Видео

It's funny you frame it as cutting things while having the game look good, because nothing feels MISSING in Rabbit & Steel. You could add DLC that's purely new characters and or items to grab (maybe bosses and areas too) and that would be acceptable, I don't think anyone who'd play Rabbit & Steel would notice things like a walk cycle missing. But yes! The philosophy of making more in shorter periods of time is VERY up my alley in terms of philosophy so thank you so much for verbalizing it yourself! Also holy shit I didn't think the dev would see my video, I'm gassed up!!!

No worries man, always glad to see you ♥️

Which is perfectly valid man!

1. I absolutely wish you luck on your game making, I'm working on something too 2. I think that's extremely insightful and important. Games shouldn't be thrown away. I have the knowledge I do about games to be VERY locked into various indie scenes and having a certain flavor of game I like. BUT if I didn't, like a good majority of society...a LOT can get missed. And older games are a huge part of that. It's why I'm glad the gaming industry is only pulling this bullshit NOW and not like when the better Pokemon games were dropping or like with COD MW2. The games are abandoned ENOUGH just from the devs moving on from them, you don't have to rub it in. And shoutout to Capcom for releasing MANY collections of their older titles to become eternal on at least PC. (VERY excited to be able to play Power Stone now and ONLINE TOO??)

I can't do it from my phone at work, but I'll slot that into the "what game is this" section of the description. Only warning: in my brief time with the game, I had memory issues with it and the frame rate would gradually get worse with every run until I restarted the game. Otherwise fun

Go Mecha Ball! Yakkocmn has a video on indie games and has covered this title in whatever video typing his channel and Go Mecha Ball brings you!

> I have been a full-stack developer So you're a web-dev, and therefore out of your depth. > And even then, it would not be hard to publish your Kubernetes cluster config to your customers. Kubernetes is not even used for game servers, what are you on about lol. > You could actually run the dedicated server for most games on a toaster. That is completely untrue, unless you want a shitty experience, of course. > The client actually has significantly higher compute workload due to graphics. Completely different things that run in significantly different ways and aren't comparable. > My takeaway from this is that Thor is not acting in good faith and we shouldn't take him seriously if he isn't proposing any alternative solutions. The alternative to a shit solution is not implementing it.

@@reaperreaper4606 it's not a shit solution and you're wrong a shit solution is better than no solution for a problem that needs solved, but keep letting perfection be the enemy of good I guess

The thing is it's not necessarily legal to do so. In EU, It is illegal to make a product inoperable, and according to the product liability directive, software are indeed a product. Furthermore, no license or contract can go against the law, and an european citizen cannot give up his rights, which is what eulas try to do. The initiative's goal is to get authorities to look into the matter and draw conclusions.

@@Edheldui If you don't think companies won't just go around any law and that we as consumers won't be on the losing end, that's insane. At this point I don't blame companies if they decide to only rent out games from now on. Play it on GamePass or SteamPass lol.

He the voice for corrupt corporations

He is the voice for all the silenced publishers of this world 😂 wow what a burden

It shows

you might want to pin yourcomment 👍 also a little to add: "If PirateSoftware actively ignored AF’s attempts at communication" - I've seen one of the devs reacting to it, it was a part of a vod or a clip where he said this live, so it's not this behind-the-scenes kind of thing.

Thor basically called Ross a shady scumbag in his first video, called his tactics "disgusting", called him "gross", refused to talk to him and likened him to a "greasy used car salesman". If anyone has a right to be upset, it's Ross. "Who is also to say" Uh, Thor? Thor is to say? After going after Ross so hard, if Ross had also insulted Thor, Thor would've said so. Yes, Thor is a person, a lying person that deletes comments and is anti-consumer. And thinks Ross is a villain.

@@legion999 A lot of the way I wrote this comment is just trying to keep a sense of decency. I've only heard more and more about Thor's very brash comments and I'll in no ways undermine them. Equally (and I'm not ASSUMING this) there have been a lot of cases of things you don't get the full story on (most recently with youtuber MrTLexify) until potentially days or even weeks out. Thor could absolutely be shuttling a lot of good karma. Or maybe Thor has had some VERY bad interactions with Ross. I truly won't be assuming either way as that really isn't even why I made the video. I do agree that the takes Thor provided are VERY anti-consumer, it's why I was passionate enough to make this video...a guy whom I respect a whole lot giving some VERY bad takes. But also, if alongside those bad takes his morals are going out the window...well I wouldn't make a video on it but I'd be incredibly disappointed. Just going to give it time in hopes that maybe he'll respond ANY better to this.

UPDATE though: I've now finally watched the first Stop Killing Games video, as I just mustered up the energy to see what he had initially said. I won't get into all of the things I disagree with on that video BUT: If the sole uses of Thor calling Ross' tactics gross and disgusting are in THIS video: Everyone is GROSSLY interpreting the sentiment. Effectively he processed Ross' reasons why the initiative could make headway is: It's a diversion from more serious issues and politicians can slide in a win in their portfolio. Imagine a discussion between SKG and like, what to do in a specific war or worker's rights. And they choose to ignore the casualties of a war or the injustices left within worker's disputes to focus on an artistic industry. If you process Ross' sentiment in the most abrasive way, you'd get a response like what Thor has provided. I think it's probably the one bit of the video I wish Ross would just flat out remove. It's not significant or persuasive in any way. Even if the odds were AGAINST SKG, I think the same level of investment would be there community-wise. And I think its probably what tipped Thor off the most OUTSIDE of him disagreeing anyway.

​@@valentine_typewriter I think he said it the way he did to try to get people on board for why this could work rather than wouldn't considering how many of us have just become jaded. I don't disagree that it was not good reasoning but i think this has a lot to do with the fact that ross is inexperienced in this kind of thing and doesn't fully know how to reach people. I can kind of see Thor's perspective if i just ignore all charitably towards ross. However it is pretty bad to attribute malice towards someone when you could more easily attibute naivete or stupidity

One of the initiatives main goals is to require developers who have no end of life plan to disclose that the game they are selling will be killed to consumers. Destiny 2 can still be made and killed, so long as people who spent money on it do so as an informed consumers and not people blindly gambling that the game will stay online for long enough for them to get their money's worth. Obviously devs absolutely don't want a sticker on their game box saying 5-10 year life expectancy, so they'd be encouraged to make an end of life plan to avoid doing so.

- It's not regulation. It's an initiative to have the people who make the regulations talk about it. - The initiative isn't asking for live service games to cease to exist. It's asking for them to have an end of life plan. - For actual live service games like Destiny 2, this is as simple as releasing server code or adding host server functionality (This is something that was done in games over 20 years ago already, it's easy and we know how to do it.) - For games that do not actually really require a live service (like The Crew), it's as simple as designing the game so that it doesn't require a connection to a central server to begin with. - The server binaries would not need to be released UNTIL YOU ARE CLOSING the official servers. That's why it's called an "End of Life" plan. What kind of vulnerability is that bringing to a game that you are already giving up on and closing the server for? Until that moment, the company can keep the server binaries to themselves.

@@sicksock435446 this is probably the best idea. The only question left is "how to enforce it".

@@juancasanova8434 I think you're completely missing what I'm trying to say. Let me try to reword - it's not a regulation: true, it's not, but if we're doing this on the basis of "EU doesn't understand video games", we need a better formulated plan. - it's not asking for live service to cease to exist: it's not *asking* for that, but that very well may be the result, if the resulting regulations are too strict. - destiny 2: yeah I agree host functionality should've been there from day 1. - server binaries: in reality, it's much more nuanced than that. Thor goes over it in his videos. TF2 is a good example where releasing server binaries causes reverse-engineering and cheating, which pressures the devs to fix something that wouldn't have been cracked in the first place. There's also legal liabilities in some extreme cases. There's probably a hundred different reasons.

@@cole5981 You still missed my last point: Server binaries would be released AT THE END OF LIFE. So the cheating would only be an issue (if it was) at a time when the alternative is not being able to play the game at all. As people keep quoting from Ross Scott: It's the difference between putting grampa on a wheelchair, or taking him out and shooting him in the head. All in all it definitely is nuanced and requires looking at the ins and outs. But that will only be done if the initiative is looked at by the authorities. And meanwhile we can discuss, like we are, which is why many of us are happy that Thor feels able to say his side of things. This kind of conversation is great. But the tone of what he says seems to be a little confusing, in that it seems to be either misunderstanding or ignoring some things. That is the main criticism, apart from just simple discussion about the nuances.

Imagine just calling things adjectives with no arguments and expecting that to be an argument. Here, have my legitimate punch on your poorly thought out butt that won't accomplish anything. There, I just made an argument. Oh wait, I have to call you an idiot too.

Except he did not give legitimate reasons and was the first person to attack another's character. People are just asking to be able to host their own private servers when the developers shut down the servers, kinda like how you can still play the original CoD in community servers. The "one malicious actor will control the servers" narrative is just made-up nonsense. Why would people be stuck in a malicious actor's server when they can host a server themselves. Are people stuck in paid WoW private servers? Thor is defending this because he is a publisher and about to release a live service game.

Damn, y'all really pulling out all the strawman arguments

> Illegal private servers for many games exist since probably 2 decades ago, but he act like they aren't a thing, or that is impossible to be done... You act like it's a 0-cost thing to do. Like a moron that has no idea about software development.

"don’t advertise it as buying. It’s a license.". You cannot do that in EU. Software is a good. Once i buy a copy, it is mine in the same exact way as any other thing.

@@Edheldui You have no idea what you are talking about. Please cite a single law that says that. The Digital Content Directive directly says otherwise. "(57) Digital content or digital services could also be supplied to consumers in a continuous manner over a period of time. Continuous supply can include cases whereby the trader makes a digital service available to consumers for a fixed or an indefinite period of time, such as a two-year cloud storage contract or an indefinite social media platform membership." If what you are saying is true, Adobe wouldn't be able to sell software subscriptions.

The initiative does not preclude that option at all. It doesn't apply to that because then it wouldn't be sold like this. But don't be mistaken, developers will not do that because of the terrible look it will give them to have to admit that they will kill a game when they sell it.

@@juancasanova8434 I don't get your objection. If it is made law that live service games must advertise that a purchase is for a temporary, rather than permanent, license, then developers will have to do that. It completely solves the problem. So why should Thor be swarmed by the internet for disagreeing with all this extra stuff when he agrees on this very simple solution?

@@FuzzyJeffTheory I mean there's two things here. First, that the initiative probably wouldn't object to having a clear indication that this only applies to games sold as a product but not those properly advertised as a licence with a clear expiration date. The fact it's not explicit in the initiative now doesn't mean that it goes against it. Second, there is the issue of game preservation. While it is likely that, at best, something like you are suggesting will end up being what's implemented (though it can come with a clear definition of what should be done in the cases where it is a product that's sold rather than a live service, they're not exclusive)... a lot of why Ross Scott is doing this, and why a lot of us are behind it, is because we hate to see art disappear. Now that is admittedly a more complicated matter, especially when complex game servers with multiple complex pieces are involved, so at least me, but as far as I know Ross Scott too (and I have watched every single one of his videos multiple times, so I do know his narrative quite well), would be fine with a lukewarm solution to that. But that doesn't mean we don't care about it or that we think it's not important. Destroying art is not a good thing. And yes, sometimes it is inevitable or not worth the effort to do it. But the actual situation right now is very far from that. That is why The Crew is a perfect example. The Crew really did not need to be online-only. Even now, it would be trivial to patch the game and make it single player only. It already has a single player feature, it just requires an Internet connection to check. Just patch it and remove that check. In a case like that one, it is really easy to do it. Instead, we are stuck with a dead game. (And the reason the publishers don't want to do that patch is not resources, this would be really cheap for Ubisoft to do, it's because they want people to buy new games). So a law that exclusively talks about having to be upfront about licences, while a step in the right direction, wouldn't really address this part of the issue. The Crew could still be a game that gets killed for no good reason, and that sucks. I think a key part of this is the use of the word "reasonable" in the wording of the initiative. Patching The Crew so that you can play the single player mode without needing an Internet connection is 100% reasonable. Re-engineering existing multiplayer games with complex servers so that they are playable single player is not reasonable. It is the job of the actual lawmakers to figure out exactly how to phrase this into a law that is clear. That job has not been done yet. But no, a simple "make it explicit" would not suffice, because it doesn't address the whole issue. (And I didn't even get into predatory business practices that essentially force consumers to agree to things they don't want to agree to through market monopolies).

That's appreciated! I just know some people would see the vast difference in subscribers (AND EXPERIENCE IN THE INDUSTRY) and would disregard. I know that he must have some context that I don't about the industry and I always want to acknowledge that thing. But I appreciate my opinion being appreciated!

The Crew has licensing issues with so many car products. There is no way we can legally keep The Crew one alive 😢

Nice essay there, but no one cares lmao

> and they were all shut down *GOOD.* You want a software product? Then go and pay software engineers for it. > I remind you this whole shenennigans has been 7 months in the making and counting, my guy has no time to rest. Somebody wasted 7 months of their of their own free will, what a tragedy. > Thor on his bright mind closed all doors for comunication and insulted Ross on top, that is childish behaviour. Thor could have done so much more by bringing all these concerns and speaking directly with Ross but decided NOT TO DO IT instead. If anything this second video seems to be made more in bad faith then good. OR it's because what Ross is spouting are ravings of a fucking lunatic that doesn't understand how these things work. > It is very much bad faith to watch 1 episode of Fallout and say the whole series suck without proper context. Thats whats happening from what I can see. Another idiotic argument... Should every review from anyone who didn't play a full game be invalidated too? No?

If they would meet up for an online debate, this would actually be something I am willing to watch live. Somehow I feel more invested in this issue than politics in general.

@@NitwitsWorld PS1 games also had licensed games with licensed cars. When those games stopped being sold Sony didn't come over and smash the discs.

I'm not sure how is perspective is anything close to that, but don't let that stop you from your dumbass opinion

I hate that his logic is "If anything bad happens, than we shouldn't proceed" type deal, he literally sounds like an overprotective family member.

Now you said about indie devs. Someone should ask Notch - creator of Minecraft - what he thinks of it. My guess he will support it. He is vocal supporter of Pirate Party and he released servers for minecraft since they were created.

Yea and now Microsoft can ban your account for things you say on private servers, also you can't log in Microsoft account and play multiplayer Minecraft if Microsoft's servers are down. Two more reasons to sign the petition.

Aw you sweet summer child, you need to remember all the shit mojang went through because of that, a lot of angry parents opening support tickets because P2W servers, all the attempts at shutting them down, etc. (I am pro stop killing games, and pro the Minecraft model tho)

​@@pwalloooh nooo poor microsoft support having to deal with dumb customers wahwah wahwah wah, not an excuse to turn minecraft into spyware

@@dbelow_1556 I was talking before MS bought Mojang, circa 2013.

Overall, this would just require a change of how devs and publishers build their game code in the future so they can also include alternative ways to play except for server play. Last epoch did introduce singleplayer mode, Wayfinder went from mmorpg to a singleplayer rpg and Palworld came with a tool so you can host your own dedicated server. And yeah, the botting argument is a weird take. It's not like all other players have then the same access and could just host their own private server. Also it would destroy RMT groups because then they can't sell currency or ingame items on a much larger customer scale but rather on a lower customer amount (and then those customers could just switch to other private servers which are cheaper or so). The only thing that I think was a legit good take is that provided things could have a fault in the server code and others could abuse that to either hijack your private server or, if the dev/publisher does a sequel and reuses some code, to try and exploit the fault from the old game in the new game since most likely devs do recycle some code. But that was somewhere in the comments and not in Thors video

So Palworld has given up their IP by allowig players to self host servers?

Why would it? Do I own the Lord of the Rings IP just because I bought a Blu-ray of it? IP doesn't transfer just because something uses the IP. Also, if that was true, they couldn't release the client either. It contains way more IP than the server ever would.

Don't worry, parlament can repeal any law. Including IP laws.

...no, and it didn't in the past either.

I want to point out this: "Also he repeatedly messes up his own topics, speaking about client-server conversation for cheating protection. Guess what, no game no cheaters! End-of-life needs no bot protection management, that's a goner by then, there is nothing to protect anymore anyway." I am going to go out my way and say Thor is obfuscating the main, obvious, reason why companies want player accounts server side instead of client side, to a point I would call it "lying by omission" Yes, is technically about cheaters, but is not because "Cheater420 gives himself a sword that does 1 million damage" as he claims Is because it helps corporations monetize stuff Keep your grinding progress serverside to sell you premium accounts to make grinding faster in Warthunder Keep your inventory serverside so you dont give yourself that batmobile without paying in Forza Keep your gacha results serverside so you can't alt-f4 and try for that SSSS unit in Genshin Keep your you hero roster serverside so you cant have all the heroes without paying in Heros of the Storm Keep Cheater420 to give himself a sword that does 1 million damage so WE can sell him the sword that makes 1 million damage in WoW The fact is so vital to the monetization progress is the main reason is not as easy to make the game work client side in the first place.

@@LtAlguien For online games the factor is twofold. One one hand it's the integrity of the game. If you get this 1 million damage sword and then go around killing people which have no chance against you... that sucks! That's why games doing those practices have a surprisingly high turnover rate. But since no alternatives are available (like for Warthunder, the game's well done after all) you nonetheless tend to return. No competition means no choice. The second is as you've said, monetization. If progression is regulated and takes long that means you spend more time. The more time you spend the more likely you'll spend money. The second you spend money your inhibition to spend more is lowered which makes you spend more money. Especially RNG based mechanics for those outcomes are so big because it's a gambling aspect. The gacha games are about 'the big hit' after all, games generally are a prime dopamine machine and cause extreme amounts of addiction for a reason. The sector is not without reasoning bigger then the adult market nowadays, a market which had been the biggest one world-wide for... well... likely since it was invented.

He starts off saying he's their voice... because they agree with him... but they can't speak out against this initiative unless they too want to face the ire of people like you. He literally says exactly that at the start of the video. What you have done here is willfully ignore what he said and inject your own meaning into his words. YOU are spreading misinformation about what he said. The bots had nothing to do with ANYTHING being legal... he referred to the bots being a method to strong arm a developer to do something... and he's not wrong this happened in Team Fortress 2 and Titanfall 2 (strange that the 2 biggest options both had TF2 as their intitials...). Another example of you willfully misunderstanding him in order to cast what he said in a bad light. You are proving to be a VERY disingenuous person so far. Once again you willfully misrepresent him. He wasn't talking like you were running your own private game for your own personal use. He was talking for something like WoWs 'ascension' server. A fully autonymous game with online features where multiple people run the game off a non-official server outside of the spectrum of the base game. IE How most MMO private servers work. More lying to make him come off as worse than he is. He never once talks about preservation, he talks about the negative effects that this initiative could have if it goes through in the current state. He is talking about what COULD go wrong if things are not cleared up before a law is passed. I have no idea what you're talking about here... you just define license vs purchase and how it pertains to the EU... no real reason for it to be here apart from you wanting to get something in there about how a license without an end date is a purchase in the EU. And that's all well and good... don't see what it has to do with anything you've said prior though. Just kind of clears up a definition that SHOULD be more clear in future ToS for these games, which is exactly what he said... in fact what you said and what he said are just two ways of saying the exact same thing... This section about how regulation limits quantity is crap... unless a law is going to put a hard limit and say 'only x amount of live service games can exist at one time' there is no way a regulation is going to limit how many live service games exist. That's like saying that a government can tell developers to stop making horror games because we already have 1 million of them. That's not how this works. The only part of this that has ANY relation to the topic it at hand is the last sentence where you say the initiative would allow you to play the game if something happened... and in an ideal world... yes... this is the case... and that part is what will 'limit' the live services... and by limit them I mean... make it so no new MMO or other live service will be made because developers won't waste their time making sure that a game that won't make them money still works.... frankly if the law goes in EXACTLY as the wording works a huge chunk of games will HAVE to close down prior to it becoming law because otherwise they will be forced to create shells of their game incase something happens. I'm not even going to touch on your LoL, FFXIV, and WoW section(s) because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes p2p could work but it's not that easy and requires giving other users a risky connection to your network/pc. Sure if you're going about it for just friends that's fine... but what about the communities that will be formed? There is a reason that Private servers like Ascension have entire launchers and systems of their own make... protection. Once a developer has washed their hands you have NO garuntee that the server you are connecting to is safe and that they packages their launcher pushes on you won't contain viruses or other malicious programs. P2P is VERY risky once you step out of you and 4 buddies hosting a private Evolve server for you guys to play on just with how it will have to be done for larger communities. It is not anti-consumer to entice you to buy a new version of the game... I won't argue that something like The Crew WAS anti-consumer in how it was handled... merely shutting down the servers didn't stop private servers from being completed... what was anti-consumer was then removing access to the game for individuals to prevent them from accessing said servers. Going back to even League of Legends... they have had private servers for that in the past. Riot has shut them down because they 100% have the right to do so. Even if league shuts down in the current state they can shut down any private servers (THIS is the part that needs to change... if a game has a big enough community private servers will be created after the death of the game). Ubisoft had no reason to prevent players from accessing the servers outside of wanting you to play Motorfest, the new game. Riot has a reason... they are still actively updating and supporting their game so a private server is taking their game and profiting off of it while they still intend of using said IP. It is situations like The Crew that this initiative needs to target. Games that are actively shut down with a community should be able to band together and get a functioning version of the game running again... As a dev once you wash your hands of the game you should have no more say in what happens in the case of private servers, maybe you help keep them alive (like in the case of Wayfinder or Guild Wars 1, but you are not beholden to do so). The Crew did (and does) have private servers and people who bought the game when it came out should be more than able to access it). GTA has tons of private servers, Rockstar is ~cool~ with this... Ubisoft and Riot aren't and in the case of Riot they should be allowed to stop the behavior, but Ubisoft shouldn't. This is also what Thor said and is the CORRECT way of approaching this. Don't hurt developers because they are unable to fix it... a LOT of games shutting down happen because of things outside of the developers control. Look at Refall.... one day they had a job, and the next while they were about to push out an update to try and help fix their game they were forced to stop because they were fired... simply because the company couldn't (or atleast wouldn't) pay them anymore. Redfall was something that failed, and the attempt to fix it drained all resources... the law in it's current state would hurt a developer in cases like this. Zenimax is a pos company to start with... but this also happens with other games.... Folklore hunter... luckily that game is p2p from start to finish but the developers had real life situations that forced them to full stop development on their game. If they were making a live service game under this initiatives law they would be subject to punishment on top of other issues in their real lives. I bring up Folklore vs Redfall to highlight the difference. Redfall would have shut down sooner and under the law Zenimax would have told Arkane Austin 'ok... make the game work enough so we can shut down servers and move on... then you're fired'... and it would have played out right about how it did already... but in the case of small developers like Folklore Hunters... if they were making a live service and were all the sudden unable to continue development for one reason or another you're stacking more issues onto them making their lives harder already. This ties into my issue with players as a whole... ya'll have 0 perspective of the games industry. You think things just happen and put NO EFFORT into thinking about the big picture. You're mad at Ubisoft, so you're supporting a law that would stick it to them without thinking AT ALL what it would do to the little guys. Your efforts with have little to no impact... frankly being that Private Servers existed the only change that would have happened with Ubisoft would be MAYBE they include some files for you to run the game on your own machine... and then they wouldn't remove the game from libraries. In the case of Folklore you'd destroy the lives of a 4 man team after their spirits were crushed from other issues in their lives. This initiative will not hurt the ones it's targeting and will instead hurt others caught in the crossfire. THAT is what Thor is saying. I hate Thor, and it kills me to agree with him... but he's not wrong... he has a point here... He just lumps ALL developers together and sympathizes even with Ubisoft... but I don't... F**K Ubisoft, F**K Pirate Software... but I stand by Zeekers. I stand by Landfall. I stand by Fancy games. I stand by small developers who will wrongfully get hurt by this initiative.

His hacker argument is so funny because if its THAT easy to attack a game/community until the company goes bankrupt and shuts it down, then it is ALREADY really easy to kill of someone else's game forever, regardless of whether or not you plan to launch your own spin on that genre. Its a completely irrelevant point, *specially* when the topic is "game preservation" and not "game companies profit"

First of all... he's not 'their voice' that's bogus, that's giving him a position he's not in. He's not the voice of devs, he's his voice and his voice alone. People might or might not agree, pointing it out though puts emphasis to enforce his position as 'the rightful'. Which is nonsense. Also he specifically talked about bots, social attacks, DDOS and so on to cost a company and then take over their product afterwards. Which he says 'would provide a legal way to do it'. That's also wrong and nonsensical, it's related to EU law, and that would get you into jail for 4 years there. Simple as that. And no, he didn't talk solely about WoW or similar games. He SPECIFICALLY and repeatedly mentioned League of Legends in the same topic. Hence also 'no'. Special regulations for those types of games though need to be made, which is up for legislation and not us. Also, if you keep saying I'm a lier because you can't even keep up to date and realize he's made 2 videos to the topic and not a single one... then that's your problem. He goes specifically into the point of 'preservation' there. The reason why I point out license versus purchase and the law related to it in the EU is that Thor put a specific notion forward. Namely: 'No, we shouldn't do this, instead we should have specifically shown that you're buying a license and not making a purchase' in his follow-up. This entails that he has no idea that 100% of video games are licenses. The meaning was likely that he meant a 'time limited license' and hence a lease/rental. Instead he combined them, which would make his 'solution' not usable. If you don't know how regulation causes a quantity/quality shift then I recommend looking into the history of market developments as well as regulations. Less regulations means more people can do it with less effort. Less effort means lower quality of the end product, which means regulations generally (exceptions apply) by logic do cause higher quality and lower quantity. It's harder to get in and you got to do more to even be allowed to provide a product, which provides inherently both definitions. The P2P argument: If you got the choice between risky connection and no function at all you don't give a shit about risky connections. Your option is non-optimal data transfer or no product at all. It's end-of-life talk after all. 'The Crew' had a community of what? 20 players peak? Obviously the servers shut down. It was a single-player game set up as online only though. Which is one of the several current problems existing. This topic is a pure consumer rights topic, not one about shitty company behavior like what Redfall experienced. Any sort of law in that direction would not even affect such a situation. It seems you haven't even understood the basic direction the Initiative does want to address. Your argument about havong '0' perspective of the Industry. First of all, what you're doing is 'talking out of your ass' since you don't provide any point about why you think that would be the case. It's a standpoint of pure ignorance hence. Secondly, as a customer I don't need to know anything about the industry (and I actually do know the law-related aspects and parts of the code-based aspects of it) to know when I've been screwed over. As a customer my one and only care is 'is the product good'. I don't care about the workers as a customer. I don't care about shitty company behavior about the customer. I don't care about hardships or anything else about a customer. I only... and solely... from the customer perspective... care about what is delivered to me.

Same here. I've been prowling around the comments of various videos and heard (unverified) that he was invited to participate in the Stop Killing Games project before the initiative was fully set in motion but declined. Makes me really pissed at him if true. But yeah, another commentor somewhere put foward that Thor, Ross, Asmongold, and Louis Rossman should hop in a Discord call together and hash things out until they've arrived on the same page. I'm highly inclined to agree, not just because it would make a lot of upset people less upset but also because any good points generated in the conversation would disseminate down through their collective audiences into the general population and potentially influence the EU council's discussion once the initiative goes through.

​@@ZarHakkaragreed. Any initiative should have disagreement and opposing views. That's how you strengthen ideas and ultimately land on something great. Without that, we end up with radical policies (see any current political party). I'm not saying this current proposal is radical, just saying good opposition with constructive conversations is how we avoid radicalization of any policy.

​@@ZarHakkarI agree that he should join the conversation because he offers the pov of a dev who has a lot of experience in the industry but there is a lot of misinformation about the specifics of why he is against it, ranging from downplaying his concerns about potential security issues or the difficulties of doing private servers to claiming he is deliberately missing the point and jumping to conclusions, Thor has done his due diligence on this issue having mentioned on stream that he read through the whole initiative, watched the videos by Ross and consulting multiple individuals, one of which was a lawyer on the EU, the point that he closed off the possibility of talking to Ross was when he made the video about why he thinks this would pass easily (ie: being that it's an easy win, politicians don't care and that it's not a serious issue) can you blame him when those are the points used? Also if after doing all that and the biggest point of concern is the vagueness of it then to me that means even as an initiative, it is still worded too vaguely, Thor has mentioned he would be willing to talk about it with Louis, just not with Ross

This is specifically why I lost all trust in Thor as an individual. If he had a counter take, that's fine. I might disagree with it, I might hate it. But the fact that he not only refused discussion with Ross, but did this after slandering his character, makes me see him as wholly untrustworthy.

No one is beholden to join the conversation and fix it. Thor has opted out and decided he wants no part of it.... and that's his right. He didn't 'belittle' it. He stated his opinions and moved on... This is coming from a dude who HATES Thor... I can't stand the guy... I think he's an arrogant obnoxious PoS cause he got lucky, got discovered, got some good jobs in the industry and has been riding that steam ever since. He didn't get where he did because he's inherently better than anyone else... he got there because he was lucky.... So... when I tell you that I agree with him on this... that's a big thing (for me) of course when he says some objective truth like 'Rpgs are harder to make than an FPS generally' yes... I agree. But when he says 'kernel level anti cheat needs to go' without providing a FEASIBLE alternative (support teams doing tickets is not feasible despite what he pretends) I disagree. Here... he's not wrong. The initiative IS vague... and it should be HIS perogative to fix it. The initiative is for the EU, put forth by EU residents to change EU law. He gave his two cents ONLY because everyone was telling him too... and now people like you don't like his answer so you're asking like he injected himself into the situation and left. He was more than happy to just let it be and not get involved in the discourse... people like YOU forced him to get involved and because he didn't stroke your ego and say 'yea... you're right' NOW he's evil... NOW he's a problem. Perspective is something that has really been getting lost in players... and it's sickening.

Thank you! I think any of the attacking that's been done is insane. I think anyone saying Thor's character is in question is deeply emotional and gotta get something else to do than be online lol. A debate is meant to be pretty civil plus I really do like the guy. Wanted to balance airing my concerns with respecting that he comes from a place very few of us would directly understand.

The thing is, Thor did kind of start the fire here. His first reaction on stream to this whole thing before he made the two videos was very hostile. Insanely so, the contrast to his usual demeanor was so stark that I had to do double takes multiple times as I was watching the clip, and the way that he characterized the idea as gross and disgusting was so out of whack. Then, the two videos come out, In which I think he made up and fought against several straw man arguments against what Ross said in his video, instead of trying to address the real arguments he made and other people, the consumers have made. Ross posted a reply on the comment section, trying to reach out with the general vibe of "Hey, you have some serious concerns about this thing, can we talk?" For whatever reason, this reply no longer exists, either due to RUclips taking it out, or Thor / someone with mod powers deleted / hid it. This could be entirely RUclips, because YT sometimes just removes comments even if the comment had nothing bad in it. (The following is something I have seen people claim, but have not been able to verify yet) However, I have now seen multiple people state in different places that many people have had their comments that disagreed and argued against Thor removed, and following that they were unable to post any further comments, suggesting that they were banned from the comments. At this moment I cannot verify this, they state that there is proof of this but I have not yet seen it yet. So far, Thor has actively refused to take part in the conversation in any way that would be productive, and just taking pot shots at the initiative, while claiming to be the voice of the developers who cannot bring their own voice to the table due to working in a corporate environment, addressed only the most extreme arguments made by people who suck at articulating or identifying the real problems while refusing to even address the more nuanced arguments. So, with all that in mind, are people at least partially justified in calling Thor's character into question or being emotional about this? I think they are. Thor is the one guy that I think most people expected to be able and willing to while maybe having some opposing views at least attempt to approach and take part in this conversation with a reasonable and good faith manner. But that is not what happened, he fired the first shot and has kept firing instead of trying to bring the heat down. And I don't know why. This whole thing could've been avoided so easily, and even after the first shots were fired, he could've brought the whole thing down a peg. But that's just not what he did. And that's one of the most disappointing things about his, I think most people would've loved to see him sit down and offer some honest insight about the concerns and the logistical issues why some of the proposed solutions wouldn't work instead of him just talking around what Ross and other reasonable people have said and calling it a job well done. I love that man, but he seriously needs some PR training. He did not handle this well by any stretch of the imagination.

@@Nabekukka and see, this is a deeply mature way of explaining this. I appreciate the context severely. The reason I had verbalized my comments the way I did is because in the Stop Killing Games - 2 video description… People are attacking him personally. So I wrote my comment under the guise there wouldn’t be a fantastic comment that would provide immeasurable context to why this is happening to him. Not justifying the negativity but informing an uninformed person. Thank you.

@@Nabekukka I agree Thor is not doing that great of a job of presenting his position. But i think engaging with his arguments in a non hostile manner, even if he might appear hostile towards people, will ultimately be better than just being angry at eachother. Just look at the video Theo made on this topic, that one made me seriously consider just ignoring the conversation because he brought in so much unneeded hostility. On the point of comments being hidden. As far as i know youtube can do that without the videocreator knowing about it.

@@Nabekukka > Thor is the one guy that I think most people expected to be able and willing to while maybe having some opposing views at least attempt to approach and take part in this conversation with a reasonable and good faith manner. But that is not what happened, he fired the first shot and has kept firing instead of trying to bring the heat down. Wtf did you expect from throwing bullshit at someone without any understanding of what they do? Why should he entertain it at all? > And that's one of the most disappointing things about his, I think most people would've loved to see him sit down and offer some honest insight about the concerns and the logistical issues why some of the proposed solutions wouldn't work instead of him just talking around what Ross and other reasonable people have said and calling it a job well done. "Reasonable people"? The ones that have no idea what they're talking about? Why should anyone waste their time picking the bullshit apart?

I did skim it in my scripting process but I didn't view it as having any content worth adding to the video (as my original intention was to NOT read the initiative as the opinions Thor provided were my issue and said opinions seemed isolated enough from the initiative to comment on them). But I'll go through it now just for having a more clear understanding.

Most certainly but its also the logic of: Rather make them work to be annoying than just letting this happen with ZERO laws in place, yknow? Villains will always be villains.

@@valentine_typewriter exactly. I didn't mean it in a negative way. It's just how Thor said "there would be a lot of work for developers" and like.. Yeah. You know what would have also been a lot of work? Not going down this path to start with.

And personally? I think if this is the precedent going forward...it's NOT a lot of work, you build that into your design document and it's done! Coding isn't magic per se but are we going to say gaming in 2024+ CANNOT manage this?? We got so many crazy innovations, I disregard any sort of, "it will be a lot of work". Now retroactively putting those ideas in? Fair. That can require such an overhaul its not worth it. But from all I've understood, the initiative is only focused on games AFTER it becomes law. ALL love for developers though. They do excellent work in dogshit conditions. But this is not something I'm willing to let go just because of more work.

@@valentine_typewriter exactly, and what laws are retroactive? Very rarely if ever any regulation like this is retroactive. It will usually have a start date as well. So like best thing we might get is this as a law by 2030, with it only effecting games past 2030. That's more than enough time for developers to plan and think about it.

@@valentine_typewriter yep, in fact, i would assume it is actually easy to meet the EU requirements by simply bringing back offline self hosting LAN capabilities, just look at old games like CS, warcraft, battle realms, red alert.

Seeing in his description how he must've been attacked personally is why I included the end bit and also my clear respect for the guy. He's a great dude most certainly, his speech at the Streamer Awards was beautiful. He's just the talk of the town right now so people are taking the chances to jab at an otherwise unproblematic guy. It sucks. Fortunately many of the top comments to his video are just denouncing the bad takes and not disrespecting HIM.

I just fell like we have to acknowledge the massive bias that Thor is going to have. To me asking Thor (an owner of a game company) what he thinks about regulation of game companies would be similar to asking an oil executive how they felt about regulation of their industry.

@@jacobtodd7347 I don't think that's always a 1:1 scenario though. As far as I'm aware, he's not in charge of any live service titles. And though I plan to make RPGs, if I ran a game company, even if that gave me perspective on the downsides...I still wouldn't have given the sorts of takes he had given. Like if it was EA/Ubisoft/Sony voicing their issues with it and its the same takes...I'd agree. But if it was Nintendo or Devolver Digital and it was the same takes...I'd assume the stance is more personal than about their career.

@@valentine_typewriter one of the games he is working on is a live service Fighting game.

@@valentine_typewriter Srry if this comment felt like a dishonest defense to the video, I was just trying to explain it to viewer, I knew that you brought it up but I felt like clarifying since most of the response videos comment section I see label him as a guy that has Evil intentions, for example: *Imagine if this guy is the reason to why we can't own games!*. usally the response videos is not bad and I fully agree with them but considering that commentors usally take it a step further is what really worries me.

It also means doing something illegal to gain money. Which means you get caught doing the DDOS, the party you are doing it have a chance to take you to court.

@@benvictim Yes, a potential law about keeping games playable would not render cyberattacks legal.

I'm glad to see the responses so far have given very excellent points I didn't think through.

There does not need to be a financial incentive. a bad actor could just do it because they don't like the company or whatever. For example, if Thor had a live service game out now, plenty of angry gamers could ddos his game, bankrupt him, and shut down his studio, because they were mad at this hot take. Additionally, someone could take his server code and repurpose it for their own uses.

I didn't discuss it in the video but whatever the hell he meant by financial incentive was wild to me lol. In my notes i just wrote: (I don't know what he means by this). That and he mentioned something about WoW devs being abused. I didn't want to speak on something I didn't have the information for nor did I think it would possibly be relevant to my issues