I just received this email saying that the response “did not respond directly to the request of the petition”
You recently signed the petition “Require videogame publishers to keep games they have sold in a working state”: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071
The Petitions Committee (the group of MPs who oversee the petitions system) has considered the Government’s response to this petition. They felt the response did not respond directly to the request of the petition. They have therefore asked the Government to provide a revised response.
When the Committee receives a revised response from the Government, we will publish this and share it with you.
Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament
I’m curious on how signers of this petition think companies could afford to do this. Often times shutting a game down is because the interest of players has waned. Making a law to require them to keep that server and software running…forever? Is the end goal to kill any online game development?
It would make sense to require a company to release the code for players to host their own servers, which has been done by many games in the past. Not to continue to run it themselves.
Ross and the team have been very specific about not wanting to force companies to pay for server infrastructure forever.
They’ve said quite a few times that what they want is for game companies to at least patch their games so they can keep running without the online connection or provide players the tools to host their own servers so that the company can end support without the game becoming a brick.
Hopefully by requiring games to be playable after support ends and the servers shut down it will also change the way games are made so that they no longer require the constant connection.
Who says the companies need to keep the servers running? The petition is “to keep games in a working state”.
Looking at the petition itself it wasn’t very specific on the terms, which is why I questioned the very broadness of the request . “Keep” implies maintaining how it is currently, not a transition to open source and player run.
Being vague about the requirement leaves more options for game companies to find various solutions to comply. It’s quite accommodating.
Totally agree. You always leave yourself room to negotiate down.
Imagine not supporting this because you think it’s unfair to the industry, given the very specific examples that have been given.
That’s basically what people are asking for. Instead of not being playable anymore, give consumers the means to keep it going for themselves.
This could mean always-online having to be gutted from the game after it’s support ends so you can play it offline. Or server hosting files to host your own private or public server.
The goal is to have games not be impossible to play after X amount of time. How companies reach that goal is up to them.
If they no longer want to host and run servers, they should release the tools to allow the community to take over
The company will have the make that decision then, if it means opening the server for use or patching the game for local p2p play then so be it. Otherwise they should be forced to state the game is a rental not purchased if it requires a server that may shut down.
But that is what they already do. Currently this might be hidden in the EULA, that no one reads, but even making this plainly visible during purchase wouldn’t change much. I is not like the players have much choice when they want to play that specific game.
That’s sort of what they do, except they still call it a purchase. I’ve never seen the word ‘rental’ on any game store. They shouldn’t be allowed to even call it a purchase if it isn’t one.
I think part of the next phase is to force the companies to list a minimum supported life span, I think the average length a game is supported for now days is around two years, so if the game isn’t kept alive the minimum listed time you get a refund but if the life span of the game is listed too short then people will be less likely to spend money on it
This is why we got Stadia. Imagine Netflix where you pay a monthly fee and still have to buy all the movies and shows at full price. That was Stadia’s model.
Thos erodes the concept of ownership so that it is substituted for rental, without stating that clearly. Stadia failed but in doing so it probably helped Microsoft figure out how to eventually get away with doing the exact same thing.
Games should clearly say if you’re basically renting them, not have it buried in the EULA. Let publishers full price and let consumers decide if they are prepared to live with it.
deleted by creator
I can still play ut from like 20 odd yrs ago the choice yo take away hosting your own games was their choice.
It’s true it does cost to keep things running. But like you say there are ways around this to push server costs onto players, or simply allow offline play with online features disabled.
I think if there were legislation in place then design decisions would adapt. If it were costly to just shut a game down abruptly, there would be player hosted options in place from the start and ideally less spurious “always online” requirements woven into the fabric of every game.
Probably the way they used to do things, provide the server hosting tools to the community.
Think like TF2 and CS:S.
There’s plenty (But not all) MP games that can do that.
That counts as “working state”, assuming the published code is reasonable to operate (it must be FOSS, or at least permit open modification and distribution; and it must run in a server with specs that’s reasonable to have at the time of game publication)