Maciej Gołębiowski, managing director of the PC platform GOG, recently issued a significant warning: developers might produce fewer new games if compelled to keep titles online indefinitely. This statement highlights a growing industry debate around the game preservation challenge, where the costs and complexities of perpetual online service could stifle innovation and new releases.
Gołębiowski’s comments, reported by GamesIndustry.biz, emerge amidst widespread consumer campaigns, such as “Stop Killing Games,” advocating for legislation to prevent publishers from taking service-based titles offline. The executive underlined that the financial burden of indefinite online maintenance, on top of initial development and marketing, could make securing funding for new projects exceptionally difficult for game companies, potentially stifling creative output.
This discussion gained urgency following recent events like Ubisoft’s decision to take “The Crew” offline, rendering the game unplayable even for those who purchased it, and EA’s troubled action RPG “Anthem” also ceasing online operations after nearly seven years. Players who purchased these titles often feel a profound sense of loss and injustice when content becomes inaccessible, fueling the demand for stronger game preservation measures and clear end-of-life policies.
The complex riddle of online game longevity
The GOG MD described game preservation as a “very complicated riddle,” encompassing numerous hurdles beyond mere goodwill. Key challenges include managing intellectual property ownership across various entities, intricate technical details required to maintain legacy systems and server infrastructure, and most critically, ensuring long-term commercial viability. The broader issue of digital game preservation faces significant headwinds, as “No one can do it for goodwill because this is not how salaries are being paid,” Gołębiowski stated, emphasizing the stark economic realities facing developers and publishers in a competitive market.
Forcing an indefinite online lifespan could create an unsustainable model, especially for smaller studios or innovative, experimental titles that might not generate consistent long-term revenue streams to cover ongoing server costs, security updates, and technical support. This pressure could disproportionately affect independent developers, who often operate on tighter budgets and have fewer resources for the perpetual maintenance of their digital creations.
Balancing player rights with developer sustainability
The “Stop Killing Games” campaign, born out of player frustration, seeks to prompt a broader industry discussion about a fair “end-of-life cycle” for games. While the desire for games to “live forever” is understandable, as Gołębiowski noted, imposing excessive regulatory barriers could paradoxically result in fewer compelling games being made. Developers might shy away from ambitious projects if faced with mandatory decades-long upkeep and potential legal liabilities.
Finding a balance between consumer expectations for long-term access and the practical, financial limitations of game creators is crucial for the health of the industry. Potential solutions might involve industry-wide standards for implementing robust offline modes, open-sourcing server code after a defined period, or establishing specialized digital archives that take over maintenance responsibilities. However, each approach presents its own set of legal, technical, and funding challenges that require careful consideration and collaboration across the sector to address the core game preservation challenge effectively.
Ultimately, the future of game preservation hinges on a nuanced dialogue that acknowledges both player investment in digital content and the fundamental sustainability of game development. As the industry grapples with this complex game preservation challenge, stakeholders must actively explore viable models that respect the artistic and commercial efforts behind game creation without unduly limiting future innovation. The collective goal should be to ensure a rich and diverse gaming landscape for years to come, rather than inadvertently shrinking it through well-intentioned but impractical mandates.
