this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
336 points (99.7% liked)
Gaming
4744 readers
167 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unless they have servers or update or any kind of labor/cost behind them.
Single player locally hosted games sgould be buy once and never again, and most are. I not actually sure i know of one that isn't.
No, the point of the Stop Killing Games initiative is to make games buy once, be playable forever somehow. If a game releases that is dependent on server infrastructure, the studio should have an end of life plan. That could look like many things, including releasing the tools necessary for anyone else to spin up a server.
Yeah, but that doesn't actually include games like, say, World of Warcraft. You can only buy monthly subscription. You are told it will run out in a month and you will need to pay again to play. It's not the greatest model, but it's not the same things as games where you pay once, without being told the game is going to shut down or when, then it suddenly becomes unplayable at a random time when the publisher decides to kill it.
Paying once and having the game shut down a year later, and paying the same price but a little once a month and having the game shut down a year later is the same. I don't get this thinking at all.
Stop Killing Games initiative has been targeting what they consider a winnable legal case, not necessarily the best ethical one. So, as the other poster said, they are not targeting subscription based games as much or at all on the basis that those are up front about the fact that your access is lost without a subscription.
I do, personally, wish to see all games playable forever but I fully understand why they are strategizing the way that they are.
The WoW example is a little different from a subscription standpoint in that the server is a arguably major part of the game itself. The content you see, your character's data, world events, etc. all happen server-side. WoW is a lot more than just some netcode to get clients talking in a one-shot.
That being said, if Blizzard were to sunset WoW, then it should also be required to provide a way to self-host a server and a client update to connect to third party servers without needing to modify game files.
I'm not even saying they need to open-source it or make it free, just make a server application available.
In the second case the publisher is upfront about it and you are told this is how it will work when you pay. The first case is basically fraud, where you're paying for something on the assumption you'll be able to keep it and then it gets destroyed.
In the end it boils down to which practice can be reasonably attacked on legal grounds, not necessarily how predatory it is.
Fair point, I didn't think of it from that view point.
That isn't the point of the initiative. No where do they say it should be buy once and playable forever. They just want you to be wanted to play the game forever if the developers decide not to continue the service.
How do your two sentences not contradict each other? What do you think end of life plan means? Stop Killing Games explicitly wants games to be playable forever.
No, all games should release server binaries (and the game for free if it's a subscription model) after they close down. Same for free-to-play or whatever, we should have the right to archive games.
I agree
Can you even play Minecraft locally if Microsoft shuts down their authentication servers nowadays ?
Yes you just don't have a skin in game, that already happens if you try to play without an internet connection
Yes