Post #3601940

2026-06-27 23:50 UTC

I feel like maybe I need to read more about the whole “stop killing games” thing. It’s awesome and fine if they expect at some point the game will be able to be played through a free multiplayer tool that enables someone to host and pay for private games. It’s quite another if they think companies should have to shell money out of pocket indefinitely to run infrastructure for multiplayer games after x years of release and/or once player base passes a certain threshold number. I’m admitting my ignorance here but I do think it’s fair to at least question both sides some

Replies (2)

@ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2026-06-28 02:04

Stop Killing Games explicitly does not want endless support from a publisher. They are advocating for publishers to implement an End of Life plan during the development stages of a game that can be enacted after the publisher wishes to stop supporting a game, so that a player has a reasonable chance of continuing to play the game on their own, either by disabling Always Online DRM, removing the Online component of a game with a large single player campaign (like The Crew), or providing server binaries so the user can self-host a server.

Open ##3601939
@AgentRocket@feddit.org 2026-06-28 00:36

SKG has repeatedly stated, that they don’t want eternal support from publishers/developers, but the means to run the games, once the official support and infrastructure is gone. that could mean tools to run private servers locally or online or some sort of offline singleplayer mode.

Open ##3601947