason and with proper notification)

Customers should have the following rights

• Should be able to retain and play their copy of any game product that they have purchased.
• Should be able to know if they are buying a product, or a lifetime subscription to one, at the time of purchase.

These rights shouldn't even be at odds with each other, and where they are, we will definitely need to have legislation (that hopefully favors the consumer).

Clear Labelling

Of course, the real world seldom is this straight-forward... But I honestly think that 90% of this issue could be solved with clear labelling, and possibly REQUIRING all developers of live-service games to provide a payment option for a monthly and/or annual subscription. It doesn't really matter if this subscription is cheaper or way more expensive than the regular version of the game, and it can even co-exist with a the regular version as a "lifetime subscription".

This would require some work from the likes of Steam, GOG, Epic or any other store that wants to support these live-service games going forward. But they would probably happily do it, if they can take a cut of the subscriptions. LOL

I would not personally sign up for such a subscription, nor would I hope that anyone else would. But, if the option is there, and/or the "lifetime subscription" is clearly labelled as such, the consumer knows exactly what they are buying.

Another thing that would be really good to know when you're considering picking up an older title that requires a server... Like for instance you were picking up "The Crew" late last year, or perhaps during last years summer sale... If the store page had something like a: "online service minimally available until" date/time. This would have to be a rolling timestamp, based on how many months/years the developer currently wants to pledge to guarantee support for, and it would naturally be allowed to decrease over time, although each individual players minimum quaranteed support must always be honered.

On the other hand no developer should be forced to set the support window any longer or shorter than they want to, they can set a day or a week, and then customer can choose to buy it or not.

Specific cases

For Singleplayer games (or local-only multiplayer games)

These should be completely unaffected, you can shut down the store page(s) and stop selling/supporting the game whenever you want.

For Singleplayer games (that are frivolously connected to a server)

It doesn't matter if your game is connected to a server to: avoid cheating, serve ads, check for updates... display the time... I don't care, whatever the reason, if your singleplayer (or splitscreen-only multiplayer) game stops working the day that you shut down your server, and you can't be asked to rip it out before abandoning your game... With all do respect... GO FUC... ...take a long walk off of a short pier.

You never deserved a single one of your sales in the first place, and you absolutely do deserve to re-imburse every single customer who wants it. (in my opinion)

For Multiplayer games (that can run via LAN/dedicated server)

Just release the dedicated server binary, compile it into the game, open-source it if possible - OR - Just sell the game as a subscription, or otherwise time-limited purchase (which is not currently possible, but which this legislation would facilitate).

And finally... For Live service games...

Just stop making live service games...

No, kidding... Well, somewhat... of course, they could also just be relabeled as time-limited purchases. But I do also think that there are too many games that are connected to the internet, when they absolutely do not need to be. And having legislation on the subject might help developers decide how best to monetize their particular games. Say if they losely couple their online service so that the game can continue to function after the server shuts down, they might sell more copies than if they have to label it as a time-limited purchase.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if all you can do in a game is just to walk around a completely barren game world. The player should have access to the game that they bought. And even if it requires the player to hire a team of dedicated engineers to create a custom server for the game, as long as you open the game up to simply connecting to another server address, which could even just be just be passed in as a parameter or exposed in a config file. No UI changes necessary (appreciated, but not required). That would be all that you should be forced to do. Well, that and not stand in the way of someone else trying to run their own server.