• samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    You can also choose to call them out on having anti-consumer practices. You are entitled to criticize shitty business practices.

    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      I wouldn’t call this a shitty business practice. You agreed to a game they own and control. You went into the game knowing this. If they are losing money on the game why should they lose more just to “preserve” the game after shutting down?

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 days ago

        They don’t have to. They can release the code and let people run their own servers once they’re no longer interested in doing so. This costs them nothing.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Your last sentence is incredibly incorrect. Does exaggeration usually win you arguments where you are from?

          • samus12345@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Instead of just saying it’s incorrect, say why. I can just as easily say that you’re incorrect.

              • Adalast@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                That is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal requires evidentiary support of your stance. For instance, as support for saying it costs them nothing, one might offer the following:

                • once released, users would distribute and maintain the file servers independently of the corporation, thus costing the company nothing.
                • once released, users would maintain independent game servers and pay for their upkeep, thus costing the company nothing.
                • once released, the modding community would take over the maintenance and development on the code base, thus costing the company nothing.

                There, 3 salient points which support the position that releasing the codebase for the game when sunsetting it costs the company nothing. I could even make points about how it is actually profitable for the company, but I want to give you your turn to rebutt me now that you have a good example of how to provide a good argument.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Okay, if the crew was released at EOL, it would have cost ubisoft money on sales of the crew 2. I would not expect them to choose to lose money in that situation. It was only later with multiple issues with multiple games that ubisofts market value tanked and they had to assess a new position/direction for the company.

                  Also, we are talking about video games, not a basic right like food, water, and air.

                  • Adalast@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    And by what mechanism would it have affected sales of the sequel? Historically, and demonstrably, greater access to a game increases the sales of sequels. Why do you think developers put games in a series on sale when a new game in a series is coming out? I would definitely argue that having released the server hosting code for The Crew to allow people to host private servers would have potentially added to The Crew 2 sales. Also, if they release the server code, but not the game code, they could continue the sales of the game on storefronts at a reduced price having it marked that it will no longer receive updates and still made even more money from those sales. I would definitely prefer if they just release the whole game, but either would have worked.