• BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    That doesn’t make the point irrelevant, it makes it even more likely to happen. Most of us don’t want to play on shitty, self-hosted servers and I’ll gladly remove that option to have a more secure game server.

    Hot take, but games don’t need to be active for decades. Everything dies eventually. After 10 years there’s no need to keep running the game servers.

    • bigmclargehuge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      We’re on the exact opposite sides of this argument.

      Being able to host your own servers means there is a much higher potential to have servers located close to you, giving you much lower latency. If there aren’t, host your own. This is great for people in, for example, Australia, who often get really poor support in terms of servers in large games. Not an issue when they can host as many as they want.

      As for security, what’s more secure than having a server with a password only me and my friends know? On top of that, when a server is my own, I know when it’s going to be down. When the studio is the one controlling all the servers, you are at their whim.

      As for games not needing to last decades… why? Do you want to be kicked off of a service you paid for, then expected to buy a new one that’s basically the same thing (which you will also eventually be kicked off)? Especially when the original still (in theory) functions perfectly?