5 ms·
why do you have to be negative? currently there's a huge risk Marathon might get shut down like high guard or concord because of player numbers. If they shut i
by ssenssei 4mo ago
why do you have to be negative?
currently there's a huge risk Marathon might get shut down like high guard or concord because of player numbers. If they shut it down, nobody could play it anymore.
If there's a system in place for us to be able to host our own servers, or... I don't know? OWN the game we bought and play it because we OWN it because we PAID for it. Then yeah, that's good and it's a good movement and I fully support it.
I genuinely don't understand the other side of this argument because it just feels like no for the sake of no.
- 1123581321 4mo agoThe main no argument is that it makes risky games riskier for the developer, publisher and IP holder. Games like Marathon never get approved.
- LightHugger 4mo agowhat's the risk? "Oh no we might have to provide the product we sold!" Lmao. That's the right kind of risk to force on sellers in a market. Sellers risk getting penalized for not providing what they have paid for. Great. Fanastic. Sounds healthy for any market and may even increase average customer confidence enough for a surge in sales, one that can't be created by one company alone.
- 1123581321 4mo agoYes, that’s the risk in the argument.