Most online games are now dead, Stop Killing Games proponents say

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Games Matter: Stop Killing Games is pushing back against mandatory online requirements that turn perfectly functional games into self-destructing time bombs. While petitions are ongoing, activists have compiled a list of titles that have already shut down because of publishers' short-sighted greediness.

The Stop Killing Games campaign recently marked its one-year anniversary. In that time, many games with online functionality have been completely removed from the market.

Ross Scott, the YouTuber who originally proposed the SKG movement, has compiled a list of "dead games" to help guide the campaign's future initiatives. According to Scott, 70 percent of games requiring any form of online functionality are now effectively "destroyed."

The SKG Dead Games List is a best-effort attempt to document titles that have been shut down, and while it may not be 100 percent comprehensive, it provides valuable insight. The list includes games that are already offline, those at risk of losing online features, and titles that have been preserved by fan-made patches or proactive developers.

In a recent video, Scott discussed how the SKG team assembled the list and outlined their methodology.

It includes single-player games that were sold with mandatory online or multiplayer components. According to Scott, these should effectively be considered "online games," as customers cannot opt out of the online elements even in single-player modes.

Even if you exclude the "online" games that can still function offline, Scott noted that over 68 percent of the surveyed titles are either dead or in the process of being shut down.

Even if you exclude the "online" games that can still function offline, Scott noted that over 68 percent of the surveyed titles are either dead or in the process of being shut down. Furthermore, publishers often obscure the true extent of online requirements. A game might advertise private server support, but still rely on company-run "official" servers to function – creating a single point of failure.

The SKG movement is now working to launch a proper wiki to document the growing number of abandoned online games. In the meantime, two great resources you can use are PCGamingWiki, which can provide some useful info about online requirements and game preservation, and GOG, where all titles are sold with full offline functionality – ready to endure the coming turbocapitalist apocalypse.

The Stop Killing Games website emphasizes how an increasing number of video games are designed to become completely unplayable once official support ends. This practice of planned obsolescence harms both consumers and the preservation of digital culture. Its legality is questionable in many countries. SKG is now working to gather enough signatures from European citizens to pressure the EU into passing legislation against online obsolescence.

Permalink to story:

Most online games are now dead, Stop Killing Games proponents say

 

[NumberNine]

There's really no substitute for a solid community operated dedicated server.

 

[amghwk]

There's really no substitute for "normal" single player games like those days, where you buy a game that came in a box and you can play whenever you want, offline. I mean there's no such nonsense that to play even a single player game, you still need to connect online.

Take 1 simple example : Diablo 1 and original Diablo 2. The single player is STIL immensely playable, and there were Network options available like TCP/IP and IPX modes. It was there if you want to play with your friends, but it was not built only for these. Not have to deal with foul-mouthed teens.

What we need are offline games. But the new gen nowadays seem to prefer only online games. And once the server is shutdown, then the value of these online only games are gone. No companies will keep the server online forever.

As I keep saying, the gaming scene is pathetic nowadays.

 

[scavengerspc]

When you can take away something people paid you money for, and you know damn well they will not fight back, it's a gold mine, because, coincidentally I'm sure, they have a new version of what they took. And you don't even have to work hard, or innovate, improve on things, or even just tighten things up, because they will be happy just to keep playing.
Just make them pay again.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Good luck getting the troops together to carry out the mission.

 

[whateversa]

Since when is Battlefield 1 fan preserved?

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Copyright laws vary from Country to Country and it's going to get messy if people think that a single law by the EU will solve this problem. Of course the company can sell you a copy of the game but it will not be required to support it once it's obsolete.

 

[Hassanabi]

Let's be real, even the games I loved back in the day such as Unreal Tournament 99 and Star Wars: Jedi Academy has like 50-300 players at most at any given time.

The majority of online games are not similarly liked as these franchises.

I count 57 online "players" here:
https://ut99.org/servers#/utserv

It's not clear if this counts in bots, some servers have only 1 available slot and it's filled so nobody else can join.

Sure there might be games pulling more people, but for the most part they probably pull under 100 players.

You also have to consider fragmentation of the playerbase, especially with games like Call of Duty or Battlefield, for the most part you would want players to be on the newest games. Such as you want 40's WW2 (BF1) you want futuristic BF2042 etc.

Keeping servers up costs money, but publicly providing serversoftware for people to run these games by their own, opens up avenues for cheaters. Cheat-creators with this software might find flaws that will also exist in the newly released games as developers tend to use their own serversoftware in multiple games.

What about smaller developers? What about games that are not massively popular at all? Are indie developers forced to deliver serversoftware as well or to keep servers running for an obviously dead game?

What about trash games like Concord that at it's peak had 697 concurrent players, do games like these have to stay online when the developer is bleeding money over it?

Maybe someone should create opensource server management and browser software with a central server, that can hook into multiple games and are relatively easy for any developer to simply hook into.