That's pretty much what you're signing up for when you buy a console game-as-a-service from one of the big publishers these days. These games are made to be huge hits; they make their money from having some critical threshold of players that can be milked with battlepasses and microtransactions. If a GaaS doesn't hit that threshold then the publisher fast tracks a sequel and has to find a palatable way of ushering all the players from the older installments to the newest one. Every bit of marketing that Ubisoft does for the latest Crew game probably ends up seeing some percentage of those prospective sales cannibalized by the older and heavily discounted iterations of The Crew. The fact that Ubisoft continued to support it for 10 years after multiple sequels is actually pretty commendable. It's only when you look at PC games where you get services that seemingly operate in perpetuity. UO, Everquest, DAoC, etc I believe are all still operating today.
Steam
- Thread starter pjbliverpool
- Start date
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
No regs necessary. People should grow up and stop being babies. How much could someone have possibly paid 4 months ago for a 10 year old game on Steam? Tempest in a teapot.
If you don't like Ubi policies, don't buy their games anymore. Stop expecting the government to save you all the time from you own responsibility to not let yourself get swindled.
If you don't like Ubi policies, don't buy their games anymore. Stop expecting the government to save you all the time from you own responsibility to not let yourself get swindled.
£26, apparently.
The only safe policy here is never buy online games. Without any requirement to warn people that a game might end in a few months, it's a crapshoot when the title you buy might be terminated - some are terminated very quickly, within a couple of years of release.
It's all very well saying "let the buyer beware" but there's no info to make informed decisions. If I buy milk today with an expiry date tomorrow and it goes off before I've finished it, that's on me. If I buy a carton of milk with no expiry date and it goes off tomorrow, how the hell was I supposed to know it was going to do that and choose not to buy it?! Sadly, the government intervened and made sure food has to have an expiry date so people can make informed decisions. Stupid nanny state, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
BTW: It doesn't necessarily warrant government intervention. An open dialogue that recognises the issue could prompt developers to provide EOL services themselves as the fairest move. But not talking about it at all changes nothing for the better, ever.
Last edited:
Definitely not as it might well be used for later projects.
This. Make the server code executable. A dedicated fanbase will then operate their own server(s). Plus patch games so the single player aspects are available without the servers (although a local dummy server might solve that).
Last edited:
Might be used for later projects, and might contain stuff they've licensed and can't release.
Of course this also raises the question about things in the game that may have time-limited licenses. Cars, brands, music, etc. Ultima Online and Everquest continue to operate, but Star Wars Galaxies and Marvel Heroes do not. The lesson I learned there is to not get invested in MMOs that are based on major IPs that are likely to get the license pulled after a while.
What are the analogous openworld MP/GaaS licensed car games to contrast The Crew with? TDU1/2? FH1/2/3/4? Need for Speed World? Are they all still operating?
Of course this also raises the question about things in the game that may have time-limited licenses. Cars, brands, music, etc. Ultima Online and Everquest continue to operate, but Star Wars Galaxies and Marvel Heroes do not. The lesson I learned there is to not get invested in MMOs that are based on major IPs that are likely to get the license pulled after a while.
What are the analogous openworld MP/GaaS licensed car games to contrast The Crew with? TDU1/2? FH1/2/3/4? Need for Speed World? Are they all still operating?
more than 4000 games published on Steam in only 3 months this year 2024, which is a record, and almost 10% more players.
Here are some of the big ones:
Palworld
Enshrouded
The Universim
Balatro
Backpack Battles
Interesting and surprising hits
EGG
LASERS
KeeperRL (a cool looking game that was built using amazingly popular Oryx’s asset packs)
Rental
No Case Should Remain Unsolved
Here are some of the big ones:
Palworld
Enshrouded
The Universim
Balatro
Backpack Battles
Interesting and surprising hits
EGG
LASERS
KeeperRL (a cool looking game that was built using amazingly popular Oryx’s asset packs)
Rental
No Case Should Remain Unsolved
A completely unsupported bundle of closed-source binaries running an internet-facing service?
I think liabilities regarding compatibility will be the least of anyone's worries in such a scenario...
Frankly I can't see any other rational option. Legislating exactly how someone writes their software doesn't seem to be a way forward either; subscription-based "as a service" exists for many non-ephemeral things in this world (the storied BMW seat heaters.) I see no reason why governments will turn "aaS" around anytime in the foreseeable future.
Further, there's no way to legislate the code become open-sourced; licensed intellectual property is still a thing which exists in our world. Writing a patch makes other certain assumptions about requiring effort on the part of the development house, and then we have yet more bugs to deal with.
So yeah, hosting a closed-source binary on the internet isn't the preferred option. Is it more or less preferred than the game and people's money simply being functionally erased?
And even if you're OK with it, is everyone else whose money has been functionally erased also OK with it?
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
It's $20. I think people need to get a grip. Skip a couple Starbucks coffees and they'll be fine.
No, I don't think this is the right attitude.
It's not just this one game, this one time, by this one company. It's dozens or even hundreds of games over the course of years, What makes it worse is: tThere's no specific warning on if and when an online game simply vanishes into the Aether. Or even worse, when a single player game simply stops functioning because the parent company abandons whatever shitty online-only licensing check thing they devised.
In a perfect world, legislation says those companies can't take away the software that we paid for. But this argument breaks down in the face of all the shitty "as a service" and "you don't own what you pay for" licensing which exists in the world today. Overturning decades of this crap is what we'd hope to achieve, unfortunately I feel we need answers sooner than fixing some really fundamentally broken shit in our society. And we aren't gonna get there on video games, regardless.
So then, what's the alternative which can facilitate those who purchased the game, while not "putting out" the big profiteering shops who don't want to support it any longer? if they're turning off all their servers, then they've already decided the income stream is dead. As such, there's no rational expectation of said company to "protect" an investment they've purposefully let die.
Thus, they should be expected to allow others to host these services. Their want to save money on hosting can be offset by their complete lack of any future sales because their hosting is now handled elsewhere and thus likely enabling some software sharing.
Almost nothing we face with First World Problems are a big deal. We still try to make those things better though, often on grounds of a principle. If I buy a multipack of crisps and one wasn't sealed properly and has gone off, I'm entitled to a replacement. It's a matter of pennies, but the principle is that you should get what you pay for.
This issue here isn't how much is being lost (whether the $4 you likely expected it to be when questioning how much a 10 year old game could sell for, or $20 as you state here, or the $30 that was the actual asking price, or more) - consumer rights don't stop at a minimum amount. The issue is a fair and equitable market where people know what they are getting and can make informed choices.
What is it with this attitude some people seem to have that it's always the victims fault, if a company rips you off its your fault the company is totally blameless.
I wonder if they carry that opinion into other area's. If someone is car jacked is it their fault for driving in the wrong area or owning a car ?
also do they also think they should be free to steal from and swindle people because and I quote " It's your own responsibility to not let yourself get swindled."
I wonder if they carry that opinion into other area's. If someone is car jacked is it their fault for driving in the wrong area or owning a car ?
also do they also think they should be free to steal from and swindle people because and I quote " It's your own responsibility to not let yourself get swindled."
Last edited:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
It's a big surprise to people that a 10 year old racing game with licensed cars might get shuttered? Ridiculous.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Thank you for the straw man. It'll make a nice fire.
Ubisoft isn't doing anything illegal. There aren't any crime victims here. It's hyperbolic in the extreme.
In a world of grown people, companies are expected to have responsibilities in regard to their consumers.
It’s such a basic premise of fair business.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mod mode: Keep it civil.
Back to regular posting mode: I'm in the Shifty Geezer camp on this topic. Just because "it's only a few bucks" doesn't make it right. There shouldn't be an imaginary minimal threshold on taking someone's money for thing, and then taking the thing away.
This really goes back to the larger conversation around service-based economies and this future model of everything becoming transactional. Is property ownership truly gone and dead? Do we get to a point where we rent our clothing, jewelry, and even our computers? I know Microsoft would love for us all to be on a pay-as-you-go subscription for Windows. Some day I suspect they'll try to push that, and that'll finally be the day I no longer have a current version of Windows somewhere in my house.
The current example, considered only as a singleton, perhaps isn't "swindling". The larger view of permitting or even normalizing software dev shops taking someone's money (for a non-subscription software) and then disabling said software still appears as a form of theft to me. And no imaginary threshold of money makes it different.
Back to regular posting mode: I'm in the Shifty Geezer camp on this topic. Just because "it's only a few bucks" doesn't make it right. There shouldn't be an imaginary minimal threshold on taking someone's money for thing, and then taking the thing away.
This really goes back to the larger conversation around service-based economies and this future model of everything becoming transactional. Is property ownership truly gone and dead? Do we get to a point where we rent our clothing, jewelry, and even our computers? I know Microsoft would love for us all to be on a pay-as-you-go subscription for Windows. Some day I suspect they'll try to push that, and that'll finally be the day I no longer have a current version of Windows somewhere in my house.
The current example, considered only as a singleton, perhaps isn't "swindling". The larger view of permitting or even normalizing software dev shops taking someone's money (for a non-subscription software) and then disabling said software still appears as a form of theft to me. And no imaginary threshold of money makes it different.
I know...My statement was admittedly kinda knee-jerk devil's advocate (occupational disease, I guess
), but yeah, forcing open-sourcing will remain a pipe dream. Releasing the blobs is absolutely the lesser evil - even if its just for practical archival purposes in the worst case.
And with the proliferation of OAuth and the like, I can at least imagine mitigations for the worst of the attack vectors (anything regarding auth).
I wonder if it would be realistic to push for release of API specs, there have been pushes in that direction in the name of interoperability, haven't there?
Honestly, we don't even know if this ephemeral "licensing server" method uses APIs, or some get / post SOAP method, or something far jankier like pure protocol / port calls (I've written some of that in my prior life.) A standard API spec would be great, however I wager there's no current incentive for software devs to go this route. I'm not holding my breath on it, for sure
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I'm fine moving on from this and agreeing to disagree. For my part, I'm glad pubs can end a 10+ year old racing game with licensed cars without intervention from an already bloated government. I'm also fine if consumer backlash is such that people don't support Ubisoft as much as they used to. Freedom, my friends. Freedom for Ubi not to be handcuffed forever by an old game and freedom for consumers to be pissed off at them for it.
You keep mentioning licensed cars. Is your assumption that Ubisoft are licensing from car makers for limited time with the intention of shutting down the game after X years, as opposed to console disc games which would require licenses in perpetuity? Again an assumption that said limited license would be cheaper?I'm fine moving on from this and agreeing to disagree. For my part, I'm glad pubs can end a 10+ year old racing game with licensed cars without intervention from an already bloated government. I'm also fine if consumer backlash is such that people don't support Ubisoft as much as they used to. Freedom, my friends. Freedom for Ubi not to be handcuffed forever by an old game and freedom for consumers to be pissed off at them for it.
Similar threads
