As teased before, the additional note is its online servers will fully go offline on 31st May, 2027, meaning all the online functionalities and services won’t work anymore from that date onwards. The game, however, will remain playable in its offline mode.
Isn’t this exactly what Stop Killing Games is asking for?
As an absolute bare minimum, yes, SKG wants publishers to not be able to completely brick a game. However they still talk a lot about partially disabled games and, in general, try to get consumers to advocate for more consumer-friendly development practices. For example, what if this game’s online features were sunsetted in a way that allowed someone else to pick up the slack in hosting server infrastructure? What if they released a server kit so that gamers and fans could host custom sharing and race servers?
I am not saying that I’m against it. Being able to self host would be ideal for online games. What I mean is, that SKG main goal is keeping games playable after the support ends, and that is in most case an offline mode. Especially for games that COULD be offline played without a server. So this is not the “bare minimum”, but the main goal. Everything else, like self hosting of online modes, is optional bonus. And MMORPGs in example are exempt from this I think, as these type of games are not marketed as “purchases” but rather being a “subscription” based access.
From https://www.stopkillinggames.com/en#about
We are a global coalition of gamers, consumer advocates, and developers pushing for international legal protections. Video games are increasingly being designed to require central servers to function, even for single-player content. When publishers decide to shut those servers down, the games are destroyed entirely.
We’re just discussing semantics at this point.
What does that even mean in this context? What you suggest is hugely different, its not just semantics. There are clear goals of SKG and I provided quotes too. The article you linked talks about a game that is not relevant to Stop Killing Games, because the game does already everything its asking for. That is not just semantics, its plain and simple wrong.
So this is not the “bare minimum”, but the main goal.
Is the semantics I was referring to.
The Stop Killing Games initiative has a goal that they are aiming for with legislation. If you watch Ross’ vlogs or any of the other European representatives speak on the topic, they make it pretty clear many times that they are aiming for what they consider to be the bare minimum, realistic goal. However, they very frequently discuss the topic in deeper ways and generally advocate for all the things I mentioned.
This game absolutely is relevant for Stop Killing Games. After 2027, it will be partially disabled, which the SKG initiative speaks about when making their case to legislators.
And on top of the legislation they are pursuing, the SKG initiative is also just a broader consumer advocacy initiative, and this article helps raise awareness for what they are doing and how their initiative could impact game development. Or more specifically—because SKG rightly points out that devs are often just as annoyed as consumers—game publishing.
I’m an advocate for Stop Killing Games, but I don’t think it applies here. It’s not asking to stop delisting; that seemingly has to do with car licenses expiring. It’s phenomenally stupid to license real cars with expiration dates in a damn Lego game, but here we are. Like clockwork, those games will be delisted. SKG is about preventing them from disabling things you’ve already bought. It appears this game not only has an offline mode but also has offline multiplayer. It’s likely not network multiplayer that will work offline, but none of SKG’s demands have ever been that specific, likely because every game is so different that trying to apply that terminology in a blanket way is a recipe for failure. I’m afraid that framing it this way is going to be ammunition for the game lobby to fight SKG.
Along similar lines, I’m a fighting game player. With a few notable exceptions like Multiversus and 2XKO, this entire genre works in local multiplayer when the servers are eventually retired, and that’s why I feel okay buying these games and not the likes of live services like Battlefield 6 or whatnot. Local multiplayer is what you’ll choose when it’s an option, but it often isn’t, and these games still come with the caveat that they’re built with good online net code that will be rendered inoperable at some point in the future since there’s no option for direct IP connections.
Indeed not really Stop Killing Games territory. You can’t really force a company to keep selling a game they don’t want to sell (or even contractually can’t sell) anymore.
It’s about preventing them from rendering sold copies inoperable.
Stop Killing Games absolutely uses partially disabled games (which this game will be after 2027) as part of their data/talking points to make their case to legislators. The delisting is a framing device of the article but not the main point, in my opinion. It draws attention to the delisting, but also the servers going offline and how that contrasts to the currently advancing Stop Killing Games movement. It does not at any point suggest that Stop Killing Games would apply to this specific game, but it’s still relevant because it’s two thinks happening concurrently in time that would affect each other. It’s a framing device.
I think it’s really important to highlight because it gets consumers asking, “what if it didn’t have to be this way?” What if this game wasn’t designed in such a way that 2K could partially disable it when they no longer found it profitable? What if 2K was forced by legislation to sunset their servers in a responsible way that allowed someone else to take over, such as by releasing server files? What if the game was designed in the first place to allow mods or direct peer-to-peer car sharing?
Stop Killing Games also uses the fact that game publishers often don’t disclose lengths or time before shut-downs and such as part of their case to legislators, which is a fairly large part of their argument in the European push especially. In this case, 2K has given around a year warning, but what if they were required by legislation to inform the consumer before purchase how long their game would have full functionality? Publishers don’t want to do that, and don’t do that, because they know it would negatively affect the value of their game, but it’s extremely consumer hostile. Imagine you bought the game and less than a month later, they announce they’re shutting down half the game’s functions in X days, and there’s no way for anyone else to be able to restore those functions.
That’s exactly the kind of thing that Stop Killing Games is advocating against. Even if their push wouldn’t apply to this game specifically, using it as another point of data helps their case, and the press shining more and more light on the games doing this and the SKG movement is good, imho.
Honestly thought SKG was referenced by Explosive Media or something. The connection with Lego is now too strong.
