For instance, imagine a massively multiplayer online game; everyone playing the game is acutely aware of how much server hardware is needed to maintain that online presence, and it's unrealistic to assume it would exist forever.

That's probably why attention was pushed onto The Crew. It's a racing game that shouldn't need much from a server, so it's arguably unfair to tie it to that access and take it offline.

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

it's unrealistic to assume it would exist forever.

Older multiplayer games would let you self-host the server, long before the current trend.

Ubisoft doesn't have to continue to host servers. They just have to release the server code. Zero cost to them.

[–] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

zero cost to them

I would imagine it would reveal how sh*tty the ubisoft code bases are and has a reputation cost XD. But if it's that big of a risk then they should keep the servers running indefinitely.

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, they don't have to release the source code. A compiled version would be fine.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Pirates have managed to run servers for tons of MMOs. The only thing stopping people from running servers themselves is that they're not made available.

[–] Starbuncle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's why companies shutting down online games need to be compelled to open-source or at least provide binaries for their servers.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Don't get it wrong, the reason The Crew was the perfect game to start the movement is solely because Ubisoft is french, a country that has pretty strong consumer laws that they aren't respecting.