Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What do you think an optimal solution would be?

1. Service level agreement for n years explicitly stated at release?

2. Release a binary containing the bare necessites of the title's backend services (stripped of any analytics or proprietary stuff)?

3. Something else?

Whats frustrating is that studios and publishers (should) have an idea of what the lifetime cost for each player is, so they can price the game appropriately. I wish it were industry best practice for large studios to be transparent at release and state "we can support this game for a minimum of 10 years, if it's a hit, longer".




I would like the answer to be "release the server for free", but I understand the reality is more nuanced.

Server-side code might have proprietary components or code reused for other games, or a whole lot of complications which are difficult to extricate from a "free" release, and the company might just not want the bother. Releasing something always comes with expectations, just look at how much grief authors of free and open source code sometimes get from entitled users!

But yeah, I would love for game companies to release their servers once the commercial shelf life of a game has ended.

I think it's unrealistic to always expect this, though.


1. The single player part of the game should be able to run forever.

2. Service level agreement for n years explicitly stated at release? -> Actually Yes, If we are buying subscriptions I would like to see the terms of that subscription.


Optimal solution would be that valve demands for game approval that the single player component of the game runs even if servers are down.

They already demand for example that bans for cheating only affect the multiplayer part of the game.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: