I believe this article fundamentally misunderstands the Stop Killing Games Initiative. It has repeated many times that LEGO 2K Drive will remain playable even after it’s delisted and the servers go offline, but it’s trying to paint that as some sort of blow to SKG and game preservation because the online service will be gone.
I don’t think it misunderstands the initiative at all. I also disagree that it paints this as a “blow” to the SKG movement. I see it as a piece that is bringing attention to both the delisting of a game and its online functions shutting down, and the SKG movement as a whole.
It’s correct that SKG is not seeking anything retroactive, which I think it realistic and wise. However, it is also in general an awareness movement. It’s in part trying to get all consumers to ask themselves, “does it need to be this way?” And, if you follow the SKG initiative’s talking and data points, they absolutely use partially disabled/killed games to help make their point, and this game will be another one to add to the list.
What if Lego 2K Drive wasn’t made in such a way that the company could shut down online functions when they deemed it no longer profitable? The game has many online features that some would consider a big part of the game, including sharing designs with other players. What if the game was designed from the get-go to allow direct peer-to-peer sharing? What if 2K was required, by legislation, to stop their support in a way that allowed someone else to pick up the mantle, such as by releasing necessary server code and files?
Pretty sure no existing games would be affected by the stop killing games legislation anyway, it’s only new games
That too. The initiative has stressed multiple times this isn’t something they want to have happen retroactively.
My understanding of SKG comes entirely from watching the EU deposition, so take this with a grain of salt, but I lean towards agreeing with OP. There are other points of contention for SKG than just ‘this doesn’t apply retroactively’.
SKG is concerned with:
- Making sure games remain available to the consumer and do not die at the whims of the publisher
- Allowing alternate methods for communities to stay alive (such as private servers)
Just because the game is being kept online for another year, does not mean that it will be purchasable after that. In my view, publishers should take the GOG games route and allow their games to be kept DRM-free if they decide to stop support. That way, the game can be circulated amongst friends and enjoyed for years. I am not sure of the specifics of the plan for this game beyond the article though.
