On 14th December 2023, Ubisoft announced the delisting of its first game, The Crew, from all online stores. “The game will remain playable until March 31st, 2024, for all The Crew 1 owners. After this date, the servers will be shut down, which means that the game will not be accessible anymore on any platform, including PC / Xbox 360 / Xbox One / PlayStation 4 / Amazon Luna and Ubisoft+,” said the publisher, citing server infrastructure and licensing constraints.
Of course, there was a lot of backlash around this decision, with many fans calling out Ubisoft for nuking their favorite game, as one fan on X put it: So much work put into something that we bought, and even though we'd be happy to play a version with longer loading and no multiplayer, since we'd still get to play the game on our system instead of a server, you're killing it.
Ironically, despite all the technological advancements, growth of the industry, and chest-thumping by big-name publishers, many of the older video games are disappearing. Many games that are now considered old and obsolete were once ‘coming soon’ and ‘much-anticipated new releases’ ahead of their time. Most of them are now outdated, superseded, and unsupported by their publishers and developers, leaving us to only reminisce about them as if they were enigmas and products of the last century with barely any trace of existence. Remember the Matrix Online and its MxO community?
With more and more game studios announcing the death of their once flagship games, video game enthusiasts are openly talking about planned obsolescence prevalent in the industry. Games that lag behind and those that cannot catch up with the advancement of technology are made to succumb. They are made inaccessible and unplayable.
The glaring issue with this practice is not only the fact that players who paid to own the game no longer see value, but also damages the morale of countless people who poured in their creativity on the game for years.
Recently, with the delisting of The Crew, there seems to be a domino effect in the community, with many players coming together to call for video game preservation and call out the apparent planned obsolescence. There is now a growing demand for preservation initiatives and this has led to widespread activism and movements within the gaming community. There has also risen a pressing need for a legal framework to ensure the longevity of digital products so that they can be enjoyed and savored by generations to come.
However, with all the calls for preservation and activism against planned obsolescence in the video game industry, there are a myriad of legal issues related to intellectual property and digital rights management that often complicate preservation efforts.
This article will dive into why games are becoming obsolete, what the Stop Killing Games initiative is all about, what its ideologies are, and some of the criticism around this petition.
Why Is Planned Obsolescence in Video Games Bad?
Video games becoming obsolete and unplayable is problematic for several reasons. It not only affects consumers who paid money to get the game but also affects digital culture preservation. In today’s world, video games play a crucial part in modern culture and are viewed as heritage. When games are rendered unplayable due to server shutdowns or technological obsolescence, it leads to the total erasure of these digital artifacts and there is a risk of these games being lost forever. Classic books are reprinted, movies are remastered and re-released, and music albums are archived so that future generations can cherish them and learn from them. Unfortunately, no formal mechanism exists to ensure the preservation of old video games, leaving them vulnerable to obsolescence once publisher support is withdrawn.
There have been many voices in the industry that call for video game preservation, perhaps the most vocal being the Video Game History Foundation, a non-profit that actively seeks to preserve games in different ways. Likewise, in July 2024, Ross Scott of AccursedFarms started the Stop Killing Games initiative, in an attempt to get the big game publishing studios to turn their heads. This initiative has been dubbed one of the biggest petitions that view killing games as a customer rights issue.
Circling back to the importance of preserving video games, Kelsey Lewin, co-director of the Video Game History Foundation, says in an interview, “We believe video games are part of our culture and that people should be able to have the tools and resources to study them.” Most of the struggle with efforts such as the Video Game History Foundation is the constant tussle with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), particularly the Section 1201.
As per this Section, it is prohibited to circumvent technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including video games. Essentially, this curtails video game archivists from even transferring a video game from one medium to another because it exposes them to legal risks, even if their intentions were harmless. According to experts, as cited by The Verge, DMCA Section 1201 is the reason why museums and libraries have not gotten involved with video games since they are risk-averse.
Additionally, there’s also the notion of consumer protection and consumer laws that pop up when there is a discourse about publishers ending support for their video games. The idea is that if consumers purchase a game, they should be able to access it as long as they have the necessary and supporting hardware. Disabling games post-purchase can spark concerns over the legality of such actions and potential breaches of consumer protection laws, an area that remains unexplored, according to the Stop Killing Games initiative and petition.
Calling this practice an assault on consumer rights and preservation of media, it further adds, “An increasing number of videogames are sold as goods, but designed to be completely unplayable for everyone as soon as support ends. The legality of this practice is untested worldwide, and many governments do not have clear laws regarding these actions.”
What is the Stop Killing Games Initiative?
The Stop Killing Games is a European Citizen’s Initiative that started seeking support from other EU citizens on 31st July 2024. This initiative’s goal is simply to preserve access to the games in a playable manner without completely cutting out access. Stop Killing Games believes that when publishers decide to sever the connection needed for their games to function, they “proceed to destroy all working copies of the game.”
It adds, “This practice is effectively robbing customers of their purchases and makes restoration impossible. It represents a radical assault on consumer rights and even the concept of ownership itself.”
.jpg)
Stop Killing Games Initiative
The initiative aims to require video game publishers in the European Union to ensure their games remain playable after official support ends, preventing the remote disabling of these games. It also seeks to provide reasonable means for the game to function independently of the publisher, without demanding ownership or additional resources from the company. Stop Killing Games also notes that it does not seek to get its hands on ownership of video games, their intellectual rights, or monetization rights. It further clarifies that it does not expect the publisher to “provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.”
Stop Killing Games cites Sony’s Gran Turismo Sport, Knockout City by Velan Studios, Mega Man X DiVE by Capcom, and Bandai Namco Entertainment’s Duelyst as some successful examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way. Sony kept most of Gran Turismo’s core offline experience intact and ensured that players could continue enjoying a product they paid for. Likewise, Bandai Namco released Duelyst's assets for free, allowing the community and indie developers to be able to resurrect the game. The Stop Killing Games petition calls exactly for this: Transparency and initiative from publishers who think about their players while gracefully winding down a game. It also vocalizes the need for some retention of playability or functionality of games, instead of completely shutting down.
The petition is presented as a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI), a mechanism where citizens can suggest new legislation. The European Commission must consider proposing new legislation if the petition hits over one million signatures from at least seven member countries before July 31, 2025. At the time of writing this article, around 296,998 EU citizens have signed this petition. However, the petition needs to meet the minimum threshold numbers in different member states.
If passed, the law would require publishers to keep games in a functional state even after they are delisted. This would prevent publishers from remotely disabling games, ensuring that consumers who purchase digital games retain access to them, even long after official support ends. The EU law could set a global precedent for preserving video games as cultural artifacts.
Criticism Around the Stop Killing Games Petition
Some of the criticism around the Stop Killing Games petition revolves around the fact that it is vague and that it generalizes all video games, when in fact, such initiatives should be targeting the publishers who have tacky business practices. One of the biggest opposing notions was presented by Jason “Thor” Hall aka Pirate Software, who says that the Stop Killing Games initiative has brought up the wrong conversation in the industry. According to him, it is unfeasible to keep live service games running forever when there are only a few players who log in religiously to play. The cost of running the server outweighs the profits generated by the game, and it makes logical sense to shut down the server.
However, he does point out that initiatives such as this can call out specific publishers who try to sell these online-only games as single-player experiences. Further, he dissected the fight around The Crew, one of the major talking points of the Stop Killing Games petition. Pirate Software argued that The Crew likely faced licensing issues from the car companies, and also pointed out the fall in the number of active players. He also brought into the picture the release of The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest which were released in 2018, and 2023, respectively. Pirate Software also clarified that with most live service games, players are buying the license to play the game and not the game itself.
However, it should be kept in mind that Pirate Software is the co-founder of Offbrand Games, the publisher of Rivals 2, a live servicing game.
With tension brewing among those who want to hold publishers accountable for killing off games and those who say the Stop Killing Games petition is vague and sets the wrong precedent, there should be more discourse around publishers who still have games that are run using self-hosted servers. Instead of completely taking down a game, video game companies could explore this concept more and allow players to host their own local servers to play the game with their friends.
Games like Counter-Strike (2002) and Left 4 Dead 1 alive, and Diablo games still continue to have a niche player base, who continue to savor the game through self-hosted servers.
from AFK Gaming https://ift.tt/f9Dgjzd
Hello, my name is Jack Sparrow. I'm a 50 year old self-employed Pirate from the Caribbean.
No comments:
Post a Comment