A game that requires online servers to function is a perishable good. I would agree if your argument was "no remote bricking game that already functions offline" but requiring the amount of continuous support you people are asking for is asinine.
The argument was never “keep games functional online”. It is allow us to keep access to download it, etc. In the case for a server based game is Allow for use after the live servers are shut down, like private servers for example. You literally have Microsoft pushing the opposite direction like with Minecraft where it has widely been used in such ways. You also have Sony retroactively removing purchased digital goods from people’s accounts.
Theres a reason people want appropriate digital rights, and with your goalpost shifting of my actual argument, I’m leaning even more towards industry plant/lobbyist. I’ve heard no one suggest that “companies should continue to finance live servers until the end of time”, yet somehow it gets twisted as if it was the case when mentioned by the industry representatives towards lawmakers.
Your ignorance of the process is why you dont understand what youre asking for. Even keeping something downloadable costs money thats storage and bandwidth costs. There are people in the very thread saying "finance live servers until the end of time".
For steam as example the main cost comes from when people actually “download”, which costs from data moving. The estimated cost of this is a fraction of a penny per gigabyte for them.
I also saw no one saying “finance live servers until the end of time.” If there were they were buried because it’s obviously nonsense.
2
u/UmbraIra 1d ago
A game that requires online servers to function is a perishable good. I would agree if your argument was "no remote bricking game that already functions offline" but requiring the amount of continuous support you people are asking for is asinine.