you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (7 children)

I see the point here to a degree, but there have been many MMO’s that shut down with a fairly large player base. Both of the ones I mentioned being just two of them. Then there’s EverQuest, Ultima Online….

No one got a penny back for it.

Again, not in defense. I’m trying to understand the difference. It’s easier for me to support something when I can understand it fully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Wasn't the Stop Killing Games movement about allowing people to keep playing online only games (like MMOs) after the company that made them stopped supporting them?

    From Wikipedia:

    Stop Killing Games does not demand for games to be supported and updated by their developers forever, rather arguing that they should be required to be left in a reasonably functional state after discontinuation, such as by introducing an offline mode or the ability to host private servers.[10] Scott also clarified that the movement does not focus on the delisting of games from storefronts as long as they are still playable by buyers after discontinuation, and that they do not focus on any financial censorship issues.[16]

    So, I don't think people are fine with just renting MMOs? But, I never got that deep into it since I'm not in the EU, and I might also be misunderstanding your question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    EverQuest is still going. So is Ultima Online. My wife's EQ account from launch is still there with all her characters and goodies. As for the others, people were upset when those were shut down. People definitely weren't "totally fine" with that.

    There's another aspect though, in that with MMOs you are paying monthly for a service, and an actual quantifiable one. The servers that run those MMOs (current ones anyway) aren't light pieces of computer equipment that you could easily run in your home. It's like going to a bar with a cover charge: you could talk to people at home or drink at home, but you're paying for doing that at a place with some neat decorations and a lot more people than you're likely to meet at your home.

    Expanding that metaphor, singleplayer games are you drinking at home. People do not want to give the liquor store the right to come into your liquor cabinet and take back the booze if they decide you no longer should have it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Okay. That’s a fair point. I get it now. And wow! I totally thought those servers went down. I would have bet money that I remember reading about it.

    Good they’re still around. And thanks for the response!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    And wow! I totally thought those servers went down. I would have bet money that I remember reading about it.

    EverQuest's servers were slated to go down at least once, but that was when the then-current now-former owners no longer wanted the IP and were trying to sell it. It was less "we are taking them down" and more "we don't want to spend anymore money keeping these up, but if someone else wants to we'll sell for a good price." Someone bought them and the servers stayed up. The game still makes money apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    I don’t think that’s okay, and there are a lot of people that feel the same way. Stuff like that is why the Stop Killing Games movement exists. There should be some kind of consumer protection so that even if the company ceases to exist, players should be able to keep it going in some capacity. In this case likely through private or community servers.

  • source
  • parent