The other day, in response to Facebook shutting down support for an
early Occulus VR game, John Carmack wrote an insightful plea* I wish
ever publisher would take to heart (but I know they won't):

"Every game should make sure they still work at some level without
central server support. Even when not looking at end of life concerns,
being able to work when the internet is down is valuable. If you can
support some level of LAN play for a multiplayer game, the door is at
least open for people to write proxies in the future. Supporting
user-run servers as an option can actually save on hosting costs, and
also opens up various community creative avenues."

Which, of course, is preaching to the crowd as far as game players go,
but probably isn't going to get very far with regards to the money
men. Still, I'm happy to see the message spelled out so plainly by one
of the gaming industry's more illustrious developers. It's been an
issue largely ignored by publishers - just flat out ignored, as if the
issue never existed and nobody ever noticed - and its good to see it
made public at last. I'm sure the publishers will still continue to
pretend nobody ever said anything, of course.

Carmack continues with recommendations on how to avoid the necessity
of killing games after they cease being profitable, starting with good
programming habits ("think twice before adding dependencies"), and
recommendations on what to do after a product reaches the end of its
lifespan (Drop to minmal support, spin off the project, mark it
unsupported rather than killing it outright, or open source it are his
four suggestions).

Even if publishers don't listen, hopefully developers will. I'm sure
most developers aren't any happier about seeing their products
becoming unavailable to customers anymore than the gamers themselves,
and maybe if they take Carmack's advice to heart, they'll have an
easier time convincing 'the suits' because it would require a lot less
effort to keep alive (in whatever manner) after the money stops
pouring in. Often a major problem with older games is that their
innards are so riddled with third-party software that open-sourcing
the product would a) take a lot of effort to pull out the third-party
APIs, and b) the end-result would be a useless mess of code missing
vast chunks of functionality. Better development habits might help in
both instances.

In truth, what Carmack is begging for really should be the de facto
state of the software industry. That we as gamers have allowed
publishers to run rough shod over us - yanking games we paid for out
of our hands without any sort of recompense - has always struck me as
immoral and contrary to how every other industry works.

=================
* full text here:
https://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-statement-echo-vr-closure/

On 2/6/2023 8:43 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> The other day, in response to Facebook shutting down support for an
> early Occulus VR game, John Carmack wrote an insightful plea* I wish
> ever publisher would take to heart (but I know they won't):
>
> "Every game should make sure they still work at some level without
> central server support. Even when not looking at end of life concerns,
> being able to work when the internet is down is valuable. If you can
> support some level of LAN play for a multiplayer game, the door is at
> least open for people to write proxies in the future. Supporting
> user-run servers as an option can actually save on hosting costs, and
> also opens up various community creative avenues."
>
> Which, of course, is preaching to the crowd as far as game players go,
> but probably isn't going to get very far with regards to the money
> men.

"How can we get the sheep to buy our new game if they can keep playing
the old game that's basically the same game?!"

;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 06/02/2023 16:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> The other day, in response to Facebook shutting down support for an
> early Occulus VR game, John Carmack wrote an insightful plea* I wish
> ever publisher would take to heart (but I know they won't):
>
> "Every game should make sure they still work at some level without
> central server support. Even when not looking at end of life concerns,
> being able to work when the internet is down is valuable. If you can
> support some level of LAN play for a multiplayer game, the door is at
> least open for people to write proxies in the future. Supporting
> user-run servers as an option can actually save on hosting costs, and
> also opens up various community creative avenues."
>
> Which, of course, is preaching to the crowd as far as game players go,
> but probably isn't going to get very far with regards to the money
> men. Still, I'm happy to see the message spelled out so plainly by one
> of the gaming industry's more illustrious developers. It's been an
> issue largely ignored by publishers - just flat out ignored, as if the
> issue never existed and nobody ever noticed - and its good to see it
> made public at last. I'm sure the publishers will still continue to
> pretend nobody ever said anything, of course.
>
> Carmack continues with recommendations on how to avoid the necessity
> of killing games after they cease being profitable, starting with good
> programming habits ("think twice before adding dependencies"), and
> recommendations on what to do after a product reaches the end of its
> lifespan (Drop to minmal support, spin off the project, mark it
> unsupported rather than killing it outright, or open source it are his
> four suggestions).
>
> Even if publishers don't listen, hopefully developers will. I'm sure
> most developers aren't any happier about seeing their products
> becoming unavailable to customers anymore than the gamers themselves,
> and maybe if they take Carmack's advice to heart, they'll have an
> easier time convincing 'the suits' because it would require a lot less
> effort to keep alive (in whatever manner) after the money stops
> pouring in. Often a major problem with older games is that their
> innards are so riddled with third-party software that open-sourcing
> the product would a) take a lot of effort to pull out the third-party
> APIs, and b) the end-result would be a useless mess of code missing
> vast chunks of functionality. Better development habits might help in
> both instances.
>
> In truth, what Carmack is begging for really should be the de facto
> state of the software industry. That we as gamers have allowed
> publishers to run rough shod over us - yanking games we paid for out
> of our hands without any sort of recompense - has always struck me as
> immoral and contrary to how every other industry works.
>
> =================
> * full text here:
> https://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-statement-echo-vr-closure/
>

I do agree with the sentiment but I think some of the ideas are a bit
unrealistic. The part I do very much agree with is if the game is
end-of-lifed then you should still be able to play any single player
component and associated DLC.

Saying that the more games as a service this happens to the better in
the longer term in my opinion. Maybe people will be somewhat more wary
of chucking money at a product that has a good chance of very quickly
disappearing in a cloud of smoke.