• NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    If they can play against bots, which already exist in the game, or band enough people together with access to the game to play on a server one player is able to host, then yes. That’s what I’d expect at a minimum.

      • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If they want to keep some form of DRM then that’s not my job to figure out. This wasn’t a problem back in the day when server software being distributed was the norm, so it shouldn’t be a problem now.

        Though personally I’d be in favor of abolishing online DRM entirely, but that’s another story.

        • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          that’s not my job to figure out.

          So you want people to follow a law without knowing how it should be followed? You signed a petition and now it’s someone else’s problem if they get in legal trouble or not? This makes the world a better place because it protects theoretical people?

          • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            At least try to make an effort to understand what I write.

            I said it’s their job to figure out how to do DRM -if- they want DRM. If they can’t figure out how to do that then the answer shouldn’t need to be spelled out explicitly: No DRM. Simple as that.

            If you’d rather see games you spent money on being taken away from you based on the whims of corporations, just to make sure others who might not have payed for it also can’t play it, then I don’t know what to tell you.

            • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Control of the server is the DRM. Radical Heights sold hats for $15. How do they ensure only players who paid for hats get them and that non-paying players couldn’t just mod them in? They control that information on the server. Which accounts have cosmetics is controlled by the server. That’s the DRM. If they had to release the server when shutting down then they’d have no way to ensure only paying customers play the game since the person who runs the sever can modify it however they want. Everyone could get the $15 hats for free! Or maybe they charge $2 for the hats. There’s no DRM that could prevent this because control of the server is itself the DRM.

              So a dev is being required by law to give out their game without any DRM meaning anyone can play it for free and even give themselves the cosmetics the original devs were using to pay the salaries of the dev team. I worry very much that this would cause companies to stop producing free to play games or charge a subscription for these types of games instead (since subscription based games would be exempt). I wonder why people would risk this to “save” games like Radical Heights which, in all likelihood, would have no community. A game doesn’t shutdown after 1 month because it has a thriving community

              • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Yes, you’re just explaining regular piracy here. I do not care. It’s a thing that’s already been possible for almost every single-player game in existence, and yet, there’s a constant stream of new single-player games releasing every day. Weird, right?