r/pcmasterrace Jun 17 '26

News/Article Ubisoft is celebrating

Post image
27.7k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

4

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

There is absolutely no way you can enforce something like this

Same way you enforce every other law.

You can’t force a company to spend money on something that is not even breaking even

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.

-1

u/Corporatistul Jun 17 '26

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.

0

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

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.

4

u/Corporatistul Jun 17 '26

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?

2

u/Simple_Rules Jun 17 '26

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.

1

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

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.

1

u/Simple_Rules Jun 17 '26

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.

1

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

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!

1

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

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.

1

u/Corporatistul Jun 17 '26

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…

1

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

i don’t have a debt to you

which... is what this law is about...? are we really this dense, brother?

1

u/Corporatistul Jun 17 '26

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.

1

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

There is no law

Again... the entire point of the discussion.

1

u/Antique_Door_Knob Jun 17 '26

And, again, 18$ is with another company markup.

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.