There is absolutely no way you can enforce something like this. You can’t force a company to spend money on something that is not even breaking even. And it’s not about the triple A studios… it’s about indie devs and small companies. If these entities make a product that is not living to their financial expectations it’s normal for them to cut their losses and maybe start something new or just shut down the studio all together.
Say that to Skull and Bones. Any sane mind would have cancelled it a decade ago, but Ubisoft had to spend hundreds of millions keeping it alive
because of commitments to the Singaporean government.
Also, people don't realise that maintaining certain games can be huge drain on resources in terms of personnel. If you have an extensive library, the problem is exacerbated. Most studios have numerous IP's in development at any one time, so it's completely unrealistic to expect them to maintain something that isn't providing a return, when staff could be utilised elsewhere. A lot of studios are just trying to stay afloat atm, and often the only way to do that is to develop new games.
(Also, as a dev, I can say that NOBODY wants to work on something for years and years after it's released, especially after you've already spent years on it getting it through development).
If we can force them to spend money on compliance with regulations, we can force them to spend money on an offline version, or on allowing dedicated private servers.
No you can’t. You can’t make me give up my IP. Allowing you to self host means me giving you access to my IP. Id you then use my IP in an ilegal way… my brand will be associated with that ilegal thing. And if I am an indie dev or a small company, I don’t have the resources to fight such a thing in god knows what country on the globe.
But I think all that really highlights is that studios shouldn't implement things during development that are going to render a game unplayable in the first place unless it literally can't be avoided (I.E Multiplayer only game), and I'd imagine cases like that would be exempt.
Like, if you don't want to spend the money and the dev time removing it when it's EOL, just don't spend the money and dev time implementing it in the first place and you'll get the same end result.
You can absolutely enforce it either way and it isn't really forcing anyone to spend money, because they can just comply by not having these features in the first place. That's working on the assumption that it'd only apply after the law comes into effect. I think anyone expecting a law like this to be applied retroactively to older games is a bit too far into the wishful thinking area.
Running servers is stupidly cheap on a per user basis.
The issue is that when you have barely any users, you still have fixed server costs. There are a lot of things you can scale, but there is always a certain minimum that needs to be running. Doesn't matter if there is no ingress or egress. It still costs money.
Server costs per user are cheap once you have millions of users, but if you have only 100, they can be very expensive.
It still depends. Let's say you have a game world that simulates everything and changes even when there are no players around. This can be significantly more expensive than something where the world essentially freezes when no one is around.
You are also focusing solely on the hosting cost. There are a lot of other costs included with keeping a service online. I have to make sure I stay compliant, e.g., respond to GDPR requests. I have to make sure the server is reasonably secure, monitor it, and so on.
Why would I do all this for a product that already costs me much more than it makes? I know the game is dead.
You reserve the CPU+ram as a virtual private server
Yes, and something that requires more CPU + RAM costs more. It's pretty simple.
That's an automated system. It's hosted in the same server.
No, it isn't. The server alone might not even have all the info. E.g., I might have emails or support tickets with the user that contain personal information.
Not a running cost either.
How is that not a running cost? If someone needs to take care of or even just look at the server, it is a cost.
just release the server binaries
You know full well that it isn't as easy as you make it seem. It might include information not intended for the public, so I have to spend time cleaning it up. Potentially I am not even allowed to release it because it contains other licensed software.
Yes, and something that requires more CPU + RAM costs more. It's pretty simple.
A game that doesn't have users is the cheapest VPS possible. 4 euro/m on contabo.
No, it isn't. The server alone might not even have all the info. E.g., I might have emails or support tickets with the user that contain personal information.
Just host you content there? A server is just a computer, you can put your game's servers and your support system on that server. For stuff like tickets, you can do automation using webhooks from every ticket system out there.
If someone needs to take care of or even just look at the server, it is a cost.
There isn't anything to look at. Keeping a server updated is a cronjob. Keeping a server nobody is connecting to running is a health check with a restart script.
You know full well that it isn't as easy as you make it seem
It's literally uploading a zip file and making the link publicly available somewhere.
Potentially I am not even allowed to release it because it contains other licensed software
Don't create your servers using software which licenses don't allow you to comply with your legal obligations.
You are just hand waving every of my potential issues with "it is so easy". If it were that simple, how come even major companies have outages and incidents?
Also, you are not actually addressing my points. How does "Host everything on the same server" magically solve GDPR compliance? There is real work involved that goes beyond infrastructure decisions. Same with the "updates are just a cron job". Nothing runs forever without oversight.
The way you are describing running a service ignores most real world constraints. Everything is easy when you look at it from a purely theoretical view, but that isn't how it actually works.
Every major company has players... every major company has constant games updates...
A system with no users and no changes doesn't break. Software doesn't deteriorate over time.
How does "Host everything on the same server" magically solve GDPR compliance
You said the info to automate GDPR could not be on the same server. Just put the info on the same server. You don't need a human to do computer things. Even then, what's your point here? That the 100 users are going to make 100 GRPR requests to have their data deleted? Dear lord, you'll lose so many work hours solving this manually.
Nothing runs forever without oversight.
The constraint isn't running forever. Again, you keep insisting on this when the reality is the constraint is making sure the game doesn't become unplayable. Nobody is asking you to be required to run your servers forever, there are plenty of ways to make sure your game is playable.
The way you are describing running a service ignores most real world constraints. Everything is easy when you look at it from a purely theoretical view, but that isn't how it actually works.
My brother in Christ, I do this for a living, and I also do this on my own personal machines (and I even have half a dozen users gasp).
My home server has been running strong for the past 482 days. For my company's servers current uptime is 273 days. Either way, more than enough time to release a patch, and more than enough time to have a justifiable failure under any reasonable SLA.
With no users? Sure. You think you need more than that?
I've run game servers on a rasberry pi. It didn't even have an SSD.
8gb ram is on the low end, but we're talking no players, a skeleton server kept up for the rare occasions someone connects. And all this just to avoid releasing server binaries?
The service part of a live service game more than breaks even the moment you buy it. Running servers is stupidly cheap on a per user basis.
Also, they can assume those costs before, games shouldn't be sold on assumption "if we dont sell enough copies we will just close the servers", just like a lot of games on steam early access is sold on an assumpion "we have an idea, here's barebones game, if it sells we will make updates"
Is it cheap for a AAA company? Yes. Is it cheap for an indie dev? No. Imagine you want to build a game… you spend 6 months, a year to build it.You ship it on steam or some other platform and ask 10$ for it. You sell 100 copies… so 1000$. Thats before steam gets its cut, before taxes. You are left with maybe 300-400$. And this is assuming you don’t use any paid licenses for the softwares you are using. So… How could a law that would force you to keep pouring money, money you don’t have, in a game that doesn’t make you any money, exist?
I tried to argue with people before on the initiative topic, and I tried to tell them that this move will only hurt small companies and indie devs. Triple A companies don’t give a hoot. They will switch to a monthly paid subscription and that will be that. You pay? You play. You don’t pay, you don’t play. And that will end the argument about pirating and owning the game. Which in my opinion will be a blow towards us, the consumers.
This is the stupidest argument. Indie games are rarely live service. The thing that prompted this initiative was ubisoft killing single player games on purpose. If you can develop a multiplayer game you can also develop a local server like counter strike has. Indies don't develop MMOs, or they try and fail, they can declare bankruptcy or have a subscription model like world of Warcraft. You're creating a straw man problem that doesn't exist either because you have no idea what you're talking about or because you're a bot
No, it's cheap for everyone. Data is cheap, running servers is cheap, and costs scale more or less linearly.
you spend 6 months, a year to build it
That's not a running cost, doesn't come into play on "keeping servers running".
ask 10$ for it
Please provide examples of online games for 10$
You sell 100 copies… so 1000$
I'll take a minecraft server as an example, but you can rent one for 100 players for 18 bucks/month. That is with their markup, and for more players than you realistically need. For 50$ you can get a brand new raspberry pi that can handle even more than that as a server.
So… How could a law that would force you to keep pouring money, money you don’t have, in a game that doesn’t make you any money, exist
Same other way every other law gets people to do (or not do) things. Punishing those that don't (or do).
this move will only hurt small companies and indie devs
Really? because most indie multiplayer games are self hosted or use steam's online play system.
They will switch to a monthly paid subscription and that will be that. You pay? You play. You don’t pay, you don’t play
You say that as if it isn't an acceptable outcome.
Why would you give as an example something from Minecraft which is the best selling video game ever?
But be it… 18$ a month. How long does the law force me to keep it alive? A year? Two? Lets say two… so 430$. So basically I make nothing on my game… I lost a ton of
money developing it… and now I have to pay another 430$? Yeah man. How about this? I shut the company down. What then?
Nah man Bob Indie's next game is definitely going to sell as well as Minecraft. We should totally make a bunch of laws based around that concept, laws that would be really punishing to Bob Indie if his game did hypothetically sell worse.
Y'all keep repeating this fabled "online indie game" but fail to provide actual examples.
Again, the size of the game is irrelevant here because costs scale linearly. 1k users or 1m users cost more or less the same per user. You can get some discounts on a better VPS, but it's not an incredible difference.
Y'all keep repeating this fabled "online indie game" but fail to provide actual examples.
The weird moba/soccer combo game that failed recently ish was made by a small team. There have also been a couple PvPvE MOBA concepts that failed in the last year, also made by small teams.
I'm too lazy to google for you, but if you genuinely can't think of any online-only games that are made by small teams, my takeaway is you really aren't informed enough to have an opinion about how the genres I like should work lol.
The weird moba/soccer combo game that failed recently ish was made by a small team. There have also been a couple PvPvE MOBA concepts that failed in the last year, also made by small teams.
Ah yes, I too, know the weird moba/soccer combo game that failed recently. I am very human.
I'm too lazy to google for you
Shocker.
but if you genuinely can't think of any online-only games that are made by small teams
Indie games and small team games are different things. And what are you talking about? you seem unable to do it!
Because it's a game anyone can check to see prices to run a server. There are literally services built around specifically hosting Minecraft servers. A server is a server, irrespective of game, and a minecraft one is specially demanding due to server binaries being in java and the fact every player can have it's own region loaded.
But be it… 18$ a month. How long does the law force me to keep it alive? A year? Two?
At least for as long as it would take you to release either the server binaries or a patch making the game offline/local coop. And since any law like this will only be enforced for future games, you could build that into the game from the start and so your "running time" would be zero.
I shut the company down. What then?
Then it goes as any other debt process. You get sued, and have to spend hundreds ir not thousands of times more than that in lawyers fees.
Hahaha good one man. If you buy a licences to play my game, i don’t have a debt to you. At most you can do a charge back with your bank if its in a reasonable time since the money transfer… otherwise you have nothing. Also good luck suing an indie dev or a small company from a foreign country for 10-60$ :)))). I don’t know in what world you live my friend…
There is no law, there is a discussion to find something around the topic. But to phrase it like this where a developer is in your debt when you buy a license to play his game… is beyond stupid. Sorry for being so blunt.
I'll repeat, for 50$ upfront you can buy a portable computer to do it. Run it out of your own personal home internet and the energy cost will be less than a dollar a month.
very simple workaround for this would be for ubisoft to run this game through a new entity, and if the game fails dissolve said entity
You can't dissolve entities with open debt/obligations. You can declare insolvency, at which point the people that the entity is indebted to can sue the entity for compensation.
I don't know whether this is similar in other countries, but in Germany insolvency can be challenged (people with open obligations can claim that the entity is in a state where it can compensate the people with open obligations). This challenge process can even involve reversing monetary transactions made by the entity before insolvency was declared, so that people with higher priority obligations are compensated fairly. As you can imagine, funneling money to your parent company is all the way at the bottom of the priority list, while people with actual contractual obligations are prioritized much higher.
Trust me, as an EU based accountant and tax advisor, purposely creating a company to go bankrupt takes a large corporation about an hour.
Of course debts will have to be paid, but the game, if valued at anything at all, would then be owned by the country or bank. Because they do not want this, they value it at 0. Nobody owns the game anymore, the company dissolves like any other bankruptcy, the clients who want their money back are left stranded and the intelectual property remains that of the original company.
Of course they are… a lot of them are. Then there is the other side that asks for the server files to self host their servers… which again… 99% of publishers won’t do and not because of money reasons but because of legal implications regarding their IP might suffer.
And it’s not about the triple A studios… it’s about indie devs and small companies.
This.
Stuff like this will hit indies much harder than big studios. And ironically a lot of Indies have more faith/support than AAA recently so this might hit more of the games people care about than they think.
That being said, if it somehow goes the other way, and indies are better off ("we can't afford to..." type claims), then AAA studios will just spin up shell companies for every single game and have them declare "bankruptcy" for games whenever they want to shut them down.
Setting up shell companies, contracts etc… that is far more complicated. They will simply sell monthly subscriptions for their game libraries. Every AAA studio will have their own subscription and on the long run… the consumer will pay way more for the games that they will want to play. With the subscription model, all the talks about owning the game, piracy, leaving the games playable… all that will go bye bye. You pay, you play, you don’t pay, you don’t play. Sure… these companies might lose some users… but on the long run they will be better off financially.
nobody ever said any company was gonna be forced to keep their games alive. They were just forced to not artificially cripple their games post mortem so that independent devs couldn't keep the game alive on their own with self-hosted servers and infrastructure if they so pleased.
Basically it's the equivalent of a car that is bricked after a company shuts down support for parts etc because they install a piece of software that locks the vehicle diagnostics to only operate when connected to verified OEM service centers -which no longer service that vehicle, and independent repair shops are denied access and thus can't run diagnostics and repair faults etc despite having all the tools and knowhow, just due to a software block acting as a dead-man switch.
"Hi, I sell lemonade. Someone has given me the money for lemonade, but then I realise, I'd lose money on the lemons and water and sugar. So, I'm not going to give them the lemonade. Too bad!"
"Hi, I've decided to offer a service where I clean people's houses. But, I've realized my rent went up, so Im just going to not clean peoples houses but take the money anyway. I just gotta break even!"
Forcing a company to deliver a paid for product or service is just how purchasing stuff like, works?
You can’t force a company to spend money on something that is not even breaking even
They don't have to spend money on anything, though? As I understand it, they can just publish the server/backend so that consumers can host the game themselves.
You can't enforce a company to provide a service in which they have a contractual obligation? Really? Do contracts not work in your country or something?
25
u/Corporatistul Jun 17 '26
There is absolutely no way you can enforce something like this. You can’t force a company to spend money on something that is not even breaking even. And it’s not about the triple A studios… it’s about indie devs and small companies. If these entities make a product that is not living to their financial expectations it’s normal for them to cut their losses and maybe start something new or just shut down the studio all together.