Видео

yeah the its legal to drink in the US and it wasnt always.

id be interested in your opinion on what his point was. Very broadly his point was it will kill online games but he doesnt give a compelling reason that would happen escapelly since art and advertising are far more expensive than programming and thus making his point difficult to believe.

@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats im not spoonfeeding you what i understood from his video, you can watch it yourself, but in short the wording used in the campaign is too vague (i hope its obvious why wording in laws should not be vague, also i didnt read the campaign proposition, this is what i got from watching thor's vid, and im not involving myself further in this)

@@fivoka its suppose to be vague! they actually have a word limit. Like for example one EU petition is trying to make a whole new agency and they have like 4 sentences explaining what the deal is. I understand why its to vague sounds bad but its just ignorance. Which is completely fine we are all ignorant about something!

@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats if thats true then yeah thats on thor

@@fivoka he didnt know when he complain about that bug ignorance is no defense. Especially when you are unwilling to correct yourself.

yeah I lost my respect for him. I also told one of my business partners if gotta slap me if I ever do something like this.

(Foreword: I acknowledge that Thor's take was absolutely covered in 'dumb' but I think there's some worthwhile things to consider) I think he made a really valid point (or maybe I rather derived this from what he said about licensing etc.) about how games like Star Wars Galaxies would probably not have been made if "Stop Killing Games" had been a law back in 1999, because Lucasarts wouldn't have signed away their IP to be used by any fan server, legally and without restriction. Alternative would be to pay for the servers forever. Of course the game did go down and fan servers exist, but I assume they are allowed to stay up because Lucasarts (now Disney) holding all the legal leverage has resulted in an unwritten agreement where fan servers have a high priority of not damaging the IP in any way. Compare this to a situation where Disney could legally do nothing if I decided to make a pay2win SWG server with "adult themed" modifications. Some "obvious" solutions and rebuttals: "Allow only 100% accurate recreations" (see MadSeasonShow's video on "how Nochanges changed Classic World of Warcraft") "Force fan server to strip the IP" (even if feasible, this would ruin the preservation aspect) "Have somebody police bad actors" (who? what would be their exact legal authority? realistically you'd end up with something like RUclips DMCA where the copyright claimant is considered to be in the right until you call their bluff to take you to court, which AFAIK involves giving them your legal name and address)

that could be a proverb or is!

yeah its unfortunate that we dont really have a horse in this race when it will affect us!

im tempted to toss a darkspore video on the pile. Since to child me it had a dope cover.

Even if you think that government interference is inherently bad, the "free market" has failed to regulate itself. Game publishers have spent two decades abusing their customers due to law being obsolete/having such a major grey area. Any damage this EU initiative would cause them, would likely just be a well-deserved "bilbo of consequences:"

I think time will show this choice to be a good one.

that would be passion! I love me games!

ruclips.net/video/JjSHF-ZwRYQ/видео.html Also not all drama!

Okay but who are you to decide what games people play

Bad take. Not only is this authoritarian in nature, you are pointlessly dividing people who otherwise share a common goal. It's not about how we feel about live service games, it's the fact that this would not even get close to killing them.

@@Outfrost This would make kill all live service games plus would kill early access as a concept

@@Alexaplays4800 Why are you just repeating someone else's talking points? There is so much money in the live service market that publishers having to pay developers to program in a way to play some portion of the game after EOL doesn't even count as an expense. As for early access, it comes in two different flavours - one being big companies who use it as nothing more than a marketing tool and early cash grab, and the other being smaller developers who use it genuinely and who also _already have_ ways to play their game offline.

@@Outfrost First of all i repeat the talking points because they are good points how do you propose you make these games able to be played after EOL there's no one to play with which is the entire purpose of live service games how are you meant to play a multiplayer game solo? sure you could choose to release server binaries but that opens up tons of avenues for abuse such as someone who wants to monetize a server that in the TOS states u can't do that could get massive amounts of bots to review bomb and make the company unable to turn a profit therefore shutting down the server there is no incentive for this kind of shit if we don't have these kinds of rules You are trying to preserve a point in time that is no longer there people have moved on Early Access is a tool used to get feedback early on Satisfactory uses Early access so they can get the opinion of players and expand upon it they also likely would not of been able to make a game as amazing as they currently have without the feedback and funding by players

He acts like achievements can't just be built into the game like Minecraft does.

yeah I remember watching that video and thinking that was very cleaver. Bro if we lose steam I lose like every game. Lets not think about that.

That's why I started buying from GOG instead and backing up installers for my favorite games to HDDs.

So he takes on the name pirate software in order to capitalize on piracy to gain publicity through google seo search terms conflation. Then he claims to use steam achievements as anti piracy measure... And lies its gonna work... (Theres steam achievement emulators and its not hard to make one). Also i dont think his game will really make much money, he should be worried about that his game looks bad and doesnt generate much interest.

@@86Corvus yeah he Totally should slap down some money to get some custom art. I have pictures of my game before and after custom art and they look like a second grader made the no custom art.

ill respond tomorrow

tomorrow came earlyish youre response is written and youll get it but rosses new video is actually just as good if not better. He is the horses mouth after all. ruclips.net/video/sEVBiN5SKuA/видео.html

no noooo im sorry!!!

@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats Yeah that is kinda what made me stop watching the video. I think this game looks intersting, but I haven't gotten around to playing it. Not mad or anything (stopped before spoilers), just trying to offer some constructive feedback. I don't think talking over gameplay is a bad idea for this kind of content. I personally have never liked the vibe I've gotten from Thor. Seems like someone who basically worships capitalism would be my main takeaway. I find that kind of insufferable, because to me, it has always felt like he is co-opting pirate culture for something *very* calculated and corporate.

@@goblong yeah im pretty interested in his name choice. Like I love cats thats where im at

You can just not look at the video.

@@ratdoto2148 You and I both know that would require far too much thought to ask of me as a RUclips viewer.

Thor in this situation like you fixated on points that don’t really matter. Look at blizzard which has private wow servers which didn’t cause the problems that he bings up

@@empire_of_lesun2088 You're not wrong about WoW servers. I just doubt it's going to pull through is my biggest worry. It's going to be a really difficult battle going against all online without huge amounts of corporate pushback.

Here you go :) The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.

@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats I've read through the entire website, and I understand the main points. I'm totally for the initiative. I own The Crew, and have been pissed about it since Ubisoft pulled support. I understand there are no expectations for developers to have online play functional indefinitely. I need to understand what penalties would be involved if a company wouldn't be meeting the conditions to know if this will be in any way effective against large game developers.

ruclips.net/video/sEVBiN5SKuA/видео.html this video explains everything great. IF you dont want to watch it. The TLDR to your question is we need to wait till its law time we arent there yet.

I was trying to keep video and there for editing time down. Additionally many points he has are long winded and spread out. Im happy to discuss particular points.

@TotallyNotaBunchofCats particular points that don't show an appropriate picture of what he is saying and, again, misrepresenting the facts. You deliberately left out important information to trash talk. Trying to save time editing isn't a good excuse to be lazy and one sided.

Can you give exact time snippets. I cant properly respond to particular points.

YOOOOOOOOOOO ITS MY BOIIIII. How long did it take you to figure it out (that is was me)? We should chat up text me.

Hell Yeah

We also need to be refusing to buy and give money to games and studios that abuse us like this, but gamers have shown a willingness to buy any slop now matter how awful, so...

@@ClokworkGremlin I already do that. For example I used to play a lot of Diablo 2 LOD when I was young. And now I would very much like to try out Diablo 3 and 4 but since none of them have a single player, I am not giving them my money because it is unacceptable to me that they can take away from me the game which I have paid for any time they want. Like Diablo 3 is very reasonable price right now but I would have to play it the way they want me to play it not the way I would want to play it because it is online only - if I would try to mod it or anything then in best case I would get my D3 acc banned and in worst case I could get my entire Steam acc banned which would mean losing all games not just D3.

This is definitely a good take. I am a dev im still a gamer first. Maybe that changes later but for now I stand here.

No, because the initiative is for when support ends by the developer. Its more akin to having the right to not have the car manufacturer come in your backyard and take the engine out of your car because they stopped selling that model at car dealerships

Hey if you can. Why using as much info as possible do you think live service games will die. (i'm actually curious I cant comprehend that idea. How does it stifle the very profitable live service games) (you are allowed to dodge this question)

You know, your post falls short because you didn't read up on what the initiative is about.. The whole license stuff is very clearly described on the initiatives websites FAQ. We understand it.. We just don't agree with you that an EULA should stand above consumer rights legislation.

Then the button on stores should say LEASE not buy. People misunderstand because the terminology is MISLEADING.

That depends on the country! Some countries would define the purchase of your typical one-time purchase of a video game as a GOOD, not a service, but as Ross Scott has pointed out, the law in many countries is not clear on that and that’s a problem. And REGARDLESS OF THAT, it's a problem; customers want to own their games

ive always hated them for how long and important they were.

As to your third point. What I wanted to get across is that. Him being a dev for however long/ having a large following maybe shouldnt give him any more credibility. If you think thats the same thing youll love my brother! lol

@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats his career definitely gives him industry credibility, not only has he worked in a lot of different roles at blizz, including QA and security, his career in the epa, while not exactly "hacking power plants", still definitely shows knowledge in the field. having a following isnt a requisite for credibility, and in his case, its mostly a _reflection_ of his cred. most creators have to have a form of cred to attain an audience. you cant just sit at a mic, blather on, and expect a following--you have to have a well informed opinion, or a unique stance, or editing skill that separates you from the norm, comedic wit, or otherwise state that what they have to say on something is worth while to even be heard. and thor definitely has stuff ro say worth hearing: his explanations of intel CPU issues, the recent windows thing, and his affirmations of creativity are effective. again, you cant just say you don't trust his "credibility" unless you can prove he didn't actually do what he says he did; undermining the oppositions cred is basically the first thing you do when you know that you can't win logically--thanks to his career, his points have earned enough respect for you to at least address and refute.

ruclips.net/video/sEVBiN5SKuA/видео.html this is Rosses FAQ. This video dismantles all arguments against the stop killing games movement. The short answer is the is programmer territory. QA, hacking power plants and security isn't not programmer territory. This thought is further backed up by his claim that LOL would be difficult to take none live service it's basically fancy CGO. Which already has home servers. Than saying its the proposal is bad because of illegal hackers is bonkers. Furthermore he hasnt been a game producer or dev ops or anything else that is directly involved in this solution. So I dont think is creds count for much. Especially with the contents and candor of his argument.

Prime example of how you can talk your way up with confidence and bullshit.

Could you be more specific?

Aight, let me break it down a bit. The initiative is about starting a conversation. Thor knows this, but he does not want to start the conversation. He thinks the conversation is wrong all together and said so on stream. He thinks it is the wrong conversation. "Vague language" etc. is not a reason to shit on an initiative, since it is not going into law. It is purely a conversation starter. After the initiative, experts in the field, lobby organisations etc. would get involved, and that is the step where video game lobbyists, companies, devs etc. gets to argue their case. Hell, you would even see other fields get in on the conversation like car manufactures and other fields that will be affected by this kind of legislation. If Thor thinks that he "knows its gonna end up being interpreted by 60+ year olds with no idea what is going on", then he simply is just talking about stuff he doesn't know anything about. He has no clue how EU politics or law making works, and probably shouldn't try to talk as if he did. You might not have heard him not be willing to talk to the initiative, but you don't initiate a conversation by telling the other part that you don't respect them or their opinions and that they disgust you, like Thor decided to do in one of his videos. His game is not an online service, but it is still sold as a license, and a pretty vague and anti consumer one at that. You should read the ToS, it ain't that long. Sorry m8, i usually have huge respect for Thor and for what he does, but in this case, he is giving a great example of what happens when people are talking about stuff they don't really know anything about. This is a huge L take from Thor.

@@thisisphteven I'm confused by your last point, the heartbound eula seems pretty standard

​@@snowowydunno if it is considered standard, but when terms of service bans you from transferring the product, it ain't exactly consumer friendly. :)

@@thisisphteven true. that's very common in a lot of games. in a steam release specifically can't you not transfer anyways? idk if the other heartbound releases use something other than steam keys so I wouldn't know

@@snowowy Depends on how you define transfer. As I understand the EULA, if you and your friend both buy the game and you're sitting on a LAN. You download the game, but your friend uses "Steam Local Network Game transfer" to download the game from your PC, you have technically transferred the game for non-personal use, and would be in violation. Not a big deal in any case, since there would be no enforcement in Heartbounds case, but it speaks to why we need to limit the grey area surrounding EULAs and make sure buyer rights are protected, whether it's in PC games or any other product category. :)

I Know.....I Know(I was speaking of next video) Next 3 vids are going to be drama free or your money back. Next 3 video's: Basics of Unity: Starting a Project 2D Game spotlight: Deep Rock Galactic survive Games ive been playing jan-feb 2024. I'm still debating doing another drama video. This assumes he will make another video, but i dont know.. I want to do a shilling video for the save the games too.

@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats Inb4 your channel now revolves around video game drama and you have to keep stirring the pot to get views.

@@QuinnKallisti ruclips.net/video/JjSHF-ZwRYQ/видео.html No drama here!

he hyperfocuses on MMOs because thats been the bulk of his career, he started doing work with his dad on WoW and went on to work for Amazon on their flagship MMO

(thanks for your response. It was measured and thoughtful.) Keep it up fellow human. OSRS could just be a single player game.

@@DreadPirateRoberts121 I know, but I also believe he harps on that particular point because it's a point from which he can extrapolate that game preservation in general is bad. He does develop single-player games, and has obviously played them. For those, he would have a much harder time defending against the idea of preservation. Instead, he extrapolates from his criticism of preservation in the context of MMOs that the entire idea is bad; it's a fallacy of composition. He could frame it as "I think this is a particular weak point that could be hammered out in a proposal that I generally agree with" but instead he says that he would not sign the proposal. As an influencer with a large following and a presumptively authoritative position in his industry, without a caveat that it is only his personal opinion, that effectively counts as an informed anti-endorsement. Adding in that he is representing the voices of other developers drives that point further home.

"With MMOs, preservation is not hypothetically feasible." Because there aren't any Ragnarok Online or World of Warcraft private servers. (even as much as Blizzard has tried to kill the latter)

Laws can and will change and adjust, and many laws over the passage of time have even been "unmade" when they no longer have merit or justification to keep them around. You know laws aren't indefinite rules made by some higher god, right? 😅

maybe he doesnt like unmake. It does feel pretty gamer. I should have hit him with the old repeal!

@@neppity5887 Laws are not like equipment you can put on your character and then take it off, if you don't like it. It's not something you should try and then toss it away. Laws take years to get passed and even longer to get taken down. During which industries get changed and livelihoods get impacted. Have you calculated all the possible long and short term consequences such machinations will have? On people working in the industry, on consumer habits, on videogame industry it self? No, you have not. It's an absolutely irresponsible and childish notion to think it is advisable to fuck around in such manner.

​@@xikesgaming If you don't agree with a law you can rally people together to get them changed or removed, that's literally how the world works. To say it's naive to want laws that negatively impact you to be adjusted or removed is completely hypocritical of you. The fact you can't even answer your own questions you are presenting shows how childish you are, blindly throwing a fit over a topic when you don't actually know the drawbacks or what can be done to negate them in the context of a new bill being passed. The entire point of the process of changing/removing said laws is to have conversation about an issue and figure out the specific limitations of a bill you want to present forward. You understand that laws have conditions and micro rules around them to regulate potential side effects, yes? You understand that these micro rules are decided during said process before presenting a draft of a bill, yes? Yet you and Thor are terrified of holding a conversation despite pretending to want one in your response lol. Funny how your side is the only side not willing to discuss and figure out where to draw the line and find potential compromises.

@@neppity5887 The speaker in the video vent on something like: "yeah, let's do this, let's make this a law and if something goes wrong we can remove it later". What I find childish is this exact strategy - "let's try some random BS and if it doesn't work, let's remove it afterwards". While it might be fine for your personal decisions, it is irresponsible to do so on a regional policy level. Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed I had the answers, but I know that the thing proposed is not the answer. Why? Because it is weak AF and as Thor put it - vague and dangerous. Yeah, for sure laws have conditions and rules around them. Yet I don't see any of that nuance in the SKG proposal being voted on. I don't care about the lofty future dreams and implied intentions, I care about the written bill, because that alone has power. Just like AAA publishers can say whatever, still it's irrelevant, because only EULA/TOS hold the actual truth. No. I'm not afraid. Nor I particularly care about a response. The proposal is incomplete, to put it lightly. Unless and until the full version is available, the current version is completely unsupportable.

Because the government is a bunch of 70 years old that depend on their grandchildren to handle technology. You dont want them handling your stuff, so it is justified in Thor not being happy about this.

I wish he would be honest with us. I might have not bailed on his channel. But I couldnt know how id feel.

?? most game are single player offline games....even windows has compatibility options for truely ancient games. But yes the ravages of time spare no one and nothing. May we have the drive to save as many video game as possible.

If you still have the game stored on any type of device, be it a cartridge, CD, DVD, floppy, hard drive, etc. etc. and the means to play it, i.e. a computer or console from the time period, then yes, the game absolutely does work indefinitely. Unfortunately, people really like giving away or selling old physical copies or machines to collectors, who won't actually do anything with them except point at them and say "Look!! I'm preserving history!"

@@Mate_Antal_Zoltan The game working indefinitely implies the media works indefinitely which is not the case. Moreover, the console or system that supports the software operating indefinitely, most games preservation focuses on archiving, and emulation for this reason.

@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats going even further into this point, modern PCs, even with compatibility options, usually don't like old games; and this isn't because of Windows, its the actual difference in hardware pipelines--old graphics cards had a set of shaders and such built-in. Devs would have to basically use what was on the cards at the time to make the games. now, GPUs are programmable with those shaders and stuff, a dev builds those into the game engine and the engine feeds the shaders to use to the card. Most games do have the capability to work indefinitely, that definitely doesn't mean most games work indefinitely--its largely the work of the modding scenes of each game that keep them working, without those players, you don't get stuff like Saints Row 2's GOTR mod/fix pack, ThirteenAG's widescreen patches, DGVoodoo's direct3D fixes, and tools like DXVK to parse hardware instructions from DirectX to Vulcan. and then like we can talk about broken physical media, scratched optical disks, game carts that have been shorted out, and the nature of classic consoles becoming gated collectors' items that are just too expensive for those who actually care to spend on--feeding into the legal grey area that is emulation.

@@QuinnKallisti Please do tell me why an old console kept in good condition cannot run games. And by "good condition," I mean maintained obsessively.

nice power word 💪. We are at 232.7k signatures brother. We can save them!!!!

This comment belongs on Thor's video.

that isnt the argument the argument is to stop games from being lost when they get EOLed

​@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats What do you mean lost? The terms of the license agreement will have been fulfilled at EOL.

Put that on the box. “This game will work only for a year”. And see if people will still buy it.

The argument for disallowing that practice is that people don't buy a license for a painting, or a vinyl record. Sure, both have their modern equivalents with NFTs (ew) and streaming services (ew), but you can screenshot an NFT and download a song and as long as your hard drive or SSD is intact, you will have access to those files and thus be able to enjoy them (idk who enjoys NFTs but stick with me here) the way they were intended to be enjoyed. You can't do this with an online-only game, however, even if it would absolutely be possible for players to run their own servers. You are denying your consumers access to the goods they paid for, without any compensation, which sounds a whole lot like theft to me.

@@Mate_Antal_Zoltan If the game is effectively an online only experience, guarantee you would have accepted TOS and EULA's that explicitly explain this in a way that is legally unambiguous. I think expecting a dev to host servers, indefinitely, and/or be required to hand out licenced software and environments to run the servers at an enthusiast/hobbyist level is pretty dumb. You can't preserve everything.

Thor's take coupled with Louis Rossman's take about how you need serious nuance when it comes to actually legislating things makes a ton of sense to me. This vid is disingenuous at best

Clearly pro game perseveration? That a strange opinion of someone who said games should die. At the end of the day Thor has no solutions and admits there is a problem. He extensively uses goalpost shifting and straw man arguments to bolster his argument. Plenty of other devs including myself have a different opinion. Which as you say is extremely important and we should really care about that. I hope I see you in the world where as few games as possible die o7.

Not quite that he wants all games to be saved, he said that he will never make one because it would come back to get him if this kind of law passes