That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. If you offer software that requires outside servers to run, you should be legally obligated to release the code used to run the servers if you discontinue supporting that software. That doesn't make mmo's any different, just a minor change to how they handle end of life.

In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they’ll never actually die

That happened to Ragnarok Online. Iirc the early server code got leaked by hackers (it seems it's still being developed on GitHub lol), so all throughout the game's 20+ years lifetime it has had a flourishing private server scene with hundreds of servers still online, so I don't think it will die in our lifetimes.

I'm not young and I disagree with this petition. I don't think developers are doing anything wrong or immoral, and they should be free to make the design decisions they think are best. If the consumers end up not liking their decisions, then they won't buy the companies product. I think creating a law or regulation around this is too far.

You are acting like an EULA is going to ruin your life. Restaurants have EULAs too, like requiring shirt and shoes. Its not some crazy concept that if you want to enter someone else's establishment (online game) they might have expectations on how you behave.

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

Its sort of like complaining your favorite pub got shut down though, isn't it?

If you don't like how a company handles their end of life then don't buy from them. Trying to make it illegal is unnecessary as companies are already facing negative consequences for making poor EOL choices. I don't like forcing developers to create in a specific way, I'd rather they have freedom to choose.

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

It doesnt cost them nothing. There.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a health code, not a EULA.

Also, you are conflating social contracts with actual legally binding ones. If you had to sign a contract to eat at a resteraunt which gave them the right to photograph you and record all of your conversations while you ate then use all of it for marketing without compensating you or to sell the contents of your conversations and likeness to unknown 3rd parties without informing you of who they were sold to and what the intended use was, would you still eat there.

Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand and what abuses of rights are done in digital spaces.

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.

Except... For a contract to be legal it must be agreed upon by both parties free of manipulation or coercion. Now, usually this is specified to be manipulation or coercion on the part of one of the parties, but what I argue is that in the modern era that is insufficient to encompass the growing complexity around the way society works and how it will continue moving forward.

Pulling the numbers out of my well educated ass, 40 years ago the average person would encounter EULA-like contracts a handful of times per year. Maybe for a mail order service, or a piece of software. Today we encounter them daily. The amount of information in them is intentionally made dense and overwhelming so the average person becomes numb very quickly and opts to click through on most of them without reading them. This enables all sorts of personal liberty and information abuses on the part of corporations.

40 years ago you did not have one to find a job, a lover, buy a car (still had a loan contract, but if you paid up front you had 0 contracts other than the bill of sale). You would not encounter them to work most jobs. You could go years without having to risk signing your rights over to a company and usually when you did you had negotiation power. This is not true today. You work for a company, they use Zoom, Slack, Google Workplace, a Virtual Timecard service, all of which have individual EULA that you as a private citizen, not an employer, must agree to and be bound by. Microsoft can put in their EULA that they are allowed to take a screenshot of your computer every 15 seconds and transmit it to their servers. This could be intercepted, or the servers could be hacked and have the entire database compromised and you have 0 say other than public outcry or to airgap your system, which then complains constantly that it cannot connect to the internet and becomes virtually unusable for about 80% of why you want to own it.

Being required by an employer to use software which requires that you as an individual sign a EULA is coercion. Having 0 recourse for alternatives in a marketplace which do not require signing a EULA is coercion. Having the terms which strip your rights irrevocably and transferrably buried and written in confusing ways is manipulation.

I should never have to worry that my copyright is being stripped from a piece of art I create just because I share it to a friend on some website.

If that pub has been around long enough that it can reasonably be argued that it is part of regional heritage, then yes.

What does releasing the code have to do with development decisions? I am a developer and this sentiment really confused me, so please elucidate.

They should be able to decide whether to open source or not. If people don't like their decision they shouldnt buy their game.

I don't know any video game thats been around long enough to be called a historical landmark or whatever terminology.

There are many restaurants, especially the largest fast food chains, who do have you sign an agreement to allow them to do everything you said. And no I don't eat at those places because I don't like the practice personally. I don't buy games if I don't like the game company or their actions.

But this isn't about data collection and privacy, its about trying to prevent a game from shutting down because it feels upsetting. I'm sorry but if you are upset about it don't support the company.

I will agree we need laws around data privacy and collection of course, but thats a different topic.

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.

I don't really see it as an entirely separate topic. It is still an abuse of rights. In this case, it is an abuse of ownership. If I make a purchase of a good, I should own that good. If the company later decides that they no longer want to support the services which support that purchase, they should be required to provide the opportunity that all purchased goods remain valid and operational. If we take a different good as a stand in, cars, a manufacturer may eventually decide to stop supporting a vehicle, but they do have to sell the component rights to aftermarket manufacturers (or at least make good faith attempts) when they drop support so people who own those vehicles have the chance to maintain and use them. I see this as no different than that. Their dropping of support means that products purchased are removed from use or function without the owner's consent.

And I know you are going to say "well the EULA says you don't own it and you agreed to it" which is precicely the problem we are arguing. Purchase should mean ownership and forcing people to agree to whatever you want is wrong. Legislation is required because no company will protect the rights of customers, that is the duty of legal systems.

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.