MultiVersus officially closes down and is delisted today
-
The reason that games are even hosted on "official" servers like these is to ensure the company can take the game down once the devs run out of time o the contract they made for all the IP's they use in said game. Otherwise its possible AND has been done before to let the players machines spin up a server each match.
The only issue was having to have a "matchmaking" server but even then, steam has the tools to replace that entirely.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If you aren't already aware of it (and in the EU) please sign the stopkillinggames.com petition so companies can't just drop "support" (that these days means kill) games when they feel like it.
-
This game leaves behind a legacy of extremely funny poor decisions and mistakes, culminating in becoming one of the few games that got to be shut down twice.
The worst part, the demo was actually pretty good.
They literally could have released this game with mod support, and sold it for $20 and it would have been a fun party game.
Instead, they kept going on with BS games as a service.
-
I'm not playing them as hard as I can.
Live service games have been failing constantly, so unless the change is happening already I don't think they're deterred. That perpetual revenue stream is some exec's idea of a lottery ticket.
Same here. There’s been a few games I’ve seen on here recently that look interesting, even some “indie” titles, but as soon as I get to the Steam page and it lists online only, I’ve lost all interest.
Miss me with that bullshit.
-
The business model isn't terrible, it makes money, but it is terrible for the consumer
The business model isn't terrible, it makes money, but it is terrible for the consumer
I am aggressively opposed to anything that is profitable at the expense of the consumer. That is a terrible business model.
-
It's going offline. You can still play it.
If you never owned it then it doesn't matter.It's not my game. I only wanted to talk about what they did wrong. Kinda just doing armpit farts at the funeral, yanno?
-
I would venture to guess it's to avoid potential licensing issues that could arise down the road that they don't want to deal with.
Were any characters in the game not owned by Warner Bros?
-
Were any characters in the game not owned by Warner Bros?
Potentially, I don't exactly know all the rights owners.
But just looking at the roster, I'd assume Arya Stark might be the most complicated. While HBO falls under WB, unsure if ol' George signed away all rights to the character. And there's always future deals too, since rights holders can change hands.
-
It's not my game. I only wanted to talk about what they did wrong. Kinda just doing armpit farts at the funeral, yanno?
Lol i like that phrasing. Yeah i hear ya
-
Do you even have to pay hosting costs, if you put a game on steam or does valve not distribute your game for free?
If I'd have to guess the bigger issues with a game like this would be licensing or that delisting allows some form of tax advantageous asset depreciation.
You don't pay anything to steam other than the initial 100 bucks or so, and the cut they take
-
If you aren't already aware of it (and in the EU) please sign the stopkillinggames.com petition so companies can't just drop "support" (that these days means kill) games when they feel like it.
What are you suggesting? That on once a game goes online it'll require the company by law to keep it running forever?
How many companies would still release games that requires backend if they knew it's a never ending endeavour even if they'll lose money from it?Running the infrastructure to host the game's baceknd requires money, and releasing the server code as binary or open source is not something that'll happen.
So what is the end goal?
-
What are you suggesting? That on once a game goes online it'll require the company by law to keep it running forever?
How many companies would still release games that requires backend if they knew it's a never ending endeavour even if they'll lose money from it?Running the infrastructure to host the game's baceknd requires money, and releasing the server code as binary or open source is not something that'll happen.
So what is the end goal?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Required games and games studios to build the game to be played offline or have the ability to self host the server.
-
What are you suggesting? That on once a game goes online it'll require the company by law to keep it running forever?
How many companies would still release games that requires backend if they knew it's a never ending endeavour even if they'll lose money from it?Running the infrastructure to host the game's baceknd requires money, and releasing the server code as binary or open source is not something that'll happen.
So what is the end goal?
The companies could shut down their servers, if they at the same time would release the software needed to run the servers.
This would allow the creation of community servers, without any costs or responsibilities for the companiesThere was a time when multiplayer games all came with dedicated server binaries.
-
If you aren't already aware of it (and in the EU) please sign the stopkillinggames.com petition so companies can't just drop "support" (that these days means kill) games when they feel like it.
It will never work
-
Do you even have to pay hosting costs, if you put a game on steam or does valve not distribute your game for free?
If I'd have to guess the bigger issues with a game like this would be licensing or that delisting allows some form of tax advantageous asset depreciation.
Valve hosts it for "free" (30 to 15% of every sale), yes.
I'm guessing this game has some phone-home DRM or something, and maybe it's only required the first time it's executed after installation ? They could of course just give the game a patch that removes it but I guess they don't want to anger
the lineinvestors and make it go down by working even a second on a "discontinued" game. -
What are you suggesting? That on once a game goes online it'll require the company by law to keep it running forever?
How many companies would still release games that requires backend if they knew it's a never ending endeavour even if they'll lose money from it?Running the infrastructure to host the game's baceknd requires money, and releasing the server code as binary or open source is not something that'll happen.
So what is the end goal?
It would require devs to start planning for indefinite support during development. Wether that means releasing server software and the source code or not making the game reliant on servers in the first place is up to them.
-
What are you suggesting? That on once a game goes online it'll require the company by law to keep it running forever?
How many companies would still release games that requires backend if they knew it's a never ending endeavour even if they'll lose money from it?Running the infrastructure to host the game's baceknd requires money, and releasing the server code as binary or open source is not something that'll happen.
So what is the end goal?
Oh for fuck sake, this has never been a good argument, and people who keep repeating these argument-questions (almost like they're a copy paste) either never read what Stop Killing Games demands, or lack the reading comprehension necessary to understand it.
The third option would be malicious sabotage, but I'm hoping it's just one of the two stupidity options.
-
Yeah, they've just ensured the only way a person can play it is through piracy. Very smart move, WB, very smart...
-
It's really gross how people's games can just be disappeared these days. GaaS is a terrible business model.
It's not just limited to games...
We see it most prevalently in games because the gaming industry is massive. But this can also happen to your car... Or your fridge...
Here's a fun story:
There were these few blind people who volunteered to have cybernetic implants that would help them (partially) see. The company went under, the patent is held by a patent troll, but the people still have those implants in their head... Which have now either shut down or are malfunctioning...
-
This game could have easily been another Marvel Rivals. An absolute success using its strong IPs in a game type that is underrepresented. There's no other big name doing Smash Bros style combat, and definitely not outside of Nintendo's platform. The elements were all there to make this a successful game, but they completely blew the execution.
Another problem is the game director overhyping and saying "any character is possibile" and he wasn't limiting it to warner bros's IPs but if you're going to do that, then they honestly should have made the game launch with at least one 3rd party character.
