I wish more games would prioritize couch co-op modes over online play. Games that are focused on online only play basically have an expiration date from the day that they launch. Some may live longer, some may be dead on arrival.
But, make a good game that's playable by friends together at any time on a rainy day? If the game is good, it never dies.
I think the cloud providers should figure out some kind of service for perpetual matchmaking/hosting of private servers. Devs are not always going to open source things but if you could fit your game server in some kind of package for Amazon to host then you can skirt that issue.
In theory, enthusiasts could pay to keep the lights on even after the developer went out of business.
Honestly, it's probably simpler than this, and the root of the problem often comes down to the Cloud Providers to begin with.
It's astounding the frequency I get an email from some cloud provider, or mobile app store that says something to the effect of:
"(Version X) of Dependency Y that we convinced you to use 5+ years ago is getting deprecated on August 1st, if you don't upgrade to Version X+5 you're service will go offline"
And we're stuck looking at the minimal amount of players running of that platform, and the hard choice of do we move precious human resources off of some in-progress game, that's already running late to learn a system that they never worked on, because the original people are long gone?
So, that's often why our network services, and mobile versions of our games are being taken offline while the single binary we shipped to one of the serious console vendors 10-20 years ago is still running, and now running on consoles 2 generations newer.
So, yeah, it'd be great if we could ship a package for Amazon to host perpetually, but first you could just get Amazon to care enough to ship a stable platform to build upon that wouldn't get depreciated.
This isn't a technical problem. It's a legal and corporate political one. Copyright and patent issues are no more likely to go away with Amazon. Also Amazon's gaming division may make them a potential competitor.
I also doubt that such a could service would be immune to corperate restructuring by the like of Amazon. We need gaming companies to be more comfortable providing server binaries if we want anything that lasts.
The reason for the “de facto expiration date” is that eventually not enough people will want to play the game for matchmaking to be consistently available.
Honestly Valve had it right with offering dedicated server packages. I respect any studio that does the same, like TripWire and Killing Floor.
I run my own private server for a live service game that shut down in just 1 year. We got lucky because they seemingly bundled the server code into the client. But the game was never meant to allow for that...
We did a couch coop game (CTHULOOT) and the number 1 refund reason we have is that it doesn’t have online.
(It doesn’t because we lacked budget)
So I’d say players now really expect online over local.
I picked up a copy of Hypercharge back in 2020 after spotting it on one of the gaming subs.
While it is technically a shooter, it turned out to be a 3D tower defense game - you place your turrets, shields and whatnots to protect against waves of enemies and then run around managing the defence and occasionally shooting at the baddies. It's not PvP. This was a bit of letdown because I was really hoping for a remake of an old Unreal Tournament mod when all players were inch tall and were running around a house, hiding in cupboards, closets, climbing curtains, etc. That was crazy fun. Anyone else remember it?
Shogo had a mod called Squishie where one player was normal size and on a team by themselves, and all the other players were tiny and on the other team. It was the most fun I've ever had at a LAN party in those early 00's. I'm surprised no one ever picked this up and turned it into a real game.
I assume those asymmetric multiplayer games are hard to maintain an audience. Everyone wants to be the super charged monster, nobody wants to be the squishie. Unless you can shore up the difference with bots, you are going to have to play dramatically more rounds as the less-fun squishie.
There have been various attempts at that type of asymmetric multiplayer over the years and most of them have had serious issues with game balance. I think the most successful has been Dead by Daylight and at high levels of play usually turns into a deadlock.
Most FPS's of the era had that sort of map. Return to Castle Wolfenstein had Kung Fu Grip, which I played many, many hours of. The map was built by a clan member and we used to have map test nights.
Article calls it a third person game but from the gameplay footage I see online it's clearly first person. Have games journalists already been replaced with LLMs? Or maybe they should be.
In any case, I'm glad the devs found some success.
The video on Steam shows both first- and third-person perspectives. Speaking of LLMs, Gemini says: "Hypercharge: Unboxed is both a first-person and third-person shooter. You can switch between perspectives based on your preference."
This is not a criticism of the developers at all, and certainly not their sentiments. I am behind those 100%. But.
There are so many fantastic games made with just as much heart out there that don't have a tweet go viral and revitalize the playerbase. Developers that aren't able to support their families by doing what they love. While it's always nice to see game development pay off, the real lesson here isn't honesty or values; it's good marketing and good luck.
Readit News
But, make a good game that's playable by friends together at any time on a rainy day? If the game is good, it never dies.
In theory, enthusiasts could pay to keep the lights on even after the developer went out of business.
It's astounding the frequency I get an email from some cloud provider, or mobile app store that says something to the effect of:
"(Version X) of Dependency Y that we convinced you to use 5+ years ago is getting deprecated on August 1st, if you don't upgrade to Version X+5 you're service will go offline"
And we're stuck looking at the minimal amount of players running of that platform, and the hard choice of do we move precious human resources off of some in-progress game, that's already running late to learn a system that they never worked on, because the original people are long gone?
So, that's often why our network services, and mobile versions of our games are being taken offline while the single binary we shipped to one of the serious console vendors 10-20 years ago is still running, and now running on consoles 2 generations newer.
So, yeah, it'd be great if we could ship a package for Amazon to host perpetually, but first you could just get Amazon to care enough to ship a stable platform to build upon that wouldn't get depreciated.
I also doubt that such a could service would be immune to corperate restructuring by the like of Amazon. We need gaming companies to be more comfortable providing server binaries if we want anything that lasts.
I run my own private server for a live service game that shut down in just 1 year. We got lucky because they seemingly bundled the server code into the client. But the game was never meant to allow for that...
The people who enjoyed your game because it has couch coop (and therefore don’t request a refund) aren’t represented in that refund request stat.
Dead Comment
While it is technically a shooter, it turned out to be a 3D tower defense game - you place your turrets, shields and whatnots to protect against waves of enemies and then run around managing the defence and occasionally shooting at the baddies. It's not PvP. This was a bit of letdown because I was really hoping for a remake of an old Unreal Tournament mod when all players were inch tall and were running around a house, hiding in cupboards, closets, climbing curtains, etc. That was crazy fun. Anyone else remember it?
https://www.moddb.com/mods/squishie
i think even ut99 had some of those "we're small" maps like Simpsons house, etc.
but yeah, kitchens, bedrooms, bathrooms, all seemingly covered.
In any case, I'm glad the devs found some success.
There are so many fantastic games made with just as much heart out there that don't have a tweet go viral and revitalize the playerbase. Developers that aren't able to support their families by doing what they love. While it's always nice to see game development pay off, the real lesson here isn't honesty or values; it's good marketing and good luck.
Partly because it’s the least controllable factor.
"Gaming is complaining" or "When you're gaming, you're complaining."