“many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only”

So change your design? The corporate mind cannot comprehend this.

Why could you turn a battle royal game into a local only split screen game for 2-4 people?

I tried to pick the most obvious example of an online only title.

What’s the plan with a 100 player battle royal game?

Edit: the guy I replied to chose to quote someone saying a game is online only, and their suggestion was to change that.

And then ya’ll come in with replies about keeping it online only, and they have 55 upvotes as of this edit.

As long as people can host a server instance, does it matter?

Hypothetically, even if it costs 1000$ per hour in AWS fees to get the required hardware to run that, at least you have the option to, alternatively have a peer to peer option to play smaller version on a LAN with a max of however many players your own network can support, there could be many implementations, which at the end of the day would still allow you to play the game when the official servers (authentication or room hosts) are shuttered and inaccessible

The main point of SKG is that currently, we, as customers, are not even getting the short end of the stick, we are getting no stick, despite having paid for it.

And ultimately, at the end of the day, not our problem to try to figure this out, the point is we’re unhappy with the current situation and want things to change.

That’s not “changing that” it’s keeping it online only.

The initiative’s issue isn’t with them being online-only (though personally people hate it). The initiative aims for games to have the ability to have a reasonable state of playability past the end of life.

This is for all kinds of games - single-player, multiple player, live service, only only. The point is to keep what you paid for.