this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
383 points (99.0% liked)
Games
18510 readers
134 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
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
If a company decides to stop hosting it's online service they should be required to open it up for third party hosting. By ending their support they are admitting the profit capture is over so if another company wants to host it for profit so be it.
Perhaps the real problem is the length of copyright. The direction copyright has gone is the exact opposite of the speed of technology.
They shouldnt be required to do anything with it. Theres no public safety issue that requires it be maintained, its just a game. You also seem to imply making money from creating a game is immoral. This whole "art" belongs to everyone thing is stupid and only hurts artists.
You should reread my comment.
I didn't imply there is a public safety issue. I didn't imply anything about morality.
If a company drops the hosting for online servers they shouldn't prevent third parties from picking it up. That's the whole statement so you don't need to find anything between the lines.
Art does belong to everyone but that's completely unrelated to my comment above.
You are implying its about server costs then? Activision sunset the crew because they had been developing the crew 2 for a long time. It had to come out eventually. Allowing third party hosting of the crew would have cost them a lot of money. Why should they take a loss in that situation?
They should take a loss because they sold a product and it's availability shouldn't be a lever they use to drive traffic to their new game. Is this where I say you are implying that corporate profits are more important than honesty?
Are you implying that they didn't insinuate that this game would be supported longer when they had an actual expiration date on the product code, 2099? If the Crew 3 has been in development for 10 years and they spend a billion dollars developing it would it be ok to sunset the Crew 2 after a couple weeks to "motivate" buyers to buy the new version? Who decides what is the "appropriate" amount of time a product should be available.
If they don't allow private or third party hosting for the Crew then anyone should be able to refund it since they bought a product that has been rugpulled.
You can feel free to ignore all of that because there isn't a good reason to support Ubisoft here and this model unless you like the taste of shoe polish.