Of course its better for consumers, thats why they do it. Its worse for artists, that was the original point.

They weren’t aware they were buying a 10 year old online game? This isn’t new either, many MMOs have dead periods after their final patch and before a new expansion. The crew didnt even die, they made the crew 2, which apparently was awful or else people wouldnt have complained.

Unions are important for gig/contract work or else workers get abused and its a race to the bottom.

I think its a bit ridiculous that you think you have enough information to say they should have acted sooner.

Its also ridiculous that your arguments rely on what feels wrong.

The game was 10 years old and people are salty it went EOL. How have this many people not played an online service game before to realize that 10 years is a fantastic run, and nothing lasts forever. Move onto a new game or help build one, this effort to make games live forever is absurd, entitled, and shortsighted.

Thats not what I’m asking. You just have me evidence that they didnt sell it as soon as an EOL date was announced. Are you saying they should have stopped selling it before they publicly announce the EOL? Should they have announced and removed it as soon as the board meeting ended? How much earlier would that be in this case?

Maybe calling them 545 is an insult?

For all we know when the decision to pull the game was formalized, they pulled it that day. It depends what they did after they decided the game was being pulled. Did they leave it up for a few months to get some stuff in order beforehand, but kept selling it? I’d have a tough time accepting a reasoning from Ubisoft for that.

Thats why I asked for any sort of comment or reporting on it.

They didnt plan for it to last two weeks, the game failed. How do you expect them to guarantee a certain uptime when they have no idea if anyone will even play it.

They didnt know it would only last two weeks. They probably knew it was a possibility but I doubt they planned for it.

This is what I mean though, if concord had to say the game would be live for a guaranteed amount of time, why wouldnt they just say something low like 6 months. Why wouldnt every company do that unless they knew for sure it would be successful? Its too risky to choose longer periods of time, and we just have the same situation as now.

If you are saying they knew it was closing and they sold it for months anyways, that sounds like fraud. Has there been proof ubisoft decided to do this anyways?

I dont understand how such a broad requirement would work. They just have to pick some arbitrary date, and then after that they can continue as things currently are? Can you give an example of a game where this type of labelling would have helped?

I remember at the time titanfall came out, the mechs moving like a human was a selling point. I do agree though it is odd to experience when its not a novelty.

This should be the real story

Might as well wait for them to finish the game and release it as a game of the year edition, whatever that means anymore

Can you give some detail on the assassins creed 2 thing? I can’t find anything in a search and I’d be interested in reading about that as it might change my view.

AMD cards are so much cheaper right now, it makes a big difference. Second hand market cuts prices in half too. Places do certified refurbished as well.

I never said to take it from people. If a company makes their end of life shitty and thats impoetant to you don’t buy their shit.

In my opinion, people aren’t meant to group together this large. If we didnt, we wouldnt need advanced management positions like CEOs.

The other stupid part is that these companies are training their developers to create AAA games, and then firing them. They take this knowledge elsewhere and the investment is lost.

AAA game companies are paying to train other companies developers.

Are you saying noone would play a better version of assassins creed?

Why not?

You can call it ridiculous but it doesnt make it less true.

I think this movement is based on feelings. It feels bad that a game died, so we should fix it. Unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that, and overly broad rules are goint to cause unintended consequences for small developers.

The art argument is nonsense, although the other extreme is too. Artists need protections so they can earn a living, but the protections currently last far too long.

Either way, nothing is stopping a company creating a game similar to any number of often referenced “dead” games, and there is nothing wrong with letting something run its course and die off, to allow room for new creativity.

Thats all a great argument for far shorter copyright lengths, sort of a pity this bill isn’t asking for that but maybe thats how it will shake out anyways.

Thats an interesting example, what do you mean by the unlock system requiring servers?

We do love our pointless fights don’t we?

Of course things are so simple. I like the “everyone’s art” argument as well.

Still think this is pure selfishness from players, but hey if you get a law passed then more power to you.

But I used the shiny black ribbon stuff as butt floss and now all my movies have a dark brown tint over them. I need some sort of anti shit stain vhs player I think…

I have a box of vhs tapes I’m pissed don’t work anymore too.

I’ll believe a PC game can be actually lost when it is, and I don’t mean online services ending. The game industry would need to figure out how to get rid of piracy entirely but as it stands I can find a copy of this game on archive.

I’m skeptical the fear can be re-induced once you’ve gone through the first game. Its really hard to judge. I’d be interested in hearing about someone who played sub zero first and then the first game.

You won’t play cyberpunk cause it released in a poor state? Its a different game now.

You don’t have to accept your job. Stop acting like choice doesnt exist, its an obnoxious way of enabling shitty decisions. You aren’t forced to agree to use slack, and you aren’t forced to play a game. You want to have your cake an eat it too.

Although I’d be shocked if someone who argues the things you are is actively supporting shitty game companies so surely you can see when you choose to do something vs not.

One persons historical piece is another’s bit of oppression, using mount Rushmore is a great example of this. I’m pointing out that I find it impossible to agree on what’s historical as a country when it comes to things like that. I literally never touched dark souls the entire time its been popular, its not historical for me.

Then theres the fact that you can’t really delete anything from the internet. Sure online games can be “disconnected” but even the crew has a private server going live this year. WoW did the same thing and eventually the company started supporting their old games again. Funny thing about that, they didnt have the old code anymore and had to rewrite it.

I would like the same result as you would, I just don’t want laws to force it that way. I think its already changing and its unnecessary to regulate. This might not be the case in this instance but regulations tend to be easier to handle by larger companies as well, and I wouldnt want to unduly stress small development teams. Art should largely be unrestricted.

Well, I knew the crew would be decommissioned and dissapear from day one. I’m not sure why people expected it to live forever. I understand people want to change things to be different, but the norm before was that online games are sunset. Its happened over and over.

And you would base your decision on prior actions of the company. Dont buy ubisoft until they prove they have fixed this problem. You already shouldnt be playing online games hosted by shitty companies, exactly for this reason. Most companies actually don’t fuck their fan base over, and so its not an issue.

Noones forced to agree to anything, thats why its legal. Dont support shitty companies its that simple.

Its just as likely to do either, its all speculation. I still don’t want to force a developer to do anything really. Prohibiting things is a bit different though.

Okay thats fair, I actually didnt know there were video games that old. I wouldnt day all of them should be archived as a rule but if they are available why not.

I don’t know any current publishers that would qualify for the day one protection you mentioned. Can you give an example of something being declared historical nearly immediately though?

Okay, if the crew was released at EOL, it would have cost ubisoft money on sales of the crew 2. I would not expect them to choose to lose money in that situation. It was only later with multiple issues with multiple games that ubisofts market value tanked and they had to assess a new position/direction for the company.

Also, we are talking about video games, not a basic right like food, water, and air.