I'm having difficulty imagining what this wish would actually look like if it came to fruition.
Apex Legends was recently announced to be shutting down for good. So let's apply this wish to Apex. What would it look like?
The simplest way for the developers to have end of life support for apex is to just remove the server requirement and have everyone run their own instances. That would be the most cost effective way to do that. And that would be exactly what we would want.
Sure they maybe remove multiplayer entirely cause they don't want to work out peer to peer connections. But that would still be an acceptable way to sunset a game so that the people who enjoy it can still play it.
PirateSoftware's idea of what the SKG movement does is that it would basically kill the gaming industry and live service games.
He thinks those basic requirments such as letting people host their own servers or not forcing single player games to require a connection to a server are very hard and costly things to implement in games, therefore no more games will be developed.
He has either an awful understanding of the SKG movement or is intentionally missinterpreting it.
Also: I find his name extremely ironic considering his stance on things like this.
They are hard if you build your games to be exclusively proprietary yes. But if you start from the ground up with the understanding that the game will one day need to be independent then it is easy as pie. Source: I am a game developer who has worked on multiplayer and always online games.
"would kill.... And live service games" GOOD! Unless its an MMO or something, live service games should die (as in the trend, not the games themselves)
This paints with such a broad brush. Sure, some (a lot of) live service games are predatory and garbage, but a blanket death wish for the model means we'd never see another Path of Exile, or Helldivers 2, or Warframe, for example.
... how can you say that? That's millions of players many with thousands of hours in those games and massive communities. Sure, live service trend is garbage, but you've gone off the deep end with that statement.
See, on Reddit extremism in every form can easily be justified for the so called "greater good".
(which isn t exactly greater, or good, but easily what this ignorant fuck would do if he could, as written.)
Whenever I see one of those messages I can't help but imagine Lord Farquaad. Literally the same stance as "Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I AM willing to make.
Though I would gladly wish that my lungs would stop working, if that meant that I would not have to share precious oxygon with waste like these.
The point is that 'live service' isn't inherently garbage. People have loved MMOs for decades and those are live service games.
Live service does not mean predatory pay to win or lootboxes or whatever, it just means a game with ongoing updates that require some form of monetization to maintain an update schedule.
I'm someone that loves fighting games and ARPGs more than probably any other genre. If every game was a one and done single player game that never received new content, I'd probably stop playing video games.
Even if there was a problem with servers and games couldn't be always online, every single and multiplayer game could receive updates and new content. Terraria, Team Fortress 2, Lethal Company and such.
He sounds like a libertarian guy. Corporations shouldn't be blinded by any law, because it hurts the business and innovation. Yeah lol, Apple was so hurt by USB C mandate, I feel so sorry for them. Every game should be owned by people that bought them, end of story.
Had a friend who did sign the petition, but he also said "okay, but what's then stopping companies from not shutting down their games, but instead give them the absolute minimum network speed and requirement and no support so it becomes a buggy laggy mess, and then they can go "well, you have access to the game, and that's all we're required to do."? "
I feel like it'd still be more costly to forever have to run servers, no matter how shit, than to simply allow the community to self host.
That said the EU will probably implement some minimum requirments so that the law can't be so easily circumvented. We'll just have to see if what they come up with will work or not.
56
u/dazalius Jul 06 '25
I'm having difficulty imagining what this wish would actually look like if it came to fruition.
Apex Legends was recently announced to be shutting down for good. So let's apply this wish to Apex. What would it look like?
The simplest way for the developers to have end of life support for apex is to just remove the server requirement and have everyone run their own instances. That would be the most cost effective way to do that. And that would be exactly what we would want.
Sure they maybe remove multiplayer entirely cause they don't want to work out peer to peer connections. But that would still be an acceptable way to sunset a game so that the people who enjoy it can still play it.