Just release server binaries, at least when you decide to shutter support (preferably just release them with the game). Then the community can take over at zero cost to the developer.
What does the server infrastructure actually look like for these games? "Just release server binaries" kinda implies there is a simple .exe file that an average user can run to host their own server. In today's age of cloud computing, microservices, and serverless computing, I'm not sure if it is as simple as the suggestion implies. Especially for some of the bigger companies that likely have their own shared infrastructure across games. For example, is it even possible to separate the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare server code from the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 server code?
> "Just release server binaries" kinda implies there is a simple .exe file that an average user can run to host their own server.
FWIW in an online game i worked on recently(ish), which was BTW shut down by the publisher (thus making all the work people spent on it for years go to waste), it was really just "run a single .exe" - pretty much every developer had the server running on their machine for local debugging.
Yes, it's probably complex, but if you release everything required, then a sufficiently dedicated community will figure it out. Or maybe nobody will bother because the game was bad. Either way you lose nothing.
Re: shared infra - there will probably be some testing component used for local dev, you can release that instead of the full thing. For example: just the dedicated server part that I can connect to using a dev command line flag to play a game, but not the shared infra login system, lobby server, inventory server, matchmaking etc.
Sure, there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible to disentangle from a live, profitable other game - but I would wager the vast majority of games could be covered with very low effort.
>Sure, there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible to disentangle from a live, profitable other game - but I would wager the vast majority of games could be covered with very low effort.
I don't think we should be making laws in which "there will be some edge cases where it really is impossible" to comply. I get and empathize with the spirit, but you and the people behind this campaign can't just dismiss the complexities involved here with "I would wager" type responses. It shows a lack of insight into the realities of both game development and legislation.
I don't think a youtube video is the place to iron out edge cases. that's more a thing for regulators.
Requiring complex infrastructure with big ongoing costs, and requiring a constant income stream from consumers to support it is evidence that a game is a service and not a good, and as such there's no expectation of a perpetual license.
The fact remains people paid a one time fee to play the crew, and now you can't play it anymore, even offline. It was sold as a good, and not as a service.
Meanwhile other games with big offline and online components such as Elden Ring are completely playable offline, and mods already exist to allow online multiplayer without utilizing centralized servers. A discussion needs to happen about what is and isn't fraud.
The entire point of this campaign is to make the companies think about these kinds of decisions before making the game.
Imagine if your fridge cut out after two years because the company went bankrupt, would you really just accept "Oh well, it was designed that way! It's far too complicated to expect the company who made it in the first place to plan around that happening, that's just the way the industry works."
It's absolute madness that games are just kind of expected to die simply because its not a physical good.
That is a silly analogy. Fridges don't have an ongoing costs to the manufacturer. To be the equivalent of games, the fridge would have to come with an implicit promise that the manufacturer will pay for the electricity use of the fridge. You would then effectively be arguing that the manufacturer is obligated to send you a free generator if they went bankrupt.
The point is that games already rely on ongoing support. I admit my analogy isn't perfect, but I was trying to work off your analogy which completely ignores why these games break. It isn't directly because the developer went bankrupt. It is because the developer stopped providing a service that they previously provided for free.
