If they want to keep some form of DRM then that's not my job to figure out. This wasn't a problem back in the day when server software being distributed was the norm, so it shouldn't be a problem now.
Though personally I'd be in favor of abolishing online DRM entirely, but that's another story.
If they can play against bots, which already exist in the game, or band enough people together with access to the game to play on a server one player is able to host, then yes. That's what I'd expect at a minimum.
nobody paid
That's just blatantly false. People bought the founders pack were never refunded for example. Those people being entitled to the server software or a refund is anything but greedy, even if that only applies to a single person.
The other answer from @ampseandrew@lemmy.world already covers most points, so I'll just a few things:
If a game asks for money in any kind of way: Yes. That should be the cost of (trying to do) business.
Alternatively, a full refund for everyone involved, even Kickstarter backers, would also be acceptable.
Hello, sole arbiter of a game's worth.
Of course not every game is a certified banger, but there's more than enough notable games on that list that made an impact on the industry and should've been preserved for that fact alone.
Taking away a game you bought because the game was intentionally made to rely on a server is always scummy behavior. That's the whole point.
Even the stats from last year would've already impressed me, but this year is just completely insane. Just a tiny bit more and next year Godot might already be the preferred engine of choice for game jams.
Considering the movie industry is currently at a point where it's even punishing paying customers with low-quality 720p for daring to use the "wrong" browser, I don't think the industry will figure out that there's a market out there for high quality drm-free media anytime soon.
@nekusoul
@lemmy.nekusoul.de