Despite Stop Killing Games' efforts, publisher 2K is delisting Lego 2K Drive this week on PC and consoles, with the online services shutting down in 2027.
I’m an advocate for Stop Killing Games, but I don’t think it applies here. It’s not asking to stop delisting; that seemingly has to do with car licenses expiring. It’s phenomenally stupid to license real cars with expiration dates in a damn Lego game, but here we are. Like clockwork, those games will be delisted. SKG is about preventing them from disabling things you’ve already bought. It appears this game not only has an offline mode but also has offline multiplayer. It’s likely not network multiplayer that will work offline, but none of SKG’s demands have ever been that specific, likely because every game is so different that trying to apply that terminology in a blanket way is a recipe for failure. I’m afraid that framing it this way is going to be ammunition for the game lobby to fight SKG.
Along similar lines, I’m a fighting game player. With a few notable exceptions like Multiversus and 2XKO, this entire genre works in local multiplayer when the servers are eventually retired, and that’s why I feel okay buying these games and not the likes of live services like Battlefield 6 or whatnot. Local multiplayer is what you’ll choose when it’s an option, but it often isn’t, and these games still come with the caveat that they’re built with good online net code that will be rendered inoperable at some point in the future since there’s no option for direct IP connections.
Indeed not really Stop Killing Games territory. You can’t really force a company to keep selling a game they don’t want to sell (or even contractually can’t sell) anymore.
It’s about preventing them from rendering sold copies inoperable.
Stop Killing Games absolutely uses partially disabled games (which this game will be after 2027) as part of their data/talking points to make their case to legislators. The delisting is a framing device of the article but not the main point, in my opinion. It draws attention to the delisting, but also the servers going offline and how that contrasts to the currently advancing Stop Killing Games movement. It does not at any point suggest that Stop Killing Games would apply to this specific game, but it’s still relevant because it’s two thinks happening concurrently in time that would affect each other. It’s a framing device.
I think it’s really important to highlight because it gets consumers asking, “what if it didn’t have to be this way?” What if this game wasn’t designed in such a way that 2K could partially disable it when they no longer found it profitable? What if 2K was forced by legislation to sunset their servers in a responsible way that allowed someone else to take over, such as by releasing server files? What if the game was designed in the first place to allow mods or direct peer-to-peer car sharing?
Stop Killing Games also uses the fact that game publishers often don’t disclose lengths or time before shut-downs and such as part of their case to legislators, which is a fairly large part of their argument in the European push especially. In this case, 2K has given around a year warning, but what if they were required by legislation to inform the consumer before purchase how long their game would have full functionality? Publishers don’t want to do that, and don’t do that, because they know it would negatively affect the value of their game, but it’s extremely consumer hostile. Imagine you bought the game and less than a month later, they announce they’re shutting down half the game’s functions in X days, and there’s no way for anyone else to be able to restore those functions.
That’s exactly the kind of thing that Stop Killing Games is advocating against. Even if their push wouldn’t apply to this game specifically, using it as another point of data helps their case, and the press shining more and more light on the games doing this and the SKG movement is good, imho.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
I’m an advocate for Stop Killing Games, but I don’t think it applies here. It’s not asking to stop delisting; that seemingly has to do with car licenses expiring. It’s phenomenally stupid to license real cars with expiration dates in a damn Lego game, but here we are. Like clockwork, those games will be delisted. SKG is about preventing them from disabling things you’ve already bought. It appears this game not only has an offline mode but also has offline multiplayer. It’s likely not network multiplayer that will work offline, but none of SKG’s demands have ever been that specific, likely because every game is so different that trying to apply that terminology in a blanket way is a recipe for failure. I’m afraid that framing it this way is going to be ammunition for the game lobby to fight SKG.
Along similar lines, I’m a fighting game player. With a few notable exceptions like Multiversus and 2XKO, this entire genre works in local multiplayer when the servers are eventually retired, and that’s why I feel okay buying these games and not the likes of live services like Battlefield 6 or whatnot. Local multiplayer is what you’ll choose when it’s an option, but it often isn’t, and these games still come with the caveat that they’re built with good online net code that will be rendered inoperable at some point in the future since there’s no option for direct IP connections.
Indeed not really Stop Killing Games territory. You can’t really force a company to keep selling a game they don’t want to sell (or even contractually can’t sell) anymore.
It’s about preventing them from rendering sold copies inoperable.
Stop Killing Games absolutely uses partially disabled games (which this game will be after 2027) as part of their data/talking points to make their case to legislators. The delisting is a framing device of the article but not the main point, in my opinion. It draws attention to the delisting, but also the servers going offline and how that contrasts to the currently advancing Stop Killing Games movement. It does not at any point suggest that Stop Killing Games would apply to this specific game, but it’s still relevant because it’s two thinks happening concurrently in time that would affect each other. It’s a framing device.
I think it’s really important to highlight because it gets consumers asking, “what if it didn’t have to be this way?” What if this game wasn’t designed in such a way that 2K could partially disable it when they no longer found it profitable? What if 2K was forced by legislation to sunset their servers in a responsible way that allowed someone else to take over, such as by releasing server files? What if the game was designed in the first place to allow mods or direct peer-to-peer car sharing?
Stop Killing Games also uses the fact that game publishers often don’t disclose lengths or time before shut-downs and such as part of their case to legislators, which is a fairly large part of their argument in the European push especially. In this case, 2K has given around a year warning, but what if they were required by legislation to inform the consumer before purchase how long their game would have full functionality? Publishers don’t want to do that, and don’t do that, because they know it would negatively affect the value of their game, but it’s extremely consumer hostile. Imagine you bought the game and less than a month later, they announce they’re shutting down half the game’s functions in X days, and there’s no way for anyone else to be able to restore those functions.
That’s exactly the kind of thing that Stop Killing Games is advocating against. Even if their push wouldn’t apply to this game specifically, using it as another point of data helps their case, and the press shining more and more light on the games doing this and the SKG movement is good, imho.