The initiative’s name is “Stop Destroying Videogames” in case anyone is interested. I signed because I believe game preservation and especially consumer rights are going to become more important topics as time goes on, so it would be advantageous to have them taken more seriously with regards to EU Lawmaking. The neat thing about EU cityzens’ initiatives is that they are NOT laws, so their wording doesn’t have to be absolutely precise. They’re only meant to bring awareness of what issues citizens value so that EU lawmakers, experts, etc. can get the ball rolling for potential solutions.
The name of the initiative is "Stop Killing Games", but you're on the right track. As an American, thank you for helping global consumer rights where we can't. It's fucked up that our consumer rights are so gutted that we can't even reasonably petition our government to do anything about this, and I wish I could do more to help than just spread the message and cheer from the sidelines, but here we are.
@@houragents5490 Yeah, honestly I tire of people using "game preservation" as an excuse or justification for piracy... It's especially ironic when they act like some old games like the original 1985 "Super Mario Brothers." are going to disappear forever if they don't pirate or copy it, and that game has been rereleased on every Nintendo system since the Gameboy Advance. It's not going anywhere. (Heck, it even got rereleased and updated in a neat little Game and Watch toy a few years ago. And when I say updated, I mean it has a level select, and hard mode option on the title screen added when you beat it.) Furthermore, the famed Nintendo Gigaleak from a few years back prove Nintendo archives everything anyway, including unfinished/unreleased games, character designs, and such already. They have Terabytes of this stuff.
@@spiritmuseHuh, you're right. The original name for the campaign was Stop Killing Games, and it's still the name used on their website, so I must've gotten confused.
So, basically, they're making an offline version of Pocket Camp. With what's happening with that game, it should've happened with Dr Mario World, and more importantly, Dragalia Lost.
Yeah, it's nice they're not destroying the game, but I feel they should rerelease those somehow. Especially, for those that spent money on them, or at least compensate them with free eShop funds, or something.
Dragalia Lost might've if it had survived long enough. Iirc the devs bailed on the game the moment it started trending downward in profits, I heard it died really early.
Dr. Mario World failed faster than it would have because they nerfed the Luigi infinite over a month after it was circulating so by the time they nerfed it it greatly outraged players who were too late to take advantage of it resulting in a substantial drop in activity. I know this because I was part of the circle who knew about the Luigi infinite.
With what is happening with THE CREW series from ubisoft and even ubisoft's comment saying that "people should get used to them removing games" this law feels like a breath of fresh air
Ironically, it's The Crew that kicked off this bid. Stop Killing Games was started by Accursed Judge right here on UA-cam a few months ago. And, I am not gonna lie, I think it actually has a chance of working. It's a smart move because it's just common sense, really.
When companies say that, just do one thing: stop buying their games. Easy. Go play indies from people that pour their heart out onto their games like Stardew Valley
I wish Nintendo went through their mobile back catalogue to rerelease delisted games, just without the online requirement. I don’t think games like Dr. Mario World were that good, but it makes me uncomfortable that there’s absolutely no means to play it even in single player.
Pokemon Duel!! Such a good story but never finished and server taken down before any updates on that 😢😢😢 Multiplayer was laggy but the main draw has always been the single player content!
Wait wait Europe is forcing games that shut down to provide offline versions???? THANK YOU EUROPE, PLEASE SPREAD THIS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. I didn’t get to lay Dragalia, Brave Exivus is shutting down, and so many more games shut down that should be offline. I’m sick of it. Offline mode should be normal. EDIT: AND BLOODMASQUE. I think about that game EVERY. DANG. TIME.
@@INRamos13 The point is that if the Initiative passes, and a law that meets the demand is made (which is probably the most unlikely part unfortunately), then once games have adjusted to meet the standards in Europe they can just spread to the rest of the world for no additionnal cost. The petition is currently sitting at 334k signatures out of the million required in only a month, with 4 countries meeting the minimum quota (Finland, Sweden, Germany and Poland) and 2 more being very close (Belgium and Denmark) out of the 7 necessary. France is also only 20k signatures away from meeting its own quota, which I'd expect to be doable if some big streamers start talking about it. Although I won't be holding my breath too much. The first month is also the one where most signatures are collected anyway so getting a third of the way through is in a way not that great, and while the subject is relatively neutral politically, lobbies have a lot of sway in Europe and I don't see game companies sitting on their ass on this matter. In a way, if AC Pocket Camp is indeed getting ahead of the law, it could be a very useful argument for the initiative's case, creating a precedent.
Gacha games can’t run forever, but at the very least there should be a way to view your collectables even after it shuts down. I’m really happy to hear Pocket Camp is doing just that, that’s huge.
As someone who played pocket camp and never spent a single penny on it, I'm more than happy to pay a one time fee to play an offline version which has all the content accessible.
Some framework for fans to fund and run servers for the games themselves once gachas are decommissioned would be amazing and should conceivably be doable.
Should be more than that, most gacha games run almost completely locally aside from a "guest character" type system and the gacha pulls itself. It's really bad that a bunch of game franchises have major entries that are effectively sandcastles even if they could be converted to offline without changing the gameplay experience much.
Not even just digital rights; all battery powered devices will need to have user replaceable batteries in a few years in the EU. It'll be too much hassle to design two versions of devices that are that different so likely devices worldwide will have removable batteries.
The EU’s legal landscape is largely unenforceable, IMO. I work in a highly regulated field, and there are breaches literally everywhere, but unless it’s a huge company that’ll make a big story, it’ll never be found.
I wholeheartly support "Stop Destroying Videogames" 24/7 needed online connection to play a game and the developer/publisher being able to just end service, is just unbelieveable. You lose a piece of art and so much lore and exclusive content of said game, big example being NieR:ReIncarnate. Players had to preserve the knowledge and infos said in the game for the larger DrakenNieR fanbase.
Another interesting proposal that would be a unique way to keep these games playable would be community hosted servers. While not sanctioned by Nintendo today, games like Mario Kart Wii and Splatoon 1 are still kept alive thanks to the community reverse engineering Nintendo’s server architecture and creating community servers like Wiimmfi and Pretendo. If Nintendo partnered with fan communities and gave them access to some method of hosting servers without requiring communities to do reverse engineering, they could still offer near full functionality of these titles with no extra cost after EoL. I find it unlikely Nintendo would do this given how they’ve historically been against modding efforts, but I think this would be a great move by Nintendo to support their most loyal customers.
It would be a great move, but it's specifically outlined in the initiative that this would not be required of publishers, and that no additional development time would be needed to actively participate positively in the initiatives goal. They do not have to supply any assets or code, including server software, they simply have to stop going out of their way to destroy the functionality that would allow people to do that reverse engineering, stop destroying the games software itself, nothing else associated. This initiative will never work if we have demands the companies see as "unreasonable" (despite how basic, non unreasonable, and simple it would be to do), and that includes publicly releasing never publicized internal server software.
@@Clarkzer0Then, perhaps at the very least, they could leave the door open for community servers? In the update that makes games playable offline, perhaps they could include code that would make it easier for the game to be connected to a new backend server, so that the community has an easier time? When support ends for many games, currently the game is usually updated with the end of support hard coded, and the servers which shut down remain hard coded into the game, and oftentimes the game has to be patched by homebrewers to get around this and to put in a new list of servers for the game to connect to. While error codes could be added for end of support, perhaps they could add a mechanism by which these server lists could be switched over more easily, without the need for patching the game, and that if functional backend infrastructure is detected at these new servers it resumes online functionality and stops giving end of support error codes. This kind of mechanism could be shipped with the end of support update.
Those “community” servers would also be required to follow the same laws as Nintendo which would cripple them before they start, especially since they would have a lot of players. The amount of laws and regulations you have to comply with is only growing and has already killed many such “communities” on the Internet.
@@birdybird712 Pretendo, WiiLink, and WiiMMFi seem to be doing just fine, I don't see what the problem is with community servers, so why not make it easier for community servers for switch and future consoles to take Nintendo's place?
It is important to clarify that if the law gets passed it will, with absolute certainty, NOT be retroactive. They will pick a date several years in the future and it will only affect games that release after that time. That is how most of the recent European laws have worked. Nintendo has no legal incentive to do this. They probably have their own reasons for it.
@@bigfennec Usually true... America is similar but we do grandfather in any product or service that will still be sold officially post date of similar laws like this initiative. Any other products and services no longer active will not legally require such legal obligations under Consumer Protection Law.
There is actually a legal incentive to do it now, and it's not exactly an unusual tactic: Arguing that the law is unnecessary because the industry is behaving itself on its own. That said, given that the citizens initiative is still at the vote gathering stage, it seems a little premature for that sort of play. If the Stop Killing/Destroying Games movement influenced Nintendo on this one, it would probably just be in terms of PR.
@SnakebitSTI The only issue is... When the facts go against that legal claim. But in the idea of corruption. I suppose, in the name of malevolence, "letting corporations self-control their own quality of products" has never been used to sell nothing more than mediocrity and worse??? Corporations had over 50+ years (in America) to be better. They have failed. And I extend this failure to our own USA Government as a nation as well to extend it to our people... But this is beyond gaming as a whole. More in line with core and critical issues of the present era and of the future. In the end, knowing Fate. No one will win because the bets don't serve the people. Corporations and governments are not here for anyone but themselves. So much so that when the Free Market existed, mega corporations can full-on control it with zero real ramifications. Case in point... We gave Corporations freedom, and now their liberty is 1st Class compared to the citizens of their own nations. And the citizens have it worst even given the government.
Yes!! I have played many Square Enix Gacha Games, but once they hit end of service, all your purchases get erased! I really hope this law comes to pass and requires offline versions of games such as these. Many of these games are not multiplayer-focused and do not rely on online play, so there is no reason they need to be erased once online support ends!
Dragon Quest Tact ending almost broke me of gachas entirely. The only one I still play is Slime Isekai Memories, and even that’s on thin ice. Modern mobile gaming culture makes me tired.
Kind of like what Capcom did with Mega Man X Dive, yeah? Release an offline version with all the content available so consumers wouldn’t lose the game entirely.
yeah I played Nier Reincarnation when it came out and I actually picked it up again a few months before it shut down. it was the first time id ever had a live service game i played get shut off and the wording for the announcement was vague enough I actually thought It would be semi playable after release just with no multi player aspects or events, I was very wrong..
They wouldn't even need to keep supporting multiplayer content like Mario Maker and Splatoon 2. Just to not actively prevent/shutdown fanmade services to keep them running.
Ideally companies WOULDN'T have to eternally support a game for it to remain playable online. What a lot are calling for is for companies to be mandated to release server code so community servers can be ran right when the services go down. Fan servers are already available for a bunch of popular online games on the Wii and Wii U (Splatoon 1 and Mariokart Wii are high profile examples I can think of off the top of my head), but they had to be reverse engineered, taking a considerable amount of time and effort that a lot of less popular games wont get.
With titles such as Splatoon being peer to peer for the actual online gameplay, it's possible that all they'd need to provide to keep ahead of this law is an update to them to allow typing in someone else's IP address to make a connection without going via a matchmaking system. (Actually with all modes in Splatoon 3 being available via LAN, they might have a defence that the content can be accessed after online servers are shut down, the only thing that would go away if is matchmaking... As long as 8 people gather with Switches you can still play a full game of Clam Blitz, or a full round of Salmon Run if 4 gather, etc)
For almost all non-subscription software , licenses for both personal and enterprise software is perpetual. I have never understood how games want a one time purchase for a non-perpetual license.
Here's where the illegal act begins and ends... FF14 is a true Service under USA laws. But "buying" a game. To which you only bought the key to access. That is the legal loop hole. You're not buying, you're renting under the disguise of buying. Corporations want their cake and to eat it. You will buy bags of air and own nothing. It's funny people don't realize just how illegal this is. That they need a judge to make it clear, if a judge is properly upholding the laws. Imagine if cars are the same as digital products... Oh wait... They are, piece by piece of modern cares with "features as a service".
The ideal system for preserving online play is the one Minecraft has, where one can either host their own server or they can go to Microsoft for servers. That way, regardless of whether Microsoft supports Minecraft in the future, with some technical know-how, online play is possible.
Minecraft Servers are still need a connection to MS Servers for Authentication and Realms, there Servers that are hosted by MS, are only available as long as they are supported, you also need to pay for it. Both had major outages in the last weeks, so you couldn't play it even on your own hosted or payed MS Minecraft server. So Minecraft is not a good example.
@@ShayanQ It's the same for both Versions of Minecraft. With my work colleagues we have a privately run Java Minecraft Server and couldn't play on it on the time the big Azure outage was (it was the same time the CrowdStrike thing was). Azure is the Cloud infrastructure of MS and is also handling Minecraft Account Authentication, because it's all MS Accounts now. So if Azure is down, you can't join any Minecraft Servers.
@@Jan12700 that's if you use dedicated servers. but any minecraft client can also act as a mini server for local play. if enabled, anyone on the same network can just hop into your local game without needing an internet connection or a server.
Nintendo, please make splatoon 3 online playable with bots offline. They do it with every other game and all the bots are already coded and run great for the most part, I don't know why splatoon 3 doesn't have bot matches.
@mimi4plus3 I would understand their strategy if every other online game they have that can have ai offline has it. Mario kart is far bigger than splatoon and its got offline ai. Arms was made with switch online in mind and they still let you play offline. Mario part offline is a miserable experience but they'll let you play it. Splatoon 1 doesn't have built in bots so that's understandable, but I don't know why they built bots for both splatoon 2 and 3 and didn't let you play with them. Even if I had to get nso and connect to the internet bots would be nice since I suck at the game.
one problem I can think of is that every aspect of Splatoon 3 somehow tied back to online battle requires an internet connection. You can't even buy any gear or weapons without an internet connection. I don't know how this system works, maybe the rotations for shops and such need to be always connected to the internet to allow for them to be easily modified or something, but that would all need to be tackled first.
@@ChicagoMel23 You need to be european for your signature to be counted as this is a EU initiative. I wish there was something similar on the US but it is improbable.
Nintendo seems to stepping back away from the P2W mechanics. Maybe the harm(losing reputation) outweighs the goods(few user base compared to their console games). They don’t want to pull it all at once(and didn’t allocate enough resources to), with the spotlight shop and offline version of pocket camp suggest this. Reputation worths more than pure profit at the transition period of a console, they don’t want bad press.
I think with Pocket Camp, Nintendo looked over at Capcom, who released Megaman X DiVE Offline: most of us who played its f2p versions not only ended up buying the Offline version, so they have proof that in practice, releasing the offline version works and is worth the small amount of effort needed.
@@affegpus4195 Yeah, the number of games that died in a year if not months of the release is pretty bad... a select few manage to have a miraculous turn overnight, but on the other hand, others are basically dead on arrival (and some quite literally lol)
19:10 - I think the proposed legislation is perhaps aimed a bit at Games as a Service. They are games that essentially have a kill switch built-in. I don't think they'd be immune. Also - there is one consideration that is not found in many games anymore, but is still a possibility - multiplayer games hosted locally on the device itself, rather than on company servers. In the early years of online play, you could host a multiplayer game on your system and other people could join it. Sometimes it did involve some extra steps like opening up ports on the router, but it could be done. In some instances, the company may decide to host a list of servers you could join. We sometimes forget this used to be a thing, and it is a shame it is so rarely used anymore.
local play(split-screen, direct connection, or lan play) is still very common in nintendo games, so i think nintendo would be the least affected. no need to put in effort if everything is already compliant
The easiest fix for Super Mario Maker 2 would really just be to patch import/export functions into the game that don't rely on Nintendo's services, and expand the number of levels that can be stored locally so it's only limited by the actual storage space available. That way people can export their levels to an SD card or send it via a local network connection. If the community is ambitious enough, players could then create their own service for uploading, browsing and downloading player-made content online.
Isn’t Pokémon bank free? If so, that wouldn’t fall under the jurisdiction of this law. But tbh I don’t think Pokémon Bank will ever go down as long as Pokémon games get churned out. Plus, if Pokémon Bank goes offline, it will definitely lead to hacked Pokémon being shared unchecked and the Pokémon company doesn’t like hacked Pokémon
@@michaelhowell8280The version of Pokémon Bank on 3DS now is free, but it didn’t used to be. They only made it free after they shut all 3DS online store. Currently Pokémon Home (Switch and Phones) acts how Pokémon Bank used to act, it has a very barebones version that lets you store a very small amount of Pokémon (I’ve paid for it since it’s been introduced so I can’t even remember what the free version offered but it wasn’t great). Pokémon Bank used to do the same thing before they disabled the 3DS online store. I assume they just opened it up so people could still transfer old Pokémon without having to go through ridiculous red tape while paying for a service they themselves shut down. (Can be a bit confusing as Pokémon Bank/Home are often used interchangeably)
@@michaelhowell8280Nintendo shut down all their services eventually. Bank just won't be worth keeping the servers up for much longer, and the only way to make them usable offline is to require an update for the apps and the 3ds online service is dead so it won't be possible
something i think you are missing about splatoon is that it has a LAN/local multiplayer mode, so they are already offering a way for players to keep playing the core of the multiplayer mode. same for mario kart, but it is not as big of a deal with split-screen existing
Splatoon games (starting with 2) have an advantage over most live service shooters in terms of end-of-life functionality due to being on the Switch. Because the Switch is portable, the standard for even the multiplayer modes being "reasonably playable" is lower, since Nintendo can just do the bare basics to uncouple local multiplayer from the servers and argue that people who want to play Splatoon can just bring their Switches together and play on the local network. This is much simpler than dealing with games that actually depend on the central servers for every aspect of their functionality.
True, but the fact that the unlockables, ranking, and community features are still locked to online play does mean, at least to me, that a significant portion of the experience is lost.
@@BrVendan Splatoon 2 actually stores its save data on the consoles themselves, which is why it doesn't support cloud backups and is vulnerable to cheats. However, this also means that your gear is stored on your console and isn't going to get lost if the servers get shut down. I'm not sure whether Splatoon 3 with its Catalogues can be retooled to work like that at end-of-life, but it is at least theoretically possible. And the initiative has ambiguous language in terms of what counts as a "reasonably playable state" on purpose. The kind of community features you get with fully supported live games are not feasible past end-of-life, and demanding that they stay supported is unreasonable. But old multiplayer shooters like Quake are playable to this day, and I would consider any given Splatoon game at least reasonably well preserved if I can get into a full multiplayer match, whatever extra effort that may require.
@@illusive-mike I am aware that your save is local, and I'm aware the legislation is vague enough where it will probably not protect live service games. It's just a shame to me that it really comes down to money and resources why these games' full experience have to be lost to time.
@@BrVendan The whole point of the initiative is to protect live service games, that is, protect them from complete destruction when the live service goes offline. It would certainly be ideal if server software could be provided for fans to run, but that in itself is a technical can of worms, since it would necessitate opening up the console to random outside connections, exposing proprietary tech, and so on. We're already losing the "full experience" every time a Splatfest or Big Run date passes and leaves every new player behind. Live services are transient by their very nature, and there is a limit to how much of the experience can be preserved even without considering any business interests beyond raw server costs. But preserving even part of the game functionality (indeed, its very core) is much better than nothing. And besides, this is just Splatoon as it is now. Given that Nintendo is already moving to respond, and is responding by going above and beyond to comply with requirements that aren't even being considered as legislation yet, future games at least from them can be prepared on purpose, as opposed to the incidental way in which Splatoon 2's local storage (a quirk that a lot of fans don't actually like) can help it survive shutdown.
I doubt Nintendo would have to make an offline version of Tetris 99. When new legislation is created, usually products are grandfathered in so companies aren't punished for not having future vision.
If this idea is as presented, it wouldn't necessarily be grandfathered. All it would likely mean is 1) they can't turn off already-owned copies, and 2) must patch online games, before shutting down their own servers, to be playable without that server, or with a connection to third-party servers. Plenty of time to still do that.
@@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch In this specific case, it would have to be peer-to-peer or third-party servers, the other bit was just general examples. Maybe bots though.
Nintendo is a company that markets to families. The average Nintendo buyer doesn't want to deal with the hassle of findign and using third party servers. I say, ideally, we'd have both. Better AI players, and the possibility for fanmade online play.
@@anzaia2164 the point of this potential legislation is to address right to repair issue. To repair games to restore lost multiplayer and in certain cases playability in general. Nintendo's target demographic is irrelevant to the consumers right to repair.
Super Mario Maker 2 technically has a single player mode as well, so it has playable levels after the game drops dead. What makes me worried about this perspective is if Nintendo might consider not even continuing the Mario Maker or Splatoon series
Splatoon is massive for them. Mario Maker is still bigger than most Mario titles. I can't see any legislation so problematic for them that they'd turn their backs on these series for that reason. (Although I could see Maker having a long fallow period while they decide what they want to do with it).
@nintendoforecast i don't think they'll have to make any changes, especially to mario maker. sharing of levels doesn't have to be online, it can even be done by handing your console to a friend. i'd say it's already fully compliant with the proposal. end of life support doesn't have to be for the full experience, it just has to leave costumers with something playable.
Regarding online storage of data, yes 4TB isn't a huge amount, but it isn't just a matter of plugging a hard drive into a server and forgetting about it. Files are usually hosted on CDN services, which have a recurring monthly cost based on how much is stored and how much bandwidth you use. The servers themselves also need regular maintenance like software updates etc. At Nintendo's scale, these costs can easily get into the range of 5 figures a month. Not that I'm trying to defend them or anything - obviously a company like Nintendo could just eat that cost if they really wanted to - but I think a lot of people underestimate how pricey those things can be.
Meanwhile the Nintendo Leaks with many TB of Data. Did you look at them? They have unused uncompressed 4K Textures of N64 Games on their servers. If they can store this for more then 30 years now, they can also host more then 4TB. With all Games and art they have, they have probably more then 100 Petabyte storage
@@Jan12700 They're both storage, yeah, but different use-cases. When something is publicly accessible, you need it to be available quickly, from anywhere in the world, with high reliability, and with essentially at-random access. Believe it or not that's quite hard to achieve with a regular server, which is why people pay for CDN services! Long-term archival storage on an intranet *is* the kind of thing where you could totally get away with a "hard drive plugged into a box" type of setup if you wanted to. Your data is only accessed maybe a couple times a year (if ever), by only a handful of people, and it doesn't really matter how long it takes for them to get that data or if it's unavailable for a short period while you do maintenance, etc, etc. The point of the original comment is just to highlight that there's more to making data widely available on the public internet than people might expect
@@Jan12700 They're both storage, yeah, but different use-cases. When something is publicly accessible, you need it to be available quickly, from anywhere in the world, with high reliability, and with essentially at-random access. Believe it or not that's quite hard to achieve with a regular server, which is why people pay for CDN services! Long-term archival storage on an intranet is the kind of thing where you could totally get away with a "hard drive plugged into a box" type setup if you wanted to. Your data doesn't need to be accessed often, it only needs to be available to a small number of people, it doesn't matter how long it takes to retrieve, it doesn't matter if it's unavailable for a short period while you do maintenance, etc, etc. The point of the original comment is just to highlight that there's more to making data widely available on the public internet than people might expect
Massive props to Ross Scott of Accursed Farms for single-handedly getting the ball rolling on this initiative! You may already know him as the creator of the early 2000s Half-Life machinima series, Freeman's Mind!
It either goes 2 ways. 1. Companies get scared of doing more live service games in case they get forced to continue supporting a dead project. 2. Companies actually keep supporting dead projects, guaranteeing the playerbase has access to the game. Imo, its a win win either case.
thinking about the idea of sony being forced to keep the servers up for concord despite it being a colossal failiure, and wasting money as a result is pretty hilarious. i do hope it gets passed, so we as consumers will see less & less live service games out in the market
@@ZXUmiThe problem is that newer generations of gamers are playing nothing but Fortnite and other LS games. That’s the reason for the recent push toward them, because the audience for traditional games is stagnating.
They don't need to continue to support it themselves. As long as a player/s is able to make a server to be able to play a once online-only game that's all that's needed.
If companies are willing to release a scrubbed version of their server source code at the end of official support, that should meet all the requirements while keeping themselves forever free of any future obligations. Let their fans set up private servers to play their games.
I hope this trend continues of giving online games getting offline versions, we 1st saw this happen with megaman x dive. When the taiwan servers announced they would shutdown a offline port was made allowing you to play the main campaing without internet. Sadly this port is missing collab charaters like ryu and dante trigger X but its a step in the right direction for game preservation, hopefuly when its time for FE heroes to sunset there servers it will get the same treatment
18:57 If future mainline animal crossing or splatoon games become a subscription based service, it would be a really hard sell for families, which are Nintendos' main demographic. Also, I just think it's stupid and I know that I, along with many other people, would just stop playing and move on.
I believe this initiative is also meant to stop publishers removing access to single player games that require some kind of online connection, such as EA's sims 4 and sim city, or basically any games bought on steam.
First Nintendo cuts of thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of players by excluding a large swath of phones & tablets that should be able to run the game from being able to install or update it, unless they plan to buy a brand new device every year on their specific list of approved phones. Then they released some malicious code that prevented emulators like BlueStacks from running it, even though they still could have made money from legitimate in-game purchases. Now they wonder why they have a small player base & aren't making any money off it. Well screw them.
@@INRamos13 It's sucessful because companies no longer give you the choice. See creative cloud and office 365. Even smaller apps seem to want to use it, like there was this utility that let you easily drag and drop music onto your iphone without itunes. I bought a licence for it, but then they decided the new version would be a sub model. I'm not paying a monthly sub for an app I may have used like two or three times in a year.
A better alternative for online games is to explicitly allow fan-made online service replacements (such as Pretendo, which allows you to play Splatoon 1 and other Wii U & 3DS games) and disallow companies to implement technical measures to prevent players from using them.
I'd be interested to know how this affects gacha games like Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail. These games are far from being shut down it seems, but a future where there's an offline version of these with all the content available is wild.
This is one of the reasons I stopped playing gacha games. The predatory gambling was a bigger reason, to be fair, but the fact that no matter what I did, I would eventually completely lose access to the game, really put the nail in the coffin. Nintendo's adamancy on tearing down roms for now inaccessible titles and such is also a frustrating thing. It's not costing them anything, and community support is there. Sure they do like to resell old games, but in that case, make your version better/more accessible, and people are more likely to go for it simply because emulation is marginally more complicated. Convenience is a huge factor. (There's also the fact that so many of those old games are never going to get sold by Nintendo again for one reason or another, so they aren't losing anything at all by letting them be downloaded). Offline modes are important. And while there's been plenty of people advocating for physical releases/keeping focusing physical versions, the problem is that physical versions are not a failsafe. I have/had physical versions of splatoon 2 and 3, but the problem is that a physical copy doesn't change offline removing almost all of its features. The single-player campaign is there, sure, but it's hard to argue that multiplayer isn't the identity of Splatoon, and online removal strips away all of those aspects- not just online matches, but clothes/weapons as well, and fashion is such a big deal in Splatoon it's not even funny, to the point that some of the biggest rewards from single-player are, surprise, things that only have real use in multiplayer. Having bots and fan ability to create servers are two straightforward (though not necessarily easy on all fronts) means for this, and we've seen what Nintendo's community can do in the face of pushback from Nintendo, so imagine what they could do with Nintendo's support.
Honestly it would be great in a really big part of the gaming market had a law against shuttering games as soon as server costs aren't worth the publisher's time. Like if they're going to call games "purchases" and to "rentals" then legally they shouldn't be able to remotely shut off access to the thing the second they no longer want to spent their money on it. This should also apply to other digital licenses too (like make Adobe stop trying to step in the way of people using older versions of Photoshop they bought) but games are the most impacted by the lack of consumer protections on this type of stuff.
Every game that uses online servers should be obligated to provide the following options: 1) The ability to play with bots 2) The ability to host private servers online 3) The ability to play in LAN environent
I want to be able to somehow keep my friends from AC:Pocket Camp 😢 I’ve already sent a message to the game support page but they can’t reply with any other info than what’s stated on the game page itself already. Stinks.
@@diediediceThank you for the suggestion! Yes, but there are more than a few that don’t have a Switch it seems. 😔 I hope some others might see use of this.
4 Terabytes might be a rounding error for Nintendo, but it's not so feasible for consumers. Ideally games can be downloaded and then played completely offline to a satisfactory degree. An idea to make Mario Maker an offline game without ruining all the fun would be to make a tutorial like "storymode" where you're tasked with designing levels that feature specific design techniques. Each successful task unlocks a library of fan made levels that exclusively feature the techniques you've been shown so far. These fan made levels could be pulled from previous Mario Maker titles, or the "storymode" could be an end of support update, allowing users to download a fulfilling library of fan made content, create new levels, and freely play the game entirely offline. This update would only contain select levels to make the game small enough to allow the full post-support game to be downloaded. As for post-support Splatoon, releasing a free version of the game that's exclusively for local multiplayer would go a long way. This would make the game similar to Jackbox games where only one player needs to own the paid copy, making the game more playable offline. That and the addition of ai teammates and opponents of course.
@@Frog_kaeru they're basically going to happy home paradise pocket camp. Same blueprint. We'll get an animal crossing direct announcement on September, show the DLC in October and release it in November which is the same month pocket camp shuts down.
@@benamisai-kham5892 i haven't lost hope at all, especially given the fact that I've put over 4000 hours into new horizons. My thing is if you're an avid animal crossing player then you know there's a lot of unfinished business with new horizons which leaves a lot of room for more updates. New horizons still doesn't have a post office, what mainline animal crossing game doesn't have a post office, EVERY animal crossing game has had one so why wouldn't new horizons get one?
I doubt it’ll be ported to new horizons, but I do agree it will be ported to a hard copy available on the switch. Since they’re actively still releasing new items, it’s odd the game would totally shut down, so this isn’t a true sunset of an app. Most apps will release all their data before closure and freeze some aspects before shutting down, so the business as normal makes me suspicious this is just a migration vs total closure. I have an alternative theory essentially that maybe they’re updating it like the Pokémon tcg online. The code was old so they made a new version and ported saved data to it, which for ACPC being popular to this day, would allow it to continue on with new fail safes in place for this law and future proofing with new OS updates. It’s not guaranteed but it would make more sense to me than a total end of service
I feel like there may be a more fun way to do this... Forced refunds for everyone who ever bought the game unless you make public the server-side code!
Literally impossible to enforce, but I guess in your mind government is like a fairy godmother that just makes your wishes come true regardless of all context.
A third of the signatures have been gathered in the first few months, and there's plenty of time left, but this might get talked about in parliament regardless of the number of signatures if it simply gets noticed by the right politicians, especially because it's an area of skirting around consumer protections that has been overlooked for long enough that it's starting to backfire in other software fields.
Something interesting about the Pocket Camp shutdown is that Sega did the exact same thing when they shut down their mobile game “Sonic at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games” three years ago. I wonder if the pocket camp shutdown might be in response to that strategy
I think there's a possibility that you may have not given full consideration in your 'future proofing' section, a different strategy that companies like Nintendo could use to continue to release online multiplayer games while still being compliant with the new (potential) law. Nobody said the company had to continue to pay for the game, only that they leave it in a playable state. Removing online requirements for single player play, and releasing the server code so that people can make their own servers, fulfils that requirement. The overall cost to the company for doing this is minuscule, and therefore they have no real incentive to move away from games with online components.
3:55 SAY IT! AMEN! I can’t STAND the erasure of these cool games that rely on servers. They’re perfectly playable in single player. Destroying games and taking them from us is awful.
I would abhor a subscription-only animal crossing game that I can't own. It's a shame that the realistic reaction to legislation like this would be for consumers not to own the games in the first place... I am also thinking, perhaps a simpler workaround would be for companies to have to announce "you are paying to own this online product for a definite amount of time" clearly when you go to buy multiplayer games?
I don’t think Nintendo is worried about this initiative, especially this early. Pocket Camp probably wasn’t making any money, so they shut down the servers. Adding an offline version is probably specifically because it’s an Animal Crossing game. They wouldn’t want to make one of their biggest pod of whales upset.
Being an inherently online game, Pocket Camp shouldn't be covered by this proposal, as it is concerned about inherently offline games that require logging in to play Also, the only acceptable response to any "law" in the EU by a company outside the EU is "eff off".
The sheer number of people *choosing* to not get it in these comments, istg... So lemme make a few things clear: 1) Games preservationists *don't* want unlimited service- we want the ability to play *after* service has ended. No need for a server, no need for patches/updates or new content, no need for any additional effort from the developer/publisher at all. Just leave the game in a sufficiently-functional state, dust your hands off, and let users work amongst themselves to keep the game functional in an offline capacity. 2) The legislation being asked for would not be unduly burdensome for indie developers. How do I know this? *Because any indie dev worth their salt is capable of leaving their game in a playable state after they're done developing it.* And y'know what? This proposed legislation *should* apply to indie devs. There's a particular indie dev I personally refuse to purchase from ever again because they permanently broke one of their games when they went on to their next project. Following such a law would help indie devs avoid effing their own reputation. 3) *This thing has already been done.* Formerly-online-only games have been turned into offline-compatible games before. This isn't a new concept. This isn't ground-breaking. This isn't demanding developers bend over backwards to create some new-fangled process for turning games from online to offline. Hell, I can think of an example right now. Need For Speed: Online was taken out of service years ago, but a player contacted the developer and was given permission to 'create' Need For Speed: Offline. The original developers haven't paid a dime to keep the offline version functional. It's player-driven and player-maintained. That's what preservationists want, and the precedent for it already exists. 4) Developers wouldn't have to make *all* aspects of a game perfectly functional in the exact same way as when it was being actively supported. So long as the game is 'sufficiently functional', it would meet the threshold. Can the player launch the game? Can the player engage with NPCs or play levels? If applicable, can the player 'win'? If applicable, can the player save their data? It doesn't matter if online functionality was part of the game's marketing, since no reasonable person would expect those functions to continue working indefinitely. So long as enough of the content is available after service ends, it's in the clear. 5) If this affects the types of games made, *that's a good thing.* The live-service has been an issue since it first arose. Games that are actually just thinly-veiled gambling are harmful for consumers, especially kids. We've outlawed and regulated other things that harm consumers, like asbestos, so why not this? We have to start regulating the digital space in a more modern way. Because the market does not self-regulate, ever. 6) If this affects copyright protections, *that's a good thing.* Companies using copyright law as a way to prevent customers from playing what they paid for is not okay. By all means, let 'em use copyright laws to protect their rights to *profits,* but letting 'em turn that into an anti-preservation bludgeon is a step too far. If a developer wants to stop selling and supporting their own game, fine, but once they stop selling that game, third-party patches at no cost to the player would not be robbing the developer of sales. 'But what about remakes/remasters?' Nintendo has already solved that problem. See their remake of SMRPG? There's a whole new component to the combat system. There's new models, new art, new music. It's a new experience. Anybody still playing the original SMRPG is not negatively affecting the sales of the new SMRPG because the products are not comparable. Nintendo can't swoop in and smash the SNES copy of SMRPG sitting in my living room just because they've released a new one. Why should digital be different? Companies should not have the right to harm consumers. Much like how I don't have the right to punch a random person in the face, companies should not have the right to sell a product, then go 'lol sike' and prevent customers from using the product. Physical media and products are far more reliable from a purchase standpoint than digital media and products. It shouldn't be that way. If the market isn't going to self-regulate (which, as I've already noted, it doesn't), then it must be regulated on behalf of consumers.
Thank you. I was not aware of this. Pocket camp was my first introduction to ac so it holds very dear memories for me. So im glad its not gone forever. Im def gonna sign the petition
We need this. There's no way Square Enix can just get away with completely killing off Kingdom Hearts Union Cross, first by making it cutscene-only when servers shut down, so no more gameplay, and then by literally delisting it, making it even HARDER for anyone to get the full KH story leading up to KH3 and 4!!!
I'm not sure them delisting pocket camp then selling it to people would fall under the stop killing games initiative. Is it better than losing the game entirely? Yes. Is it shitty they aren't putting it out for free and that data doesn't transfer. Also yes.
I expect when this becomes law a lot more peer to peer multiplayer systems. Peer to Peer would be much cheaper for them to host. If the community can host their own SMM server that solves the issue as far as Nintendo is concerned
But even Nintendo uses P2P for all it's games, they still need Nintendos Matchmaking Servers. Try to get a match in Splatoon 1, even it was P2P you can't
I don't want devs to be forced to keep games running I just want game companies to be forced to refund customers every single last penny they spent once a service is shut down.
Exactly. Making a way for players to share levels outside of their database would just be an extra cherry on top that they aren't required to do. As long as the game can be played then it's good.
Megaman Dive did something I honestly thought amazing. When the game has discontinued online they released an offline version with stats buffed and all available characters available to earn through gameplay. So you could pick up and play like a power fantasy game to just horse around in. Sadly they had to remove all the collaboration characters. But it's still impressive that they did this in the 1st place. It be great to see this done with more games in the future, like a parting send off to all those that had played or will play in the future
An idea I have is to require companies to leave a mechanism by which the game could be picked up by new backend servers, to make community-maintained online play easier. Usually, when multiplayer games go end of life, the games are updated to have that end of support hard coded into the game, and the list of servers which it looks for (which are now shut down) remain hard coded in the game. New error codes are added specifically for when people try accessing online multiplayer services in the game, and it returns the error code anytime such attempts are made. While the end of support error codes could still be added, perhaps in the update that makes the game functional offline, they could also ship some kind of mechanism by which the list of backend servers could be switched out? If, at these new servers provided, functional backend infrastructure is detected and responds with valid online game data, the game could re-enable multiplayer functionality and stop returning end of support codes. This would do away with the need of things like custom dns servers with cheeky shenanigans to trick the game into thinking the servers are the very same ones shut down by the game developer. The developer does not have to work with the community to develop these servers; once the offline support update is released, the developer's obligation is fulfilled. But a mechanism for switching to new community servers should be included.
I think LAN play is the way to go for this, it's secure, you don't need to distribute hackable binaries with sensitive internal information, and as long as all features work onLAN, nobody will bat an eye if you get a hacked item. How I would do it for splatoon: Ranking among friends would work like X Rank if you play repeatedly. Every friendgroup is their own division, and XPower updates according to how new or non recent your opponent is at battling you, it still resets every season. Shops become offline capable. Stage rotations and the news become local suggestions. Players start the game at level 30, to unlock all weapons, this could be framed as a closeout sale. You can order from splatnet which just uses a random seed to generate shop items, by the same method you transfer pictures to your phone.
I love this policy but, I would like it if the alternative to not following these rules, means you have to make the game/ project open source. Meaning the community can take the assets and everything in their own hands and keep the project alive themselves.
A solution I could see is integrating the ability to connect to servers other than the one hosted by the developer/publisher, and provide the server software for people to host themselves. (I see this working for games like Mario Maker, where custom content is shared online, as well as games where the server mainly serves as a lobby for multiplayer and the actual game doesn't take much resources server-side) Alternatively, the ability to host a game locally and other people to connect to it. (This might work for live multiplayer without much custom content, such as Splatoon, especially if one would be more likely to play with friends than strangers anyway)
Oh how I wish this existed before EverClicker shut down. It wasn’t a Nintendo game, but still. It had online features, sure, but the gameplay itself was mostly solo anyway, so I don’t know why the entire thing had to be shut down without leaving the option for offline play.
The issue here is enforcement, a lot of the ideas you suggested would be good in theory, but it's not reasonable to require companies to do things by law. Like how you said that the 4tb of Mario maker levels is a rounding error for Nintendo, that's true right now, but what if they go out of business? This would affect indie studios, not just big companies like Nintendo, having to close down the company isn't unlikely. no matter how small the hard drive is, there isn't anyone to plug it in. I think the best solution would be where if a server shuts down, the game goes into the public domain and the company has no legal ownership of it. This would heavily discourage companies from taking the servers offline, but wouldn't make going out of business illegal.
Your logic fails counting b that You forget the fact that Super Mario Run requires online to play as DRM no other reason. No reason for it to have it and it's never been removed.
Meh cycle of life to get new games and roll the dice on bugs/censorship. They do drop in price relatively quickly too, usually 1 year or so is like $40 tops, and even super mario rpg went around there too. Tons more developers these days to care about 4:00 but I know some self-insert or wanna marry their favorites.
The initiative’s name is “Stop Destroying Videogames” in case anyone is interested. I signed because I believe game preservation and especially consumer rights are going to become more important topics as time goes on, so it would be advantageous to have them taken more seriously with regards to EU Lawmaking. The neat thing about EU cityzens’ initiatives is that they are NOT laws, so their wording doesn’t have to be absolutely precise. They’re only meant to bring awareness of what issues citizens value so that EU lawmakers, experts, etc. can get the ball rolling for potential solutions.
This sounds like actually game preservation for once. Not "I'm saving gaming by stealing Metroid a week before release."
The name of the initiative is "Stop Killing Games", but you're on the right track. As an American, thank you for helping global consumer rights where we can't. It's fucked up that our consumer rights are so gutted that we can't even reasonably petition our government to do anything about this, and I wish I could do more to help than just spread the message and cheer from the sidelines, but here we are.
@@houragents5490 Yeah, honestly I tire of people using "game preservation" as an excuse or justification for piracy...
It's especially ironic when they act like some old games like the original 1985 "Super Mario Brothers." are going to disappear forever if they don't pirate or copy it, and that game has been rereleased on every Nintendo system since the Gameboy Advance. It's not going anywhere. (Heck, it even got rereleased and updated in a neat little Game and Watch toy a few years ago. And when I say updated, I mean it has a level select, and hard mode option on the title screen added when you beat it.)
Furthermore, the famed Nintendo Gigaleak from a few years back prove Nintendo archives everything anyway, including unfinished/unreleased games, character designs, and such already. They have Terabytes of this stuff.
@@limetime9045No, they were right, it is '"Stop Destroying Videogames". It's even right there in the video.
@@spiritmuseHuh, you're right. The original name for the campaign was Stop Killing Games, and it's still the name used on their website, so I must've gotten confused.
So, basically, they're making an offline version of Pocket Camp. With what's happening with that game, it should've happened with Dr Mario World, and more importantly, Dragalia Lost.
Yeah, it's nice they're not destroying the game, but I feel they should rerelease those somehow. Especially, for those that spent money on them, or at least compensate them with free eShop funds, or something.
Dragalia Lost breaks my heart, sucks it is now lost media
Dragalia Lost might've if it had survived long enough. Iirc the devs bailed on the game the moment it started trending downward in profits, I heard it died really early.
@@Vulpy91 yes and no, there are private servers being run rn, well have to see what happens regarding those tbh
Dr. Mario World failed faster than it would have because they nerfed the Luigi infinite over a month after it was circulating so by the time they nerfed it it greatly outraged players who were too late to take advantage of it resulting in a substantial drop in activity. I know this because I was part of the circle who knew about the Luigi infinite.
With what is happening with THE CREW series from ubisoft and even ubisoft's comment saying that "people should get used to them removing games" this law feels like a breath of fresh air
Ironically, it's The Crew that kicked off this bid.
Stop Killing Games was started by Accursed Judge right here on UA-cam a few months ago.
And, I am not gonna lie, I think it actually has a chance of working. It's a smart move because it's just common sense, really.
Yes, like…companies shouldn’t be doing this anyway. They are not immune to the law.
When companies say that, just do one thing: stop buying their games.
Easy. Go play indies from people that pour their heart out onto their games like Stardew Valley
for now it's just an initiative. If it gets enough votes, it will become a topic in EU parliament and then might maybe spark a law.
@@Vic_Trip boycotte NEVER worked once for anything sadly
I wish Nintendo went through their mobile back catalogue to rerelease delisted games, just without the online requirement. I don’t think games like Dr. Mario World were that good, but it makes me uncomfortable that there’s absolutely no means to play it even in single player.
Just thinking about Dragalia Lost as well on that aspect… 😢
@@andydrew224 Dralia Lost my beloved. ;~; An absolute crime that it isn't still up in a single-player capacity at least.
Pokemon Duel!! Such a good story but never finished and server taken down before any updates on that 😢😢😢
Multiplayer was laggy but the main draw has always been the single player content!
@@andydrew224 For me it's Miitomo... man... I missed making Miifotos and posting Miis to Sidekick Central...
@@lucypie09 try out kaerutomo!! its a custom server that allows u to use miitomo again :D
Wait wait Europe is forcing games that shut down to provide offline versions???? THANK YOU EUROPE, PLEASE SPREAD THIS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. I didn’t get to lay Dragalia, Brave Exivus is shutting down, and so many more games shut down that should be offline. I’m sick of it. Offline mode should be normal.
EDIT: AND BLOODMASQUE. I think about that game EVERY. DANG. TIME.
Not yet, it's still only a Citizen Initiative.
Yeah when will the US get it?
@@ChicagoMel23 Likely never
@@INRamos13 The point is that if the Initiative passes, and a law that meets the demand is made (which is probably the most unlikely part unfortunately), then once games have adjusted to meet the standards in Europe they can just spread to the rest of the world for no additionnal cost.
The petition is currently sitting at 334k signatures out of the million required in only a month, with 4 countries meeting the minimum quota (Finland, Sweden, Germany and Poland) and 2 more being very close (Belgium and Denmark) out of the 7 necessary. France is also only 20k signatures away from meeting its own quota, which I'd expect to be doable if some big streamers start talking about it.
Although I won't be holding my breath too much. The first month is also the one where most signatures are collected anyway so getting a third of the way through is in a way not that great, and while the subject is relatively neutral politically, lobbies have a lot of sway in Europe and I don't see game companies sitting on their ass on this matter.
In a way, if AC Pocket Camp is indeed getting ahead of the law, it could be a very useful argument for the initiative's case, creating a precedent.
Gacha games can’t run forever, but at the very least there should be a way to view your collectables even after it shuts down. I’m really happy to hear Pocket Camp is doing just that, that’s huge.
Fire Emblem Heroes comes to mind- they've reportedly shit it down in some countries
As someone who played pocket camp and never spent a single penny on it, I'm more than happy to pay a one time fee to play an offline version which has all the content accessible.
this is why mega man x dive offline is awesome. its the gacha game that you can still play
Some framework for fans to fund and run servers for the games themselves once gachas are decommissioned would be amazing and should conceivably be doable.
Should be more than that, most gacha games run almost completely locally aside from a "guest character" type system and the gacha pulls itself. It's really bad that a bunch of game franchises have major entries that are effectively sandcastles even if they could be converted to offline without changing the gameplay experience much.
Now that's a nice push for games preservation.
Interesting that The Crew shutting down was the catalyst for such a significant piece of legislation
Targetting American ans Japanese game company.... But how about the scams of Tencent????
@@QuantumChristthey can go into the void and never return
@@locke5078 , They let C0mmunist China owned Tencentt do their scammy practices LOL.
@@QuantumChrist wtf is this comment
European laws carrying digital rights for the entire world yet again
I mean really … Nintendo is sooooo by the book until it deals with online laws
Yeah it's not even funny at this point!
Not even just digital rights; all battery powered devices will need to have user replaceable batteries in a few years in the EU. It'll be too much hassle to design two versions of devices that are that different so likely devices worldwide will have removable batteries.
Just forget all of the internet regulation laws that they passed that weren't very popular among the average person.
The EU’s legal landscape is largely unenforceable, IMO. I work in a highly regulated field, and there are breaches literally everywhere, but unless it’s a huge company that’ll make a big story, it’ll never be found.
I wholeheartly support "Stop Destroying Videogames"
24/7 needed online connection to play a game and the developer/publisher being able to just end service, is just unbelieveable.
You lose a piece of art and so much lore and exclusive content of said game, big example being NieR:ReIncarnate.
Players had to preserve the knowledge and infos said in the game for the larger DrakenNieR fanbase.
Another interesting proposal that would be a unique way to keep these games playable would be community hosted servers. While not sanctioned by Nintendo today, games like Mario Kart Wii and Splatoon 1 are still kept alive thanks to the community reverse engineering Nintendo’s server architecture and creating community servers like Wiimmfi and Pretendo.
If Nintendo partnered with fan communities and gave them access to some method of hosting servers without requiring communities to do reverse engineering, they could still offer near full functionality of these titles with no extra cost after EoL. I find it unlikely Nintendo would do this given how they’ve historically been against modding efforts, but I think this would be a great move by Nintendo to support their most loyal customers.
It would be a great move, but it's specifically outlined in the initiative that this would not be required of publishers, and that no additional development time would be needed to actively participate positively in the initiatives goal. They do not have to supply any assets or code, including server software, they simply have to stop going out of their way to destroy the functionality that would allow people to do that reverse engineering, stop destroying the games software itself, nothing else associated.
This initiative will never work if we have demands the companies see as "unreasonable" (despite how basic, non unreasonable, and simple it would be to do), and that includes publicly releasing never publicized internal server software.
@@Clarkzer0Then, perhaps at the very least, they could leave the door open for community servers? In the update that makes games playable offline, perhaps they could include code that would make it easier for the game to be connected to a new backend server, so that the community has an easier time?
When support ends for many games, currently the game is usually updated with the end of support hard coded, and the servers which shut down remain hard coded into the game, and oftentimes the game has to be patched by homebrewers to get around this and to put in a new list of servers for the game to connect to.
While error codes could be added for end of support, perhaps they could add a mechanism by which these server lists could be switched over more easily, without the need for patching the game, and that if functional backend infrastructure is detected at these new servers it resumes online functionality and stops giving end of support error codes. This kind of mechanism could be shipped with the end of support update.
Those “community” servers would also be required to follow the same laws as Nintendo which would cripple them before they start, especially since they would have a lot of players. The amount of laws and regulations you have to comply with is only growing and has already killed many such “communities” on the Internet.
@@birdybird712 Pretendo, WiiLink, and WiiMMFi seem to be doing just fine, I don't see what the problem is with community servers, so why not make it easier for community servers for switch and future consoles to take Nintendo's place?
Even after Eol, Nintendo will be like "But I'm not making money out of it tho"
It is important to clarify that if the law gets passed it will, with absolute certainty, NOT be retroactive.
They will pick a date several years in the future and it will only affect games that release after that time. That is how most of the recent European laws have worked.
Nintendo has no legal incentive to do this. They probably have their own reasons for it.
@@bigfennec
Usually true... America is similar but we do grandfather in any product or service that will still be sold officially post date of similar laws like this initiative.
Any other products and services no longer active will not legally require such legal obligations under Consumer Protection Law.
There is actually a legal incentive to do it now, and it's not exactly an unusual tactic: Arguing that the law is unnecessary because the industry is behaving itself on its own.
That said, given that the citizens initiative is still at the vote gathering stage, it seems a little premature for that sort of play.
If the Stop Killing/Destroying Games movement influenced Nintendo on this one, it would probably just be in terms of PR.
@SnakebitSTI
The only issue is... When the facts go against that legal claim. But in the idea of corruption. I suppose, in the name of malevolence, "letting corporations self-control their own quality of products" has never been used to sell nothing more than mediocrity and worse???
Corporations had over 50+ years (in America) to be better. They have failed. And I extend this failure to our own USA Government as a nation as well to extend it to our people... But this is beyond gaming as a whole. More in line with core and critical issues of the present era and of the future.
In the end, knowing Fate. No one will win because the bets don't serve the people. Corporations and governments are not here for anyone but themselves. So much so that when the Free Market existed, mega corporations can full-on control it with zero real ramifications.
Case in point... We gave Corporations freedom, and now their liberty is 1st Class compared to the citizens of their own nations. And the citizens have it worst even given the government.
Yes!! I have played many Square Enix Gacha Games, but once they hit end of service, all your purchases get erased! I really hope this law comes to pass and requires offline versions of games such as these. Many of these games are not multiplayer-focused and do not rely on online play, so there is no reason they need to be erased once online support ends!
Dragon Quest Tact ending almost broke me of gachas entirely. The only one I still play is Slime Isekai Memories, and even that’s on thin ice. Modern mobile gaming culture makes me tired.
Kind of like what Capcom did with Mega Man X Dive, yeah? Release an offline version with all the content available so consumers wouldn’t lose the game entirely.
Honestly, I’d be happy enough with being able to access my collection, characters/skins and such, after eos.
yeah I played Nier Reincarnation when it came out and I actually picked it up again a few months before it shut down. it was the first time id ever had a live service game i played get shut off and the wording for the announcement was vague enough I actually thought It would be semi playable after release just with no multi player aspects or events, I was very wrong..
Gacha are trash
They wouldn't even need to keep supporting multiplayer content like Mario Maker and Splatoon 2. Just to not actively prevent/shutdown fanmade services to keep them running.
Ideally companies WOULDN'T have to eternally support a game for it to remain playable online. What a lot are calling for is for companies to be mandated to release server code so community servers can be ran right when the services go down. Fan servers are already available for a bunch of popular online games on the Wii and Wii U (Splatoon 1 and Mariokart Wii are high profile examples I can think of off the top of my head), but they had to be reverse engineered, taking a considerable amount of time and effort that a lot of less popular games wont get.
Remember to support the Stop Killing Games initiative too
With titles such as Splatoon being peer to peer for the actual online gameplay, it's possible that all they'd need to provide to keep ahead of this law is an update to them to allow typing in someone else's IP address to make a connection without going via a matchmaking system.
(Actually with all modes in Splatoon 3 being available via LAN, they might have a defence that the content can be accessed after online servers are shut down, the only thing that would go away if is matchmaking... As long as 8 people gather with Switches you can still play a full game of Clam Blitz, or a full round of Salmon Run if 4 gather, etc)
Go look up what people have already done for Wii and DS online play
>full game of clams
I mean, you CAN, but why would you ever play the worst game mode ever created for any game at all ever, ON PURPOSE?????
@@SnoFitzroy You seem confused. 'Best mode that isn't Salmon run'.
For almost all non-subscription software , licenses for both personal and enterprise software is perpetual. I have never understood how games want a one time purchase for a non-perpetual license.
:o
hello lexi
Woah!!
Here's where the illegal act begins and ends...
FF14 is a true Service under USA laws.
But "buying" a game. To which you only bought the key to access. That is the legal loop hole. You're not buying, you're renting under the disguise of buying.
Corporations want their cake and to eat it. You will buy bags of air and own nothing.
It's funny people don't realize just how illegal this is. That they need a judge to make it clear, if a judge is properly upholding the laws.
Imagine if cars are the same as digital products... Oh wait... They are, piece by piece of modern cares with "features as a service".
Yo, never expected to see you here. Glad you're on the side of preservation!
@@TheLexikitty
True
The ideal system for preserving online play is the one Minecraft has, where one can either host their own server or they can go to Microsoft for servers.
That way, regardless of whether Microsoft supports Minecraft in the future, with some technical know-how, online play is possible.
Minecraft Servers are still need a connection to MS Servers for Authentication and Realms, there Servers that are hosted by MS, are only available as long as they are supported, you also need to pay for it. Both had major outages in the last weeks, so you couldn't play it even on your own hosted or payed MS Minecraft server. So Minecraft is not a good example.
@@Jan12700 thats minecraft bedrock, which while the most popular, isnt the one i am talking about. I am speaking of java edition
@@ShayanQ It's the same for both Versions of Minecraft. With my work colleagues we have a privately run Java Minecraft Server and couldn't play on it on the time the big Azure outage was (it was the same time the CrowdStrike thing was). Azure is the Cloud infrastructure of MS and is also handling Minecraft Account Authentication, because it's all MS Accounts now. So if Azure is down, you can't join any Minecraft Servers.
@@Jan12700 that's if you use dedicated servers.
but any minecraft client can also act as a mini server for local play.
if enabled, anyone on the same network can just hop into your local game without needing an internet connection or a server.
Yeah, that's what the EU initiative is about. Letting players host their own servers
Nintendo, please make splatoon 3 online playable with bots offline. They do it with every other game and all the bots are already coded and run great for the most part, I don't know why splatoon 3 doesn't have bot matches.
@@mimi4plus3splatoon 1 and 2 don't have bot matches either.
I've never felt like I needed it but it'd be cool to have.
@mimi4plus3 I would understand their strategy if every other online game they have that can have ai offline has it. Mario kart is far bigger than splatoon and its got offline ai. Arms was made with switch online in mind and they still let you play offline. Mario part offline is a miserable experience but they'll let you play it. Splatoon 1 doesn't have built in bots so that's understandable, but I don't know why they built bots for both splatoon 2 and 3 and didn't let you play with them. Even if I had to get nso and connect to the internet bots would be nice since I suck at the game.
one problem I can think of is that every aspect of Splatoon 3 somehow tied back to online battle requires an internet connection. You can't even buy any gear or weapons without an internet connection. I don't know how this system works, maybe the rotations for shops and such need to be always connected to the internet to allow for them to be easily modified or something, but that would all need to be tackled first.
I would love to have offline bots
Splatoon's single player bots are extremely bad. It's not that easy
I miss Dragalia Lost. I miss my dragon wife
I'm huffing hopium that maybe somewhere down the line other games could retroactively get this treatment.
I never got to finish the story before it shut down. 😢 I thought I'd have more time
There are actually private servers.
@@RaisonLychi Private servers exist
I miss my dragon husabands 💔
If you are European please add your signature they still need a few more.
What about the US?
@@ChicagoMel23 You need to be european for your signature to be counted as this is a EU initiative. I wish there was something similar on the US but it is improbable.
Nintendo seems to stepping back away from the P2W mechanics. Maybe the harm(losing reputation) outweighs the goods(few user base compared to their console games). They don’t want to pull it all at once(and didn’t allocate enough resources to), with the spotlight shop and offline version of pocket camp suggest this. Reputation worths more than pure profit at the transition period of a console, they don’t want bad press.
I think with Pocket Camp, Nintendo looked over at Capcom, who released Megaman X DiVE Offline: most of us who played its f2p versions not only ended up buying the Offline version, so they have proof that in practice, releasing the offline version works and is worth the small amount of effort needed.
Maybe they see what’s happening with Ubisoft right now lol
Live service games are incredibly expensive to make and sustain.
If they hit they are a gold mine, but more often than not they don't.
@@affegpus4195 Yeah, the number of games that died in a year if not months of the release is pretty bad... a select few manage to have a miraculous turn overnight, but on the other hand, others are basically dead on arrival (and some quite literally lol)
Pity The new denpa men on switch is free to play 😅
19:10 - I think the proposed legislation is perhaps aimed a bit at Games as a Service. They are games that essentially have a kill switch built-in. I don't think they'd be immune.
Also - there is one consideration that is not found in many games anymore, but is still a possibility - multiplayer games hosted locally on the device itself, rather than on company servers. In the early years of online play, you could host a multiplayer game on your system and other people could join it. Sometimes it did involve some extra steps like opening up ports on the router, but it could be done. In some instances, the company may decide to host a list of servers you could join. We sometimes forget this used to be a thing, and it is a shame it is so rarely used anymore.
local play(split-screen, direct connection, or lan play) is still very common in nintendo games, so i think nintendo would be the least affected.
no need to put in effort if everything is already compliant
The easiest fix for Super Mario Maker 2 would really just be to patch import/export functions into the game that don't rely on Nintendo's services, and expand the number of levels that can be stored locally so it's only limited by the actual storage space available.
That way people can export their levels to an SD card or send it via a local network connection. If the community is ambitious enough, players could then create their own service for uploading, browsing and downloading player-made content online.
Please let this lead to an offline pokémon bank. 🙏
God please I hope so too. That's 25 years of a critical game feature that could possibly just disappear.
Isn’t Pokémon bank free? If so, that wouldn’t fall under the jurisdiction of this law. But tbh I don’t think Pokémon Bank will ever go down as long as Pokémon games get churned out. Plus, if Pokémon Bank goes offline, it will definitely lead to hacked Pokémon being shared unchecked and the Pokémon company doesn’t like hacked Pokémon
@@michaelhowell8280 it was under a subscription model prior to being made free so you're probably right. I can still dream 😭
@@michaelhowell8280The version of Pokémon Bank on 3DS now is free, but it didn’t used to be. They only made it free after they shut all 3DS online store.
Currently Pokémon Home (Switch and Phones) acts how Pokémon Bank used to act, it has a very barebones version that lets you store a very small amount of Pokémon (I’ve paid for it since it’s been introduced so I can’t even remember what the free version offered but it wasn’t great). Pokémon Bank used to do the same thing before they disabled the 3DS online store. I assume they just opened it up so people could still transfer old Pokémon without having to go through ridiculous red tape while paying for a service they themselves shut down.
(Can be a bit confusing as Pokémon Bank/Home are often used interchangeably)
@@michaelhowell8280Nintendo shut down all their services eventually. Bank just won't be worth keeping the servers up for much longer, and the only way to make them usable offline is to require an update for the apps and the 3ds online service is dead so it won't be possible
something i think you are missing about splatoon is that it has a LAN/local multiplayer mode, so they are already offering a way for players to keep playing the core of the multiplayer mode.
same for mario kart, but it is not as big of a deal with split-screen existing
please be sure to support the petition if you can! love, a canadian who cannot
Splatoon games (starting with 2) have an advantage over most live service shooters in terms of end-of-life functionality due to being on the Switch. Because the Switch is portable, the standard for even the multiplayer modes being "reasonably playable" is lower, since Nintendo can just do the bare basics to uncouple local multiplayer from the servers and argue that people who want to play Splatoon can just bring their Switches together and play on the local network. This is much simpler than dealing with games that actually depend on the central servers for every aspect of their functionality.
True, but the fact that the unlockables, ranking, and community features are still locked to online play does mean, at least to me, that a significant portion of the experience is lost.
@@BrVendan Splatoon 2 actually stores its save data on the consoles themselves, which is why it doesn't support cloud backups and is vulnerable to cheats. However, this also means that your gear is stored on your console and isn't going to get lost if the servers get shut down. I'm not sure whether Splatoon 3 with its Catalogues can be retooled to work like that at end-of-life, but it is at least theoretically possible.
And the initiative has ambiguous language in terms of what counts as a "reasonably playable state" on purpose. The kind of community features you get with fully supported live games are not feasible past end-of-life, and demanding that they stay supported is unreasonable. But old multiplayer shooters like Quake are playable to this day, and I would consider any given Splatoon game at least reasonably well preserved if I can get into a full multiplayer match, whatever extra effort that may require.
@@illusive-mike I am aware that your save is local, and I'm aware the legislation is vague enough where it will probably not protect live service games. It's just a shame to me that it really comes down to money and resources why these games' full experience have to be lost to time.
@@BrVendan The whole point of the initiative is to protect live service games, that is, protect them from complete destruction when the live service goes offline. It would certainly be ideal if server software could be provided for fans to run, but that in itself is a technical can of worms, since it would necessitate opening up the console to random outside connections, exposing proprietary tech, and so on.
We're already losing the "full experience" every time a Splatfest or Big Run date passes and leaves every new player behind. Live services are transient by their very nature, and there is a limit to how much of the experience can be preserved even without considering any business interests beyond raw server costs. But preserving even part of the game functionality (indeed, its very core) is much better than nothing.
And besides, this is just Splatoon as it is now. Given that Nintendo is already moving to respond, and is responding by going above and beyond to comply with requirements that aren't even being considered as legislation yet, future games at least from them can be prepared on purpose, as opposed to the incidental way in which Splatoon 2's local storage (a quirk that a lot of fans don't actually like) can help it survive shutdown.
I doubt Nintendo would have to make an offline version of Tetris 99. When new legislation is created, usually products are grandfathered in so companies aren't punished for not having future vision.
If this idea is as presented, it wouldn't necessarily be grandfathered. All it would likely mean is 1) they can't turn off already-owned copies, and 2) must patch online games, before shutting down their own servers, to be playable without that server, or with a connection to third-party servers.
Plenty of time to still do that.
How would you even make an offline Tetris 99?
@@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch In this specific case, it would have to be peer-to-peer or third-party servers, the other bit was just general examples. Maybe bots though.
"Forcing users to agree to EULA and therefore bypassing consumer protections"
That right there is the problem of EULAs.
Swedish person, I have signed the thing, ty for bringing this to our attention. Hope it will get enough signatures to go through
People don't want better ai players. They want the tools to make and connect to private servers
Nintendo is a company that markets to families. The average Nintendo buyer doesn't want to deal with the hassle of findign and using third party servers. I say, ideally, we'd have both. Better AI players, and the possibility for fanmade online play.
@@anzaia2164 the point of this potential legislation is to address right to repair issue. To repair games to restore lost multiplayer and in certain cases playability in general. Nintendo's target demographic is irrelevant to the consumers right to repair.
Super Mario Maker 2 technically has a single player mode as well, so it has playable levels after the game drops dead.
What makes me worried about this perspective is if Nintendo might consider not even continuing the Mario Maker or Splatoon series
Splatoon is massive for them. Mario Maker is still bigger than most Mario titles. I can't see any legislation so problematic for them that they'd turn their backs on these series for that reason. (Although I could see Maker having a long fallow period while they decide what they want to do with it).
@nintendoforecast i don't think they'll have to make any changes, especially to mario maker.
sharing of levels doesn't have to be online, it can even be done by handing your console to a friend.
i'd say it's already fully compliant with the proposal.
end of life support doesn't have to be for the full experience, it just has to leave costumers with something playable.
Who else would look at this angle but Nintendo Forecast!
Crossing my fingers for something like this happens for FEH. Maybe this will push other publishers to do the same-FGO would be neat too.
Regarding online storage of data, yes 4TB isn't a huge amount, but it isn't just a matter of plugging a hard drive into a server and forgetting about it. Files are usually hosted on CDN services, which have a recurring monthly cost based on how much is stored and how much bandwidth you use. The servers themselves also need regular maintenance like software updates etc. At Nintendo's scale, these costs can easily get into the range of 5 figures a month. Not that I'm trying to defend them or anything - obviously a company like Nintendo could just eat that cost if they really wanted to - but I think a lot of people underestimate how pricey those things can be.
People absolutely have no clue as to cost. And honestly eventually it just becomes untenible to keep it up for a couple people
Meanwhile the Nintendo Leaks with many TB of Data. Did you look at them? They have unused uncompressed 4K Textures of N64 Games on their servers. If they can store this for more then 30 years now, they can also host more then 4TB. With all Games and art they have, they have probably more then 100 Petabyte storage
@@Jan12700 They're both storage, yeah, but different use-cases. When something is publicly accessible, you need it to be available quickly, from anywhere in the world, with high reliability, and with essentially at-random access. Believe it or not that's quite hard to achieve with a regular server, which is why people pay for CDN services!
Long-term archival storage on an intranet *is* the kind of thing where you could totally get away with a "hard drive plugged into a box" type of setup if you wanted to. Your data is only accessed maybe a couple times a year (if ever), by only a handful of people, and it doesn't really matter how long it takes for them to get that data or if it's unavailable for a short period while you do maintenance, etc, etc.
The point of the original comment is just to highlight that there's more to making data widely available on the public internet than people might expect
@@Jan12700 They're both storage, yeah, but different use-cases. When something is publicly accessible, you need it to be available quickly, from anywhere in the world, with high reliability, and with essentially at-random access. Believe it or not that's quite hard to achieve with a regular server, which is why people pay for CDN services!
Long-term archival storage on an intranet is the kind of thing where you could totally get away with a "hard drive plugged into a box" type setup if you wanted to. Your data doesn't need to be accessed often, it only needs to be available to a small number of people, it doesn't matter how long it takes to retrieve, it doesn't matter if it's unavailable for a short period while you do maintenance, etc, etc.
The point of the original comment is just to highlight that there's more to making data widely available on the public internet than people might expect
@@mrbubbles6468 Not that untenable, that's exactly what's been going on with Guild Wars 1.
Massive props to Ross Scott of Accursed Farms for single-handedly getting the ball rolling on this initiative! You may already know him as the creator of the early 2000s Half-Life machinima series, Freeman's Mind!
It either goes 2 ways.
1. Companies get scared of doing more live service games in case they get forced to continue supporting a dead project.
2. Companies actually keep supporting dead projects, guaranteeing the playerbase has access to the game.
Imo, its a win win either case.
thinking about the idea of sony being forced to keep the servers up for concord despite it being a colossal failiure, and wasting money as a result is pretty hilarious. i do hope it gets passed, so we as consumers will see less & less live service games out in the market
@@ZXUmiThe problem is that newer generations of gamers are playing nothing but Fortnite and other LS games. That’s the reason for the recent push toward them, because the audience for traditional games is stagnating.
3. Gaming companies cut all support for the EU. Probably not gonna happen, but boy, would that be a shitstorm.
They don't need to continue to support it themselves. As long as a player/s is able to make a server to be able to play a once online-only game that's all that's needed.
OR they just don’t sell in the EU
If companies are willing to release a scrubbed version of their server source code at the end of official support, that should meet all the requirements while keeping themselves forever free of any future obligations. Let their fans set up private servers to play their games.
I think this is the best solution imo
I hope this trend continues of giving online games getting offline versions, we 1st saw this happen with megaman x dive. When the taiwan servers announced they would shutdown a offline port was made allowing you to play the main campaing without internet. Sadly this port is missing collab charaters like ryu and dante trigger X but its a step in the right direction for game preservation, hopefuly when its time for FE heroes to sunset there servers it will get the same treatment
18:57 If future mainline animal crossing or splatoon games become a subscription based service, it would be a really hard sell for families, which are Nintendos' main demographic. Also, I just think it's stupid and I know that I, along with many other people, would just stop playing and move on.
I believe this initiative is also meant to stop publishers removing access to single player games that require some kind of online connection, such as EA's sims 4 and sim city, or basically any games bought on steam.
First Nintendo cuts of thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of players by excluding a large swath of phones & tablets that should be able to run the game from being able to install or update it, unless they plan to buy a brand new device every year on their specific list of approved phones. Then they released some malicious code that prevented emulators like BlueStacks from running it, even though they still could have made money from legitimate in-game purchases. Now they wonder why they have a small player base & aren't making any money off it. Well screw them.
the as a service model is a blight of the software industry
Consumers don't seem to agree. It's insanely successful all over the world. You're just forcing your own tastes on the other 99.9% of the world.
@@INRamos13 It's sucessful because companies no longer give you the choice. See creative cloud and office 365.
Even smaller apps seem to want to use it, like there was this utility that let you easily drag and drop music onto your iphone without itunes. I bought a licence for it, but then they decided the new version would be a sub model.
I'm not paying a monthly sub for an app I may have used like two or three times in a year.
If only Super Mario Bros. 35 had come out around now. It could've stayed 🥲
hopefully we get super mario bros 40
I also saw, later in the video, why this kind of game might *not* actually be affected by the laws
Hopefully we won't lose F-Zero 99 now
A better alternative for online games is to explicitly allow fan-made online service replacements (such as Pretendo, which allows you to play Splatoon 1 and other Wii U & 3DS games) and disallow companies to implement technical measures to prevent players from using them.
They could perhaps create support for these games that makes running one's own server more viable, that way fans of the games could still play online.
I'd be interested to know how this affects gacha games like Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail. These games are far from being shut down it seems, but a future where there's an offline version of these with all the content available is wild.
This is one of the reasons I stopped playing gacha games. The predatory gambling was a bigger reason, to be fair, but the fact that no matter what I did, I would eventually completely lose access to the game, really put the nail in the coffin. Nintendo's adamancy on tearing down roms for now inaccessible titles and such is also a frustrating thing. It's not costing them anything, and community support is there. Sure they do like to resell old games, but in that case, make your version better/more accessible, and people are more likely to go for it simply because emulation is marginally more complicated. Convenience is a huge factor. (There's also the fact that so many of those old games are never going to get sold by Nintendo again for one reason or another, so they aren't losing anything at all by letting them be downloaded).
Offline modes are important. And while there's been plenty of people advocating for physical releases/keeping focusing physical versions, the problem is that physical versions are not a failsafe. I have/had physical versions of splatoon 2 and 3, but the problem is that a physical copy doesn't change offline removing almost all of its features. The single-player campaign is there, sure, but it's hard to argue that multiplayer isn't the identity of Splatoon, and online removal strips away all of those aspects- not just online matches, but clothes/weapons as well, and fashion is such a big deal in Splatoon it's not even funny, to the point that some of the biggest rewards from single-player are, surprise, things that only have real use in multiplayer. Having bots and fan ability to create servers are two straightforward (though not necessarily easy on all fronts) means for this, and we've seen what Nintendo's community can do in the face of pushback from Nintendo, so imagine what they could do with Nintendo's support.
Honestly it would be great in a really big part of the gaming market had a law against shuttering games as soon as server costs aren't worth the publisher's time. Like if they're going to call games "purchases" and to "rentals" then legally they shouldn't be able to remotely shut off access to the thing the second they no longer want to spent their money on it. This should also apply to other digital licenses too (like make Adobe stop trying to step in the way of people using older versions of Photoshop they bought) but games are the most impacted by the lack of consumer protections on this type of stuff.
Every game that uses online servers should be obligated to provide the following options:
1) The ability to play with bots
2) The ability to host private servers online
3) The ability to play in LAN environent
I want to be able to somehow keep my friends from AC:Pocket Camp 😢
I’ve already sent a message to the game support page but they can’t reply with any other info than what’s stated on the game page itself already. Stinks.
Have you tried adding them as friends on your switch? That way, they won't be lost and you at least keep them added :)
@@diediediceThank you for the suggestion! Yes, but there are more than a few that don’t have a Switch it seems. 😔 I hope some others might see use of this.
I play animal crossing pocket camp on my tablet bc I don't have a Nintendo switch
4 Terabytes might be a rounding error for Nintendo, but it's not so feasible for consumers. Ideally games can be downloaded and then played completely offline to a satisfactory degree. An idea to make Mario Maker an offline game without ruining all the fun would be to make a tutorial like "storymode" where you're tasked with designing levels that feature specific design techniques. Each successful task unlocks a library of fan made levels that exclusively feature the techniques you've been shown so far. These fan made levels could be pulled from previous Mario Maker titles, or the "storymode" could be an end of support update, allowing users to download a fulfilling library of fan made content, create new levels, and freely play the game entirely offline. This update would only contain select levels to make the game small enough to allow the full post-support game to be downloaded.
As for post-support Splatoon, releasing a free version of the game that's exclusively for local multiplayer would go a long way. This would make the game similar to Jackbox games where only one player needs to own the paid copy, making the game more playable offline. That and the addition of ai teammates and opponents of course.
Nintendo is going to bring pocket camp to new horizons, that's what i believe.
With plans for a paid version of the app, i kinda doubt it. but i really, *really* hope nh gets an update like this
@@Frog_kaeru they're basically going to happy home paradise pocket camp. Same blueprint. We'll get an animal crossing direct announcement on September, show the DLC in October and release it in November which is the same month pocket camp shuts down.
I wish but knowing how they dropped AC I've lost hope at this point. It's all I want, Pocket camp items and clothes being available in New Horizons.
@@benamisai-kham5892 i haven't lost hope at all, especially given the fact that I've put over 4000 hours into new horizons. My thing is if you're an avid animal crossing player then you know there's a lot of unfinished business with new horizons which leaves a lot of room for more updates. New horizons still doesn't have a post office, what mainline animal crossing game doesn't have a post office, EVERY animal crossing game has had one so why wouldn't new horizons get one?
I doubt it’ll be ported to new horizons, but I do agree it will be ported to a hard copy available on the switch. Since they’re actively still releasing new items, it’s odd the game would totally shut down, so this isn’t a true sunset of an app. Most apps will release all their data before closure and freeze some aspects before shutting down, so the business as normal makes me suspicious this is just a migration vs total closure. I have an alternative theory essentially that maybe they’re updating it like the Pokémon tcg online. The code was old so they made a new version and ported saved data to it, which for ACPC being popular to this day, would allow it to continue on with new fail safes in place for this law and future proofing with new OS updates. It’s not guaranteed but it would make more sense to me than a total end of service
6:44 This arrow is a brilliant editing innovation. I've never seen another UA-camr do this, and they really should.
I feel like there may be a more fun way to do this... Forced refunds for everyone who ever bought the game unless you make public the server-side code!
Literally impossible to enforce, but I guess in your mind government is like a fairy godmother that just makes your wishes come true regardless of all context.
@@INRamos13 Hello, Mr. Buzz Killington.
I know thats you sony
A third of the signatures have been gathered in the first few months, and there's plenty of time left, but this might get talked about in parliament regardless of the number of signatures if it simply gets noticed by the right politicians, especially because it's an area of skirting around consumer protections that has been overlooked for long enough that it's starting to backfire in other software fields.
i literally just got into pocket camp about 2 or so days before the announcement that it would be closing :[
Something interesting about the Pocket Camp shutdown is that Sega did the exact same thing when they shut down their mobile game “Sonic at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games” three years ago. I wonder if the pocket camp shutdown might be in response to that strategy
It sucks a lot. Like. My overwatch 1 disc is useless now. So. That sucks.
I’m actually in favour of this, sounds great for consumers. The Overwatch controversy springs to mind here.
[cries in Miitomo]
Miitomo
I wish they did a offline version of Miitomo, too
The decision definitely has nothing to do with that law and is more about the loss of good will from players who subscribed to the game for so long
I think there's a possibility that you may have not given full consideration in your 'future proofing' section, a different strategy that companies like Nintendo could use to continue to release online multiplayer games while still being compliant with the new (potential) law.
Nobody said the company had to continue to pay for the game, only that they leave it in a playable state. Removing online requirements for single player play, and releasing the server code so that people can make their own servers, fulfils that requirement. The overall cost to the company for doing this is minuscule, and therefore they have no real incentive to move away from games with online components.
3:55 SAY IT! AMEN! I can’t STAND the erasure of these cool games that rely on servers. They’re perfectly playable in single player. Destroying games and taking them from us is awful.
If Animal Crossing became subscription based I'd just not play or wait for some kind of private server.
So could we feasibly campain for Nintendo to release an offline version of Dr Mario World as well based on these laws
Doubt it would be retrospective.
I politely tell you that you meant retroactive. Retrospect would mean to reflect upon the past. Liked your vid btw.
Shame. I thought it was a really good puzzle game even if it wasn’t a good Dr Mario game
Ha, yes! Thank you!
I just want a dragalia lost game
Oh wow, they actually got spooked into not harming their customers. That's RARE.
As an American I love the EU so much because it dose so much more for American consumers than the American government
I would abhor a subscription-only animal crossing game that I can't own. It's a shame that the realistic reaction to legislation like this would be for consumers not to own the games in the first place...
I am also thinking, perhaps a simpler workaround would be for companies to have to announce "you are paying to own this online product for a definite amount of time" clearly when you go to buy multiplayer games?
I don’t think Nintendo is worried about this initiative, especially this early. Pocket Camp probably wasn’t making any money, so they shut down the servers.
Adding an offline version is probably specifically because it’s an Animal Crossing game. They wouldn’t want to make one of their biggest pod of whales upset.
Being an inherently online game, Pocket Camp shouldn't be covered by this proposal, as it is concerned about inherently offline games that require logging in to play
Also, the only acceptable response to any "law" in the EU by a company outside the EU is "eff off".
The sheer number of people *choosing* to not get it in these comments, istg... So lemme make a few things clear:
1) Games preservationists *don't* want unlimited service- we want the ability to play *after* service has ended. No need for a server, no need for patches/updates or new content, no need for any additional effort from the developer/publisher at all. Just leave the game in a sufficiently-functional state, dust your hands off, and let users work amongst themselves to keep the game functional in an offline capacity.
2) The legislation being asked for would not be unduly burdensome for indie developers. How do I know this? *Because any indie dev worth their salt is capable of leaving their game in a playable state after they're done developing it.* And y'know what? This proposed legislation *should* apply to indie devs. There's a particular indie dev I personally refuse to purchase from ever again because they permanently broke one of their games when they went on to their next project. Following such a law would help indie devs avoid effing their own reputation.
3) *This thing has already been done.* Formerly-online-only games have been turned into offline-compatible games before. This isn't a new concept. This isn't ground-breaking. This isn't demanding developers bend over backwards to create some new-fangled process for turning games from online to offline. Hell, I can think of an example right now. Need For Speed: Online was taken out of service years ago, but a player contacted the developer and was given permission to 'create' Need For Speed: Offline. The original developers haven't paid a dime to keep the offline version functional. It's player-driven and player-maintained. That's what preservationists want, and the precedent for it already exists.
4) Developers wouldn't have to make *all* aspects of a game perfectly functional in the exact same way as when it was being actively supported. So long as the game is 'sufficiently functional', it would meet the threshold. Can the player launch the game? Can the player engage with NPCs or play levels? If applicable, can the player 'win'? If applicable, can the player save their data? It doesn't matter if online functionality was part of the game's marketing, since no reasonable person would expect those functions to continue working indefinitely. So long as enough of the content is available after service ends, it's in the clear.
5) If this affects the types of games made, *that's a good thing.* The live-service has been an issue since it first arose. Games that are actually just thinly-veiled gambling are harmful for consumers, especially kids. We've outlawed and regulated other things that harm consumers, like asbestos, so why not this? We have to start regulating the digital space in a more modern way. Because the market does not self-regulate, ever.
6) If this affects copyright protections, *that's a good thing.* Companies using copyright law as a way to prevent customers from playing what they paid for is not okay. By all means, let 'em use copyright laws to protect their rights to *profits,* but letting 'em turn that into an anti-preservation bludgeon is a step too far. If a developer wants to stop selling and supporting their own game, fine, but once they stop selling that game, third-party patches at no cost to the player would not be robbing the developer of sales. 'But what about remakes/remasters?' Nintendo has already solved that problem. See their remake of SMRPG? There's a whole new component to the combat system. There's new models, new art, new music. It's a new experience. Anybody still playing the original SMRPG is not negatively affecting the sales of the new SMRPG because the products are not comparable. Nintendo can't swoop in and smash the SNES copy of SMRPG sitting in my living room just because they've released a new one. Why should digital be different?
Companies should not have the right to harm consumers. Much like how I don't have the right to punch a random person in the face, companies should not have the right to sell a product, then go 'lol sike' and prevent customers from using the product. Physical media and products are far more reliable from a purchase standpoint than digital media and products. It shouldn't be that way. If the market isn't going to self-regulate (which, as I've already noted, it doesn't), then it must be regulated on behalf of consumers.
More Offline versions of Free to Play / Gatcha games is always a good thing.
Thank you. I was not aware of this. Pocket camp was my first introduction to ac so it holds very dear memories for me. So im glad its not gone forever. Im def gonna sign the petition
We need this. There's no way Square Enix can just get away with completely killing off Kingdom Hearts Union Cross, first by making it cutscene-only when servers shut down, so no more gameplay, and then by literally delisting it, making it even HARDER for anyone to get the full KH story leading up to KH3 and 4!!!
I'm not sure them delisting pocket camp then selling it to people would fall under the stop killing games initiative. Is it better than losing the game entirely? Yes. Is it shitty they aren't putting it out for free and that data doesn't transfer. Also yes.
Dragalia Lost would be AMAZING. Mighty Doom should never have been online only.
Mighty Doom is online?! I wabted to play it yet, that doesn't seem too good. . .
I expect when this becomes law a lot more peer to peer multiplayer systems. Peer to Peer would be much cheaper for them to host. If the community can host their own SMM server that solves the issue as far as Nintendo is concerned
But even Nintendo uses P2P for all it's games, they still need Nintendos Matchmaking Servers. Try to get a match in Splatoon 1, even it was P2P you can't
I don't want devs to be forced to keep games running
I just want game companies to be forced to refund customers every single last penny they spent once a service is shut down.
Splatoon 3 and mario maker are playable offline, Splatoon 3 has the story and side order, and mario maker lets you make and play your own levels
Exactly.
Making a way for players to share levels outside of their database would just be an extra cherry on top that they aren't required to do.
As long as the game can be played then it's good.
In other words, let us make our own servers and host games after they're done supporting it?
Thank you so, so much, Ross Scott.
Bad joy-con boys
whatcha gonna do when they come for Wii U
Gamecube gamecube, watchu gonna do, watchu gonna do when the iso rips you
Yooo-
Ross's Accursed Farms strikes again!
If this law went up last year, FUSER would still be alive
Megaman Dive did something I honestly thought amazing. When the game has discontinued online they released an offline version with stats buffed and all available characters available to earn through gameplay. So you could pick up and play like a power fantasy game to just horse around in.
Sadly they had to remove all the collaboration characters. But it's still impressive that they did this in the 1st place. It be great to see this done with more games in the future, like a parting send off to all those that had played or will play in the future
An idea I have is to require companies to leave a mechanism by which the game could be picked up by new backend servers, to make community-maintained online play easier.
Usually, when multiplayer games go end of life, the games are updated to have that end of support hard coded into the game, and the list of servers which it looks for (which are now shut down) remain hard coded in the game. New error codes are added specifically for when people try accessing online multiplayer services in the game, and it returns the error code anytime such attempts are made.
While the end of support error codes could still be added, perhaps in the update that makes the game functional offline, they could also ship some kind of mechanism by which the list of backend servers could be switched out? If, at these new servers provided, functional backend infrastructure is detected and responds with valid online game data, the game could re-enable multiplayer functionality and stop returning end of support codes.
This would do away with the need of things like custom dns servers with cheeky shenanigans to trick the game into thinking the servers are the very same ones shut down by the game developer.
The developer does not have to work with the community to develop these servers; once the offline support update is released, the developer's obligation is fulfilled. But a mechanism for switching to new community servers should be included.
This should be a thing worldwide but nah, American lawmakers are more focused on things that aren't even their personal business.
I think LAN play is the way to go for this, it's secure, you don't need to distribute hackable binaries with sensitive internal information, and as long as all features work onLAN, nobody will bat an eye if you get a hacked item.
How I would do it for splatoon:
Ranking among friends would work like X Rank if you play repeatedly. Every friendgroup is their own division, and XPower updates according to how new or non recent your opponent is at battling you, it still resets every season.
Shops become offline capable.
Stage rotations and the news become local suggestions.
Players start the game at level 30, to unlock all weapons, this could be framed as a closeout sale.
You can order from splatnet which just uses a random seed to generate shop items, by the same method you transfer pictures to your phone.
I Wonder How this would affect Fire Emblem Heroes
Ive been racking my brain about this a lot lately. A lot of it is arena modes and timed stuff but remove online its basically single player modes
I love this policy but, I would like it if the alternative to not following these rules, means you have to make the game/ project open source. Meaning the community can take the assets and everything in their own hands and keep the project alive themselves.
The death of IP, then
HELL YEAH!!!!!!!
A solution I could see is integrating the ability to connect to servers other than the one hosted by the developer/publisher, and provide the server software for people to host themselves. (I see this working for games like Mario Maker, where custom content is shared online, as well as games where the server mainly serves as a lobby for multiplayer and the actual game doesn't take much resources server-side)
Alternatively, the ability to host a game locally and other people to connect to it. (This might work for live multiplayer without much custom content, such as Splatoon, especially if one would be more likely to play with friends than strangers anyway)
Oh how I wish this existed before EverClicker shut down. It wasn’t a Nintendo game, but still. It had online features, sure, but the gameplay itself was mostly solo anyway, so I don’t know why the entire thing had to be shut down without leaving the option for offline play.
The issue here is enforcement, a lot of the ideas you suggested would be good in theory, but it's not reasonable to require companies to do things by law. Like how you said that the 4tb of Mario maker levels is a rounding error for Nintendo, that's true right now, but what if they go out of business? This would affect indie studios, not just big companies like Nintendo, having to close down the company isn't unlikely. no matter how small the hard drive is, there isn't anyone to plug it in.
I think the best solution would be where if a server shuts down, the game goes into the public domain and the company has no legal ownership of it. This would heavily discourage companies from taking the servers offline, but wouldn't make going out of business illegal.
I love Nintendo forecast!!!
just two internet raccoons loving Nintendo Forecast
wait so the Stop Destroying Videogames movement is winning? let's gooo!
I feel like Splatoon’s pvp modes could be filled with ai using assets that the title already comes with.
Your logic fails counting b that You forget the fact that Super Mario Run requires online to play as DRM no other reason. No reason for it to have it and it's never been removed.
It has an online multiplayer mode.
If it's removed I will install it again, fun time but sometimes d/c's make it annoying
@@paperluigi6132It's not. It just has a multiplayer mode.
Meh cycle of life to get new games and roll the dice on bugs/censorship. They do drop in price relatively quickly too, usually 1 year or so is like $40 tops, and even super mario rpg went around there too. Tons more developers these days to care about 4:00 but I know some self-insert or wanna marry their favorites.