Referral code: STAR-MFFM-S79R... use this code to get $5000 aUEC (in-game money) in STAR CITIZEN when you make an account! Link: • Europeans can save gam...
As someone who backed on day 1 and continues to watch CIG struggle with the basics of game design, engine hit detection, server stability, and honesty I don't think we have to worry about it coming out.
there are two things at play here and I do not know how they will be resolved. Assuming this initiative goes through all the hoops and grows up to become a law: 1)It will not apply back in time. (law does not work backwards in the EU) so it should not apply to SC as a game or to any of its ships... BUUuuuuuuuuuut 2)It will apply to all sales of MTX (ships) sold in the EU after the law comes into play. So if dev locks sales in the EU before zero hour they will be free to abandon the game in the future but if EU citizen buys a ship the dev will be obligated to make the game work for that player as to not separate them from their rightfully purchased product. At least that is how I understand it.
You have to remember that a bill when proposed initally will go through many itterations and it's never an "easy win" If the EU wanted to say, Ban lootboxes outright when advertised to an audience younger than 18. You bet every trading card game and collectables game would weigh in as to not be affected. Just like this "Bill", I would love to make companies accountable to keep games alive. With that said. Only if the legaly binding purchess you make is for a product and not a license to it. If the company tells you, "Hey! this is a license. WE still own the product" they should be able to have full control of when it shuts down.
1. SC promised private servers so they already have an end of life plan to conform with that. 2. This will not take effect for a long time anyway, so CIG would have lots of time to adapt. 3. Existing games may be grandfathered in and may not be required to abide by the regulation resulting from "stop killing games".
As much as I love this game, I will not subscribe to it on top of the money I have already invested. It would kill the game for me, and many opposed to having to pay a monthly fee to play. This is a tough one.
I'm exactly the opposite. I would very much pay a subscription, especially if it meant getting rid of the near-predatory ship selling (which is P2W btw). It also could mean the addition of different server types, like PVE-only and such.
@@ripl0x How many games would you play if you had to pay a monthly fee to play each one? As much as I love this game, I don't really play it much in the state that it's in. If they added a subscription to play I would absolutely step away for good.
@@mmanches26 I meant for when it goes live (1.0), my bad. However, I don't play games all that much anymore (losing interest as I get older), and currently am waiting for after 4.0 gets stable enough to play with any serious involvement. "How many games would you play if you had to pay a monthly fee to play each one?" That's a rather hyperbolic and disingenuous question, as the majority of games wouldn't need or benefit from such a payment model. However, when it comes to live service games that are under constant development, it makes a lot of sense. Heck, SC has 2 subscription levels now, but it just doesn't get you all that much.
@@ripl0x It is absolutely not disingenuous. There are plenty of live service game that do not require a paid subscription. In order to move to a paid subscription model, they would have to take away access that people already paid for so they can sell it back to them with a monthly fee. You would be ok with that? And the subscriptions CIG offers now have nothing to do with access to the game and should not.
Paul Reindell ran most or all of the stack at CitizenCon. The Cloud Test Launcher is probably the same thing. There's no reason they couldn't provide this to the community. Lets not make excuses for companies with "complex" online systems when we dont know how it actually works and what tools they have to run these things locally or small scale for testing that they havent shown publicly, like The Crew having systems for offline play in the client.
@@ZyvhurStudios The initiative doesnt require them to share that anyway. The ball isnt in the EU legislative's hands yet, we dont know what the requirements will be.
@@ZyvhurStudios They literally sold a modding manual for dedicated servers up through October of 2023. If they don't deliver dedicated server and modding tools they need to be sued into the ground.
I don’t think this bill will pass it just doesn’t take into account enough factors but for SCs end of life I think CIG could do like you said and expand AC to have a few planet maps for players to keep using their ships
It's a citizen's initiative, basically nothing more than a call to the EU parliament to get together and look at this issue and basically a way to ring the preverbial doorbell, and honestly I doubt the demands for multiplayer games will be met but it's more about the singleplayer games
I've went through this before with SWG (Star Wars Galaxies) and COH (City Of Heros) and I also have Elite Odyssey but it will be boring without your friends' a Good example Ready Player One The OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation) is a MMOSG (massively multiplayer online simulation game) created by James Halliday as an example, real world and in game products. Have the developers use the Internet as a HUB to contain online games worldwide. Maybe, they can have players buy or install their own 4 Terrabyte drive that holds the game, with a connection drive to have updates downloadable, and updated on a server. The game to install is only 90 gigabytes. all player-bought stuff can be on the 4-terabyte drive and is yours, even if another play loots you. If you lose your drive from a House Electrical issue, your stuff is still on the Hub (just call it the OASIS, just download and play again.
Well they can still deliver that in a way with AC private matches, a single world server meshed shard and private servers would never have shared progression anyway.
@@ZyvhurStudios Still does not kill the game, you are still be able to play it. So i dont see any problems with it. I already signed the petition here. Maybe we can force the gaminig industry to make an exit plan that makes both parties happy. I dont think its okay that a GaaS is being pulled and you be left with nothing. Something has to be done.
@@ZyvhurStudios They literally sold a modding manual for dedicated servers up until October 2023. They have to come through on that or people need to get sued/shunned/hunted for sport.
star citizen was promised to have private servers at one point. ofcourse that will never happen still though i doubt this will affect the ethernal alpha that is star citizen.
@@ZyvhurStudios That's what people say but in the original campaign they likened Star Citizens private servers to Freelancers. If anything the way they talked about it seemed to imply the only thing you'd be missing out on in private servers is the chance to influence the ongoing PU.
@@cellulanus the scope of the game was much smaller back then, you would need a pretty beefy PC... I would be fine with a single star system in AC that I could host around 25 players in
Are car manufacturers forced to supply car parts for all car models forever. No, because the car companies, and all of it's workers, have to move on to develop the next models to sell. If the gaming companies were forced to finance the supply of endless server resource and game support for every game they made it would possibly end the gaming industry which is already strugglng as it is.
Some points are possible to get, but requiring endless support is impossible and so illegal. The same goes for giving up source code, which is usually subject to business secrets, licensing burdens, and most importantly, will often contain code that the company will want to reuse in future commercial closed source products.
As much as I like the idea of game preservation, I think it doesn't make sense to try to preserve games primarily made to be played online this way. You can preserve the actual bytes and fire up a local server, buy you won't get the online experience again. Even games which are still online, once a majority of people move on to the next game, the experience is not the same anymore. Gameplay capture, that really captures the experience of playing the game as it was at the time of the recording. I think people need to realize, sooner than later, that nothing in this world is eternal or is yours forever, not even land or a country as people in warzones had to realize. Depreciation is a thing. People need to learn to have better financial decisions. When you pledge on a Kickstarter, you're pretty much placing a bet, when you're buying an MMO, or any other online focused game, you should assume the game is not going to be around forever so the decision is, can I get my money's worth of entertainment on X game while it last, or before I move on to the next game? People need to know economics because it's a videogame now, but it's pretty much the same kind of decision you have to make to buy things like a car or a house.
Having a smaller or even local access to a game is preferable to no access. Remember the alternative to everything you said is that no one gets to play these games again. Even if I am the only person playing a game after the devs provide the EoL support, its still the better solution as opposed to just letting these games die forever. Also, there is no real way to predict the online community of a game after EoL. Ideally there would still be the potential for online with this. Even if MMO types games get a small fraction of the player base after official support, that could still be a lot of players, it would just be spread across less servers. Its not a lot to ask that we have access to stuff we paid for, or to market these games as a rental if it is not a purchase. Assuring that we get our moneys worth is a good financial decision, buying productions with no defined expiration, that could literally be shut down and have access blocked within a month is not a good financial decision and is designed at the expense of the consumer.
Once this game completes its life cycle, I believe a few things will have happened. First, content creators will have moved on. This field seems to rely on new material and by end of life for this game; that will have ceased for some time. Second, no new players, you can't buy starter packs or new ships as that infrastructure will not be accessible. The economy won't be centralized which means in game bank accounts will have to be transferred to a local PC; this will invite manipulation (hacking). So Unfortunately when a game dies; let it die with some dignity. Trying to zombify a game has the potential to turn a beloved nostalgic experience into a slum pool hated game. Just my opinion.
This will not affect star citizen in anyway . Star citizen will never be finished or reach end of life
Yeah course it will never reach the beginning of its life either 12 years in alpha
No one who can vote today will see SC’s end of life lol. The heat death of the universe will happen sometime around closed beta.
As someone who backed on day 1 and continues to watch CIG struggle with the basics of game design, engine hit detection, server stability, and honesty I don't think we have to worry about it coming out.
there are two things at play here and I do not know how they will be resolved. Assuming this initiative goes through all the hoops and grows up to become a law:
1)It will not apply back in time. (law does not work backwards in the EU) so it should not apply to SC as a game or to any of its ships... BUUuuuuuuuuuut
2)It will apply to all sales of MTX (ships) sold in the EU after the law comes into play.
So if dev locks sales in the EU before zero hour they will be free to abandon the game in the future but if EU citizen buys a ship the dev will be obligated to make the game work for that player as to not separate them from their rightfully purchased product.
At least that is how I understand it.
You have to remember that a bill when proposed initally will go through many itterations and it's never an "easy win"
If the EU wanted to say, Ban lootboxes outright when advertised to an audience younger than 18. You bet every trading card game and collectables game would weigh in as to not be affected.
Just like this "Bill", I would love to make companies accountable to keep games alive. With that said. Only if the legaly binding purchess you make is for a product and not a license to it. If the company tells you, "Hey! this is a license. WE still own the product" they should be able to have full control of when it shuts down.
1. SC promised private servers so they already have an end of life plan to conform with that.
2. This will not take effect for a long time anyway, so CIG would have lots of time to adapt.
3. Existing games may be grandfathered in and may not be required to abide by the regulation resulting from "stop killing games".
I think if they held up on their promise of private servers, they could charge for upkeep. That might help it limp along longer.
Star Citizen is killing itself seeing as they can't get a decade old ship into the alpha yet
As much as I love this game, I will not subscribe to it on top of the money I have already invested. It would kill the game for me, and many opposed to having to pay a monthly fee to play. This is a tough one.
I'm exactly the opposite. I would very much pay a subscription, especially if it meant getting rid of the near-predatory ship selling (which is P2W btw). It also could mean the addition of different server types, like PVE-only and such.
@@ripl0x How many games would you play if you had to pay a monthly fee to play each one? As much as I love this game, I don't really play it much in the state that it's in. If they added a subscription to play I would absolutely step away for good.
@@mmanches26 I meant for when it goes live (1.0), my bad. However, I don't play games all that much anymore (losing interest as I get older), and currently am waiting for after 4.0 gets stable enough to play with any serious involvement.
"How many games would you play if you had to pay a monthly fee to play each one?"
That's a rather hyperbolic and disingenuous question, as the majority of games wouldn't need or benefit from such a payment model. However, when it comes to live service games that are under constant development, it makes a lot of sense. Heck, SC has 2 subscription levels now, but it just doesn't get you all that much.
@@ripl0x It is absolutely not disingenuous. There are plenty of live service game that do not require a paid subscription. In order to move to a paid subscription model, they would have to take away access that people already paid for so they can sell it back to them with a monthly fee. You would be ok with that? And the subscriptions CIG offers now have nothing to do with access to the game and should not.
@@ripl0x "I meant for when it goes live (1.0)" oh so you mean never ? Right, then we're good
Paul Reindell ran most or all of the stack at CitizenCon. The Cloud Test Launcher is probably the same thing. There's no reason they couldn't provide this to the community.
Lets not make excuses for companies with "complex" online systems when we dont know how it actually works and what tools they have to run these things locally or small scale for testing that they havent shown publicly, like The Crew having systems for offline play in the client.
its not really a problem for them to host because they own the tech, making it available for other people is a different story
@@ZyvhurStudios The initiative doesnt require them to share that anyway. The ball isnt in the EU legislative's hands yet, we dont know what the requirements will be.
@@ZyvhurStudios They literally sold a modding manual for dedicated servers up through October of 2023. If they don't deliver dedicated server and modding tools they need to be sued into the ground.
I don’t think this bill will pass it just doesn’t take into account enough factors but for SCs end of life I think CIG could do like you said and expand AC to have a few planet maps for players to keep using their ships
What bill? This is a napkin idea. Thats all it is right now.
It's a citizen's initiative, basically nothing more than a call to the EU parliament to get together and look at this issue and basically a way to ring the preverbial doorbell, and honestly I doubt the demands for multiplayer games will be met but it's more about the singleplayer games
I agree this is not likely, but I firmly believe game companies need to take end of service more seriously
There's no way it kills Star Citizen. It would simply require they release dedicated server support at end of life.
I've went through this before with SWG (Star Wars Galaxies) and COH (City Of Heros) and I also have Elite Odyssey but it will be boring without your friends' a Good example Ready Player One The OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation) is a MMOSG (massively multiplayer online simulation game) created by James Halliday as an example, real world and in game products. Have the developers use the Internet as a HUB to contain online games worldwide.
Maybe, they can have players buy or install their own 4 Terrabyte drive that holds the game, with a connection drive to have updates downloadable, and updated on a server. The game to install is only 90 gigabytes. all player-bought stuff can be on the 4-terabyte drive and is yours, even if another play loots you.
If you lose your drive from a House Electrical issue, your stuff is still on the Hub (just call it the OASIS, just download and play again.
Yes ultimately even if CIG has no end of life plans its never too early to start planning
On an MMO that has been promised to continually develop even after it comes out shows the continuation of this game SC.😮
The law does not apply retroactively. None of present games or projects under development (like SC) will be affected by future legilation.
Sorry, stop killing games don't kill star citizen. They already promised private servers. And they are cig and Cr
Well they can still deliver that in a way with AC private matches, a single world server meshed shard and private servers would never have shared progression anyway.
@@ZyvhurStudios Still does not kill the game, you are still be able to play it. So i dont see any problems with it. I already signed the petition here. Maybe we can force the gaminig industry to make an exit plan that makes both parties happy. I dont think its okay that a GaaS is being pulled and you be left with nothing. Something has to be done.
@@ZyvhurStudios They literally sold a modding manual for dedicated servers up until October 2023. They have to come through on that or people need to get sued/shunned/hunted for sport.
it never started as a game yet.
star citizen was promised to have private servers at one point. ofcourse that will never happen still though i doubt this will affect the ethernal alpha that is star citizen.
They promised private, moddable servers and it would only require them to fulfill their damned promise.
I don't know if the private severs would be for the PU more than likely AC only
@@ZyvhurStudios That's what people say but in the original campaign they likened Star Citizens private servers to Freelancers. If anything the way they talked about it seemed to imply the only thing you'd be missing out on in private servers is the chance to influence the ongoing PU.
@@cellulanus the scope of the game was much smaller back then, you would need a pretty beefy PC... I would be fine with a single star system in AC that I could host around 25 players in
It wishes it had unique server tech. That tech doesnt yet exist. There are MANY longstanding and new companies with server tech.
I say in the video other companies are doing this too :)
Are car manufacturers forced to supply car parts for all car models forever. No, because the car companies, and all of it's workers, have to move on to develop the next models to sell. If the gaming companies were forced to finance the supply of endless server resource and game support for every game they made it would possibly end the gaming industry which is already strugglng as it is.
I think it has to be a game first.. This thing will never be a full game.
SBI destroy games too...
Pow great vid homie
thank you so much :)
When CIG can no longer milk money out of it's "player base", then they will release the game.
and we lost ?
Some points are possible to get, but requiring endless support is impossible and so illegal. The same goes for giving up source code, which is usually subject to business secrets, licensing burdens, and most importantly, will often contain code that the company will want to reuse in future commercial closed source products.
As much as I like the idea of game preservation, I think it doesn't make sense to try to preserve games primarily made to be played online this way. You can preserve the actual bytes and fire up a local server, buy you won't get the online experience again. Even games which are still online, once a majority of people move on to the next game, the experience is not the same anymore. Gameplay capture, that really captures the experience of playing the game as it was at the time of the recording.
I think people need to realize, sooner than later, that nothing in this world is eternal or is yours forever, not even land or a country as people in warzones had to realize. Depreciation is a thing. People need to learn to have better financial decisions. When you pledge on a Kickstarter, you're pretty much placing a bet, when you're buying an MMO, or any other online focused game, you should assume the game is not going to be around forever so the decision is, can I get my money's worth of entertainment on X game while it last, or before I move on to the next game? People need to know economics because it's a videogame now, but it's pretty much the same kind of decision you have to make to buy things like a car or a house.
Yes and I believe SC will be designed like, a living game world
Having a smaller or even local access to a game is preferable to no access. Remember the alternative to everything you said is that no one gets to play these games again. Even if I am the only person playing a game after the devs provide the EoL support, its still the better solution as opposed to just letting these games die forever.
Also, there is no real way to predict the online community of a game after EoL. Ideally there would still be the potential for online with this. Even if MMO types games get a small fraction of the player base after official support, that could still be a lot of players, it would just be spread across less servers.
Its not a lot to ask that we have access to stuff we paid for, or to market these games as a rental if it is not a purchase. Assuring that we get our moneys worth is a good financial decision, buying productions with no defined expiration, that could literally be shut down and have access blocked within a month is not a good financial decision and is designed at the expense of the consumer.
Once this game completes its life cycle, I believe a few things will have happened. First, content creators will have moved on. This field seems to rely on new material and by end of life for this game; that will have ceased for some time. Second, no new players, you can't buy starter packs or new ships as that infrastructure will not be accessible. The economy won't be centralized which means in game bank accounts will have to be transferred to a local PC; this will invite manipulation (hacking). So Unfortunately when a game dies; let it die with some dignity. Trying to zombify a game has the potential to turn a beloved nostalgic experience into a slum pool hated game.
Just my opinion.
Yes I think end of life will not include the full PU but just AC and SQ42
I agree 100%. Best Comment so far on this video.
🫡
This is what happens when you fail to vote with your wallet, and then run to the government to fix your problems.