Yes if we would have known that Concord only lasted two weeks then those that bought the battle pass wouldn’t have bought them. Know eol timing help consumers.
Comment on Th EU iniative for Stop Killing Games has reached the goal of 1 million signatures!!
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoI dont understand how such a broad requirement would work. They just have to pick some arbitrary date, and then after that they can continue as things currently are? Can you give an example of a game where this type of labelling would have helped?
Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Sony actually issued full refunds to everyone who bought Concord.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
The game still died. One that was in development for five years, and it lasted two weeks.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
They didnt plan for it to last two weeks, the game failed. How do you expect them to guarantee a certain uptime when they have no idea if anyone will even play it.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
They didnt know it would only last two weeks. They probably knew it was a possibility but I doubt they planned for it.
This is what I mean though, if concord had to say the game would be live for a guaranteed amount of time, why wouldnt they just say something low like 6 months. Why wouldnt every company do that unless they knew for sure it would be successful? Its too risky to choose longer periods of time, and we just have the same situation as now.
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
‘The Crew’ by Ubisoft was sold for several months before they decided to shut it down. This would have at least forced them to communicate that before taking peoples money. I am also pretty sure that publishers don’t want to put this information on the package because it could seriously hurt sales. So the effect might be that publishers build the game in a way that enables self-hosting.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
If you are saying they knew it was closing and they sold it for months anyways, that sounds like fraud. Has there been proof ubisoft decided to do this anyways?
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Yes, I think calling it fraud is a fair conclusion but what do you mean with “they knew it was closing”? This decision is completely in the hands of Ubisoft. Something doesn’t stop being fraud just because someone only decides to defraud you 2 months after they sold you something.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
For all we know when the decision to pull the game was formalized, they pulled it that day. It depends what they did after they decided the game was being pulled. Did they leave it up for a few months to get some stuff in order beforehand, but kept selling it? I’d have a tough time accepting a reasoning from Ubisoft for that.
Thats why I asked for any sort of comment or reporting on it.
Kelly@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crew_(video_game)
People who paid around us$40 for the game on December 13 were being sold a lemon.
Given that it was released in 2014 it seems likely that their licenses were given a 10 year duration and they always intended to shutdown in 2024 at the latest (of course if its user base failed to reach critical mass they could have pulled the plug earlier).
Does selling a game in 2023 when you plan to kill it in 2024 legally qualify as fraud?
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Thats not what I’m asking. You just have me evidence that they didnt sell it as soon as an EOL date was announced. Are you saying they should have stopped selling it before they publicly announce the EOL? Should they have announced and removed it as soon as the board meeting ended? How much earlier would that be in this case?