Valve should not allow game developers to sell multiplayer game that can become unplayable.

[Starblazor]

There are two main issues currently with multiplayer games. And I think Valve should protect their consumers.

1. If the multiplayer ends up being a financial failure, certain game companies shut down the online services, making the game after unplayable. It means we boot the game and then we get an error, because no more online services. Wasted money for us as players.

2. If the multiplayer was released without bots, once it reaches a CCU of zero either because it's no peak hour or because the game is dead, the game then becomes unplayble. Wasted money for us as players.

It would be great if Valve could prevent this from happening by adding new policies.

If a game developer wants to sell a multiplayer game on Steam.
- The game must not depend entirely on the game company to remain playable online. Even if the game company shuts down, gamers must still be able to play online.
- If the CCU reaches zero, the game must remain playable (bots, horde mode, terrorist hunt, etc.).

Let me know what you guys think about all this.

[999999999]

You can make your own servers for the games, can't you?

[Starblazor]

That's what I think we should at least be able to do if a game company was to shut down. The devs should make sure that the game can still be playable even if they stop supporting the game at one point or another. Either by allowing us to host ($$$) our own servers, or let us use our own PCs to create servers or use P2P or else. But Valve should not allow game developers to release games on Steam that can become unplayable 3 months later. This is kind of what is going on with LawBreakers right now. The game just came out, it's somewhat considered as a financial failure, the game has no server browser, only matchmaking and it doesn't have bots. Once the CCU reaches zero every now and then, it's unplayable.

We should be able to create our own public/private servers.
And the game at least should have bots.

It should be mandatory. Not optional.

[Satoru]

Thats sort of a nonsensical requirement. You didn't 'waste' money because an online game shut down. If you play a game for 2000 hours and then it shuts down how is that a 'waste' of money?

You're also now requiring

1) steam and publishers to be clarivoyant
2) steam has no power to dictate how a company makes their MP infrastructure. Steam is not a publisher. Any more than BestBuy is going to start dictating that

Your issue is an industry/archival issue. Which are problems but not problems that steam is in a position or should be in the position to solve.

[Satoru]

引用自 999999999：

You can make your own servers for the games, can't you?

Depends on the game, Black OPs servers are entirely hosted by Treyarch and cannot be created locally. Castle Doctrine has its own centralized matchmaking infrastrucutre. You can't make your own instances of Eve Online or Wow or Paladins or warframe either.

[999999999]

Ok... Just read this and had a chuckle...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-01-03-publisher-blames-pubg-for-lawbreakers-flopping

[Starblazor]

引用自 Satoru：

Thats sort of a nonsensical requirement. You didn't 'waste' money because an online game shut down. If you play a game for 2000 hours and then it shuts down how is that a 'waste' of money?

You're also now requiring

1) steam and publishers to be clarivoyant
2) steam has no power to dictate how a company makes their MP infrastructure. Steam is not a publisher. Any more than BestBuy is going to start dictating that

Your issue is an industry/archival issue. Which are problems but not problems that steam is in a position or should be in the position to solve.

Microsoft and Sony have requirements that Game Developers must follow in order to release games on their platforms. It's called Microsoft and Sony compliance. There are rules for crashes, performances, handling error messages, handling accounts, controller disconnections, networking issues, etc. PC doesn't really have those rules and often PC versions are really bad.

In this case, Valve with Steam would have requirements that would require game developers to ensure that their game remains playable if the company shuts down or if the CCU reaches zero.

[Snapjak]

Yet EA has shut down all multiplayer servers across all consoles for several franchises that are old.

No company is going to keep their servers up and running indefinitely with no financial incentives.

[Starblazor]

引用自 Snapjak：

Yet EA has shut down all multiplayer servers across all consoles for several franchises that are old.

No company is going to keep their servers up and running indefinitely with no financial incentives.

That's precisely that whole point of the thread. To prevent that from happenin with Steam games.

[HLCinSC]

引用自 Flickshot：

引用自 Satoru：

Thats sort of a nonsensical requirement. You didn't 'waste' money because an online game shut down. If you play a game for 2000 hours and then it shuts down how is that a 'waste' of money?

You're also now requiring

1) steam and publishers to be clarivoyant
2) steam has no power to dictate how a company makes their MP infrastructure. Steam is not a publisher. Any more than BestBuy is going to start dictating that

Your issue is an industry/archival issue. Which are problems but not problems that steam is in a position or should be in the position to solve.

Microsoft and Sony have requirements that Game Developers must follow in order to release games on their platforms. It's called Microsoft and Sony compliance.

In this case, Valve with Steam would have requirements that would require game developers to ensure that their game remains playable if the company shuts down or if the CCU reaches zero.

To be fair those services are subsidized as you are also paying an extra monthly fee to Sony/MS on those services just to play the online games you buy. And once MS or Sony does iit like they do it on older consoles it removes it from virtually every game

[Spawn of Totoro]

引用自 Flickshot：

Microsoft and Sony have requirements that Game Developers must follow in order to release games on their platforms. It's called Microsoft and Sony compliance. There are rules for crashes, performances, handling error messages, handling accounts, controller disconnections, networking issues, etc. PC doesn't really have those rules and often PC versions are really bad.

In this case, Valve with Steam would have requirements that would require game developers to ensure that their game remains playable if the company shuts down or if the CCU reaches zero.

Consoles are different. If you make a game for a console, you can only sell it on that console or remake the game for another platform.

Steam is on PC. Developers can make a game and take it to any store or even self publish it. Steam is not a requirement and the more they demand developers do, then fewer developers that will use it.

EA already left Steam long ago when Steam foreced a policy and required that developers put their DLC on Steam.

Such a requirement as you are suggesting is not likely to happen either as users will continue to purchase games with out it.

[Satoru]

引用自 999999999：

Ok... Just read this and had a chuckle...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-01-03-publisher-blames-pubg-for-lawbreakers-flopping

I mean he's not 'wrong' with respect to that though. PUBG more or less came out of nowhere (yes I know nto really). But Lawbreakers launched at a time when ther should have been little FPS competitoin barring waiting on CoD and BF:SW2.

I'd argue he's correct from the perspetive of its IMMENSE success sucked what little pie there was available in the FPS crowd. Having to compete with CSGO and Overwatch already would have been problematic. Let alone some other game that you had no idea was coming basically killing all press and player availability for a new IP

That said Lawbreakers had its own set of issues yes. But PUBG really did have a giant impact on any FPS MP game that didnt' already have an established audience (COD/BF/Destiny). Coming in new was already an uphill battle without PUBG coming in and stealing everyone's lunch money mid-year.

[Browen]

Don't you normally agree to outside agreements for those sort of games, too? I'm not 100% sure, I tend to play singleplayer games since my laptop can't really handle big fast multiplayer games.

Also, everything the mod says is absolutely true and basically all you need as an answer.
+1 million

[Satoru]

引用自 Flickshot：

Microsoft and Sony have requirements that Game Developers must follow in order to release games on their platforms. It's called Microsoft and Sony compliance.

The 'certification' for those platforms doesnt include things like "you have to be able to make your own servers". In fact most of the certifications for those platforms includes utter nonsense like "You must have a notification that your game is saving".

Steam is an open platform. Being an open platform means steam is not a gatekeeper for patches like Microsoft and Sony are. It allows devs to innovate and do things as they see fit. "Certification for the sake of certification" is not a solution to your problem. Its not a problem steam wants to solve because its not their problem nor is it their mandate.

. PC doesn't really have those rules and often PC versions are really bad.

Again 'certification' on consoles is a mere 'checkbox' of pure nonsense.

Having 'certification' on PC would not magically

1) make PC games better
2) make PC games have stand alone server when said 'certifications' doesn't require it

In this case, Valve with Steam would have requirements that would require game developers to ensure that their game remains playable if the company shuts down or if the CCU reaches zero.

What developer would agree to such nonsense. Microsoft and Sony dont require it. Why should steam.

[Starblazor]

One of the problems with multiplayer games these days is they don't tell you if the game has bots or not. I tried LawBreakers, the Beta and was like.. cool. The Beta must not display all the features of the game. Then I bought the game and then realized it really truly didn't have a server browser or bots either. And I was affraid that if the game goes dead in a few months and would become unplayable and ... well that's what is happening.

[999999999]

引用自 Flickshot：

One of the problems with multiplayer games these days is they don't tell you if the game has bots or not. I tried LawBreakers, the Beta and was like.. cool. The Beta must not display all the features of the game. Then I bought the game and then realized it really truly didn't have a server browser or bots either. And I was affraid that if the game goes dead in a few months and would become unplayable and ... well that's what is happening.

Did you never ask these questions before purchasing the game? In their forum?