The problem with criticizing the citizens initiative for being too vague is that this is how the process works. Your issue is with the process, not this initiative, specifically. Which is fine, but beyond the control of the SKG organizers. Some of these points are addressed by Ross but you can check the citizens initiative website to compare it to other initiatives. The initiative is not final law or anywhere close to it. Discussions on specifics come *after* getting the signatures and that’s assuming the EU doesn’t just throw it out. The initiative has a word limit, most of which is dedicated to citing articles to show that it’s an issue the EU could even be able to address, leaving the organizers with even less room to communicate the issue and possible solutions. The point of a citizens initiative is for citizens, not lawmakers, to raise an issue to their government. It is impossible and unexpected for them to lay out clear solutions. Again, this process comes later when the organizers actually speak to the EU - after getting said signatures. I wish people criticizing it for being too vague would aim those criticisms at the initiative process, and not the SKG initiative specifically, because I believe they’re doing the best they can with the processes and tools available to them.
I didn't realize it was so limiting in what was being added to the initiatives text, I hope if it ends up moving further it addresses all the concerns with clarity on all the major points at hand. Even if it ends up being passed I expect we'll see a similar window to how we had GDPR compliance, which was around 2 years, before we see any kind of enforcement. I still think any passed legislation would be unlikely to be retroactive so any games locked out now won't be affected.
@@OujirouYT I agree, I expect grandfathering existing titles will be the most likely, and probably most reasonable outcome. Though I would LOVE to see existing live service games get end-of-life plans I think that’d be shooting for the moon
Oujirou, I have a serious question for you. Why does every single modern video game have motion blur in it and it’s always, ALWAYS turned on? I don’t like it, none of my friends like it, and no video game reviewers on RUclips like it (where the most reliable game reviews come from these days). I know this because EVERYONE turns it off. I remember you saying that you are a game developer. So I am hoping you’ll be able to explain it to me. I know this question is a little off topic but I noticed that this video was the latest one that didn’t have a lot of comments on it. So I’m hoping that you actually read this one. Thanks in advance, A subscriber Ps. Anyone else’s thoughts on the subject would also be appreciated.
I have yet to meet someone that plays games that keeps motion blur on, ever. It murders performance and makes it hard to see things. As to why it's on, that's almost always something that the stakeholders (usually investors) want to see. "Well your competitors are doing X, so we need to do X as well!" - and motion blur is something that is easy for them to see and feel like they have made a contribution. Remember that most major investors don't play games at all, they only look at it from an investment standpoint. For most investments they need to follow a checklist, as time has gone on more things go on that checklist. It's why so many live service games come out - "But why doesn't this game have a battle pass? Your competitors are doing it and it can make a lot of money, so you need to do it too!" "They have motion blur, we need to have it!" "Where are your micro transactions?" Meanwhile the guy saying that is in his 70s, had a black and white TV growing up, and holds the average person in utter contempt for not being as rich & smart as they are.
If they even test the game within their studio, then they have builds without all of these gunk services involved as well. The player doesn't need any of that superfluous stuff to play the game they paid money for/in. They don't care about your analytics phoning home, the matchmaking, your payment functions and all that. Someone's private server isn't going to be linked to some database of payment information, so why imply it is? It's totally OK for all of that to not work. I think the industry will just have to consider end-of-life in future games. Despite these exaggerated knee-jerk reactions, this is a solvable problem and it will NOT kill live-service, it will just mean end-of-life will have to be a consideration in future games (as it always should have been). Planning that out in games made after 2026 or so is not going to be impossible for these massive companies or even indies. Let's stop pretending this is the apocalypse. The games industry was booming past rentals, used game sales, refunds and more.
It's not the apocalypse for games, just a conversation to be had. This isn't even an issue for most games out there, just a problem with the biggest publishers in the space being generally awful. For the servers I just want people to be able to make and host their own private servers without threat of legal action by a publisher. The people that build those private servers aren't going to need to put some together some ultra-complex setup to get it running, most of the things big games "offer" are just roadblocks to make it so you have to pay for convenience. I think the most of the best games we've ever had were single player, and a lot of games are being made live service instead because of badly run businesses. Not everything needs to try and make Hoyoverse levels of money, and because that's the starting goal for massive publishers the games end up being bad.
@@OujirouYT While I want private server authors to have that due freedom, it's worth noting that reverse engineering is hard, and getting harder all the time. They take measures to prevent understanding server packets, and most games simply won't have some (frankly insane) people willing to dedicate potentially years of their life to RE (while wishing they were doing other things). In the words of Ross, it's "like locking yourself in a garage with scrap metal and a blowtorch and not coming out until you've built a Ferrari". We take for granted those who do that insane level of work, and also forget that the vast majority of games never get this treatment.
You are correct, there are a lot of games that run the risk of never having a private server setup with the current setup we have. I would hope that if legal protections are laid out we could see the possibility of non-profits or the like be founded where they can dedicate their time to preserving older games. Wishful thinking, but a lot of developers like a good challenge, and I could totally see a number of really smart people I've worked with taking a pay cut to be part of something as important as preserving games for the future. I think games are one of, if not the, most impactful forms of entertainment out there. It's absolutely worth figuring out a solution so we can protect a whole section of games dying because some publishers want to take a policy of scorched earth instead of caring for their consumers. Right now a publisher/developer has to be bankrupted or purchased to preserve the games for their consumers, and as far as I'm concerned if a developer hates their consumers so much I say let em go bankrupt and have someone that gives a damn buy the IP.
I want to see an open marketplace for digital goods on these consoles, and ownership keys. Also a discount of at least 5% on digital games, day 1, until a marketplace is created.
I'll give you the pure player perspective. Ever heard the saying, "the customer is king"? We pay for the game, the servers, the salaries-the entire publisher and dev teams. This is the most important point and should be the end of the discussion: developers and publishers simply don’t have the right to destroy what players have paid for. All this nitpicking without addressing this point is irrelevant. Make your rational argument as to why dev and or publishers should have the right to destroy what the players payed for? The industry's choice to build games in a way that makes it difficult for them to avoid destroying them should not be the consumer's problem to fix. There’s no legitimate security justification for this mishmash of unoptimized modules. In fact, the level of access that games demand under the guise of anti-piracy measures opens up attack vectors on user systems. Using these off-the-shelf modules only introduces additional security risks. With so many relying on the same modules, they become prime targets for exploitation. As a result, games that unnecessarily incorporate prebuilt Amazon modules are inherently more vulnerable than those that avoid these common, widely targeted components. Players don't care if it’s called a license or what the TOS says-they care about getting screwed over by developers and publishers. What good does it do me if they clearly tell me they're screwing me over, when that becomes the de facto standard in the market? Pretending this is some unfixable problem when even 95% of the games released right now don’t have this issue is beyond ludicrous. You make a good point that a game you buy can break over time, and if there's DRM on it, it’s hard to make a backup copy. If a publisher is no longer selling a game, they should be legally required to release a free-to-download version with the DRM removed. LSGs not being released in the EU because they have to implement an end-of-life plan is incredibly irrational. Even if it cost them $2 million to implement such a plan (which it wouldn't even come close to), are they really going to leave the $20 million they would make in the EU market on the table? “Jason said so” isn’t an argument. You claim so confidently that this would end LSGs in the EU, but you haven’t even thought about it for a second-all you do is parrot Jason. Give me a breakdown of the inhibiting costs; list them. You won't because it's nonsense. And last but not least, what is your alternative to the SKG initiative? What are you doing to stop the deliberate destruction of video games? If you have nothing concrete but still claim to care about the preservation of video games, then link SKG in your description and tell people to support it, or admit that you don't really care about the preservation of video games.
To start out with, I would argue that currently developers and publishers do have a right to destroy what players paid for and that's a major issue that needs to be resolved. Most game developers don't want to dick over their players, and most game companies feel the same. The issue is primarily with the biggest publishers in the game space right now. As an example, Activision put MW2 on sale because a mod was being built for it that drove a lot of interest. They happily took money from players that were buying it in anticipation only to send a Cease and Desist to the mod team the day before release. To these big publishers, they don't give two shits about the game or the player, they just care that money is coming in. Also, I would say this is not an issue with probably 99% of games, the issue is that last little bit where the publisher is trying to not only trying to dick the customer out of the game, but they want to permanently lock them out of those games to force their users into their next live service game. As for LSGs being disabled in the EU if SKG passes as is, right now there is no grace period to come into compliance with the law, or an enforcecment date, or a grandfathering policy to permit games to only worry about future games they are developing. This would lead companies running games there to either shut them down or stay active while being in violation of EU law. I don't think any company is going to want to willingly violate the law, though I may be wrong as I'm not a lawyer or live in the EU. I would ultimately leave it to legal experts that are familiar with EU consumer laws on how companies might react in such a situation. It is up to the EU and its citizenry too decide if SKG is to pass or not, but I won't support anything that's vague as I fear when it is further defined it will have lobbyists and special interest groups corrupt the core purpose of the initiative. I don't have a concrete alternative, because I think SKG is an excellent starting point to talk about what we want to put into place so we can prevent companies from killing off games people put so much time, love, and energy into so they can force their users into the next cash grab. This isn't a race, it's a marathon, so I think it's best that we all keep talking about it, keeping an open mind, and deciding what we collectively want to have in place. If enough consumers AND developers come together with concrete asks it's going to be hard for the shit lords at Activision or Ubisoft to make the issue go away.
@@OujirouYT I asked, 'Should' publishers and developers have the right to destroy what players paid for? “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” I have yet to see any of you Jason fans make an alternative proposal. You say, “I don’t like how vague SKG is about this,” but you didn’t bother to watch the giant FAQ video Accursed Farms made, and you have no alternative solution. “This would lead companies running games to either shut them down or stay active while being in violation of EU law.” First, it’s apparent that you didn’t bother to look into SKG and are just parroting Jason’s talking points. Secondly, to believe that companies wouldn’t spend a month of work to comply with a billion-dollar market is completely detached from reality. “I fear when it is further defined it will have lobbyists and special interest groups corrupt the core purpose of the initiative.” Again, you’re repeating Jason’s mindless talking points. What could possibly happen that’s worse than the deliberate destruction of games people bought and enjoy playing? "If enough consumers AND developers come together with concrete demands, it’s going to be hard for the powers that be at Activision or Ubisoft to make the issue go away." No actual proposal, just “let’s talk about it.” I don’t blame you for being lazier than Ross Scott and not spearheading a movement to stop the deliberate destruction of video games, but you’re not even willing to put your thinking cap on and look at what SKG is about. You either don’t care about the preservation of video games because you personally don’t care, or believing in Jason as an authority figure takes priority for you.
I have read the text in the EU petition as it is written and come to my conclusions on my own. You are making an assumption that because I come to similar conclusions as piratesoftware that I am simply following whatever he says. When you put up a proposal, a voter initiate, or a constitutional amendment (California had a lot of those while I lived there) you read the text that is to be added to law. I don't recall if I watched his FAQ video, because I read the text which is what people are signing, and ultimately this is an EU matter. "to believe that companies wouldn’t spend a month of work to comply with a billion-dollar market" - I can tell from what you have written here that you haven't worked in software development, or at least haven't worked in development at a large scale company. This isn't a simple, "Just write code for a month and it's good!" solution, depending on the game and how it is architected, changed could range from a quarter to a full year to fall into compliance with a change in law. And even then, per the text of the initiative there's no clear "Do X to comply" with this petition, because it's vague. It invokes various EU consumer protections laws to solve a problem, but has no time table. The closest example I can give you is when the EU required GDPR compliance with allowing EU citizens to force companies to delete their data when they requested it. Companies were given 2 years to come into compliance with this law, and as someone who was a developer at the time I can say that this was a tall ask for some companies with how they stored their data. As someone that learned about the SKG initiate about a week ago, I don't have concrete answers for what should be done because that's not a reasonable request. I talked about some sections I think would be good for us to have in the US, that is the starting point I have so far that I think would be good for here in the US. To come to the conclusion that someone not immediately agreeing with SKG and saying, "We should make more concrete requests" means that an individual doesn't care about preserving games and doesn't care is absurd.
@@OujirouYT I'll ask you again to really think about where you actually stand. Should publishers and developers have the right to destroy what players paid for? "You are making an assumption that because I come to similar conclusions as PirateSoftware, I am simply following whatever he says." Do you think I was born yesterday? Literally one of the very first things you bring up is Jason Hall's misinformation videos, and you repeat the misinformation contained within them. "As someone who learned about the SKG initiative about a week ago, I don't have concrete answers for what should be done because that's not a reasonable request." But you do feel it's reasonable to make a disparaging video against an initiative you didn't even bother looking into? An initiative that multiple people, including actual devs and publishers, have spent years of their lives working on, and you make a video simply boosting a famous internet grifter like Jason Hall, who is lying about it? Jason Hall's 20 years in the industry include making furry art, QA testing, and being a server mod. His actual experience as a dev is one very basic bullet-hell game and an EarthBound clone that has been stuck in development for 8 years. Pretty much the opposite of an actual authority in the field. By the way, the SKG initiative has the full support of actual dev veterans with 30 years as developers, actual developers making successful games that sell millions of copies and are now cult classics-not Twitch streamers creating motivational videos that constantly make excuses why their game isn't finished yet. If you don't oppose developers and publishers having the right to destroy what players paid for, then simply say that game preservation and consumer rights is not something you really care about. That is an okay position to have. But making a video claiming you care about it and not even looking into the only large initiative ever to try and stop deliberate game destruction makes you look dishonest and foolish. I did not address most of your points because they don't apply to SKG, and DaGrox94's comment already showed you how you didn't understand what an EU initiative is. How about instead of parroting some Twitch streamer, you actually do some research before disparaging an initiative people have worked years on to create? Accursed Farms, aka Ross Scott, made that really easy for you. You can just watch a short video and be more informed; there is no excuse. I recommend "Giant FAQ on The European Initiative to Stop Destroying Games!" on Accursed Farms' channel.
The problem with criticizing the citizens initiative for being too vague is that this is how the process works. Your issue is with the process, not this initiative, specifically. Which is fine, but beyond the control of the SKG organizers.
Some of these points are addressed by Ross but you can check the citizens initiative website to compare it to other initiatives.
The initiative is not final law or anywhere close to it. Discussions on specifics come *after* getting the signatures and that’s assuming the EU doesn’t just throw it out.
The initiative has a word limit, most of which is dedicated to citing articles to show that it’s an issue the EU could even be able to address, leaving the organizers with even less room to communicate the issue and possible solutions.
The point of a citizens initiative is for citizens, not lawmakers, to raise an issue to their government. It is impossible and unexpected for them to lay out clear solutions. Again, this process comes later when the organizers actually speak to the EU - after getting said signatures.
I wish people criticizing it for being too vague would aim those criticisms at the initiative process, and not the SKG initiative specifically, because I believe they’re doing the best they can with the processes and tools available to them.
I didn't realize it was so limiting in what was being added to the initiatives text, I hope if it ends up moving further it addresses all the concerns with clarity on all the major points at hand. Even if it ends up being passed I expect we'll see a similar window to how we had GDPR compliance, which was around 2 years, before we see any kind of enforcement. I still think any passed legislation would be unlikely to be retroactive so any games locked out now won't be affected.
@@OujirouYT I agree, I expect grandfathering existing titles will be the most likely, and probably most reasonable outcome. Though I would LOVE to see existing live service games get end-of-life plans I think that’d be shooting for the moon
They try to drive smart YT dudes like you out the industry
Badass video.
Oujirou, I have a serious question for you. Why does every single modern video game have motion blur in it and it’s always, ALWAYS turned on? I don’t like it, none of my friends like it, and no video game reviewers on RUclips like it (where the most reliable game reviews come from these days). I know this because EVERYONE turns it off. I remember you saying that you are a game developer. So I am hoping you’ll be able to explain it to me. I know this question is a little off topic but I noticed that this video was the latest one that didn’t have a lot of comments on it. So I’m hoping that you actually read this one.
Thanks in advance,
A subscriber
Ps. Anyone else’s thoughts on the subject would also be appreciated.
I have yet to meet someone that plays games that keeps motion blur on, ever. It murders performance and makes it hard to see things. As to why it's on, that's almost always something that the stakeholders (usually investors) want to see. "Well your competitors are doing X, so we need to do X as well!" - and motion blur is something that is easy for them to see and feel like they have made a contribution.
Remember that most major investors don't play games at all, they only look at it from an investment standpoint. For most investments they need to follow a checklist, as time has gone on more things go on that checklist. It's why so many live service games come out - "But why doesn't this game have a battle pass? Your competitors are doing it and it can make a lot of money, so you need to do it too!" "They have motion blur, we need to have it!" "Where are your micro transactions?" Meanwhile the guy saying that is in his 70s, had a black and white TV growing up, and holds the average person in utter contempt for not being as rich & smart as they are.
If they even test the game within their studio, then they have builds without all of these gunk services involved as well. The player doesn't need any of that superfluous stuff to play the game they paid money for/in.
They don't care about your analytics phoning home, the matchmaking, your payment functions and all that. Someone's private server isn't going to be linked to some database of payment information, so why imply it is? It's totally OK for all of that to not work.
I think the industry will just have to consider end-of-life in future games. Despite these exaggerated knee-jerk reactions, this is a solvable problem and it will NOT kill live-service, it will just mean end-of-life will have to be a consideration in future games (as it always should have been). Planning that out in games made after 2026 or so is not going to be impossible for these massive companies or even indies. Let's stop pretending this is the apocalypse. The games industry was booming past rentals, used game sales, refunds and more.
It's not the apocalypse for games, just a conversation to be had. This isn't even an issue for most games out there, just a problem with the biggest publishers in the space being generally awful.
For the servers I just want people to be able to make and host their own private servers without threat of legal action by a publisher. The people that build those private servers aren't going to need to put some together some ultra-complex setup to get it running, most of the things big games "offer" are just roadblocks to make it so you have to pay for convenience.
I think the most of the best games we've ever had were single player, and a lot of games are being made live service instead because of badly run businesses. Not everything needs to try and make Hoyoverse levels of money, and because that's the starting goal for massive publishers the games end up being bad.
@@OujirouYT While I want private server authors to have that due freedom, it's worth noting that reverse engineering is hard, and getting harder all the time. They take measures to prevent understanding server packets, and most games simply won't have some (frankly insane) people willing to dedicate potentially years of their life to RE (while wishing they were doing other things). In the words of Ross, it's "like locking yourself in a garage with scrap metal and a blowtorch and not coming out until you've built a Ferrari".
We take for granted those who do that insane level of work, and also forget that the vast majority of games never get this treatment.
You are correct, there are a lot of games that run the risk of never having a private server setup with the current setup we have. I would hope that if legal protections are laid out we could see the possibility of non-profits or the like be founded where they can dedicate their time to preserving older games.
Wishful thinking, but a lot of developers like a good challenge, and I could totally see a number of really smart people I've worked with taking a pay cut to be part of something as important as preserving games for the future. I think games are one of, if not the, most impactful forms of entertainment out there.
It's absolutely worth figuring out a solution so we can protect a whole section of games dying because some publishers want to take a policy of scorched earth instead of caring for their consumers. Right now a publisher/developer has to be bankrupted or purchased to preserve the games for their consumers, and as far as I'm concerned if a developer hates their consumers so much I say let em go bankrupt and have someone that gives a damn buy the IP.
I want to see an open marketplace for digital goods on these consoles, and ownership keys.
Also a discount of at least 5% on digital games, day 1, until a marketplace is created.
You had me at “ I want “ 😂
I'll give you the pure player perspective. Ever heard the saying, "the customer is king"? We pay for the game, the servers, the salaries-the entire publisher and dev teams.
This is the most important point and should be the end of the discussion: developers and publishers simply don’t have the right to destroy what players have paid for. All this nitpicking without addressing this point is irrelevant.
Make your rational argument as to why dev and or publishers should have the right to destroy what the players payed for?
The industry's choice to build games in a way that makes it difficult for them to avoid destroying them should not be the consumer's problem to fix. There’s no legitimate security justification for this mishmash of unoptimized modules. In fact, the level of access that games demand under the guise of anti-piracy measures opens up attack vectors on user systems. Using these off-the-shelf modules only introduces additional security risks. With so many relying on the same modules, they become prime targets for exploitation. As a result, games that unnecessarily incorporate prebuilt Amazon modules are inherently more vulnerable than those that avoid these common, widely targeted components.
Players don't care if it’s called a license or what the TOS says-they care about getting screwed over by developers and publishers. What good does it do me if they clearly tell me they're screwing me over, when that becomes the de facto standard in the market?
Pretending this is some unfixable problem when even 95% of the games released right now don’t have this issue is beyond ludicrous.
You make a good point that a game you buy can break over time, and if there's DRM on it, it’s hard to make a backup copy. If a publisher is no longer selling a game, they should be legally required to release a free-to-download version with the DRM removed.
LSGs not being released in the EU because they have to implement an end-of-life plan is incredibly irrational. Even if it cost them $2 million to implement such a plan (which it wouldn't even come close to), are they really going to leave the $20 million they would make in the EU market on the table?
“Jason said so” isn’t an argument.
You claim so confidently that this would end LSGs in the EU, but you haven’t even thought about it for a second-all you do is parrot Jason. Give me a breakdown of the inhibiting costs; list them. You won't because it's nonsense.
And last but not least, what is your alternative to the SKG initiative? What are you doing to stop the deliberate destruction of video games? If you have nothing concrete but still claim to care about the preservation of video games, then link SKG in your description and tell people to support it, or admit that you don't really care about the preservation of video games.
To start out with, I would argue that currently developers and publishers do have a right to destroy what players paid for and that's a major issue that needs to be resolved. Most game developers don't want to dick over their players, and most game companies feel the same. The issue is primarily with the biggest publishers in the game space right now.
As an example, Activision put MW2 on sale because a mod was being built for it that drove a lot of interest. They happily took money from players that were buying it in anticipation only to send a Cease and Desist to the mod team the day before release. To these big publishers, they don't give two shits about the game or the player, they just care that money is coming in.
Also, I would say this is not an issue with probably 99% of games, the issue is that last little bit where the publisher is trying to not only trying to dick the customer out of the game, but they want to permanently lock them out of those games to force their users into their next live service game.
As for LSGs being disabled in the EU if SKG passes as is, right now there is no grace period to come into compliance with the law, or an enforcecment date, or a grandfathering policy to permit games to only worry about future games they are developing. This would lead companies running games there to either shut them down or stay active while being in violation of EU law. I don't think any company is going to want to willingly violate the law, though I may be wrong as I'm not a lawyer or live in the EU. I would ultimately leave it to legal experts that are familiar with EU consumer laws on how companies might react in such a situation.
It is up to the EU and its citizenry too decide if SKG is to pass or not, but I won't support anything that's vague as I fear when it is further defined it will have lobbyists and special interest groups corrupt the core purpose of the initiative. I don't have a concrete alternative, because I think SKG is an excellent starting point to talk about what we want to put into place so we can prevent companies from killing off games people put so much time, love, and energy into so they can force their users into the next cash grab.
This isn't a race, it's a marathon, so I think it's best that we all keep talking about it, keeping an open mind, and deciding what we collectively want to have in place. If enough consumers AND developers come together with concrete asks it's going to be hard for the shit lords at Activision or Ubisoft to make the issue go away.
@@OujirouYT I asked, 'Should' publishers and developers have the right to destroy what players paid for?
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
I have yet to see any of you Jason fans make an alternative proposal. You say, “I don’t like how vague SKG is about this,” but you didn’t bother to watch the giant FAQ video Accursed Farms made, and you have no alternative solution.
“This would lead companies running games to either shut them down or stay active while being in violation of EU law.”
First, it’s apparent that you didn’t bother to look into SKG and are just parroting Jason’s talking points. Secondly, to believe that companies wouldn’t spend a month of work to comply with a billion-dollar market is completely detached from reality.
“I fear when it is further defined it will have lobbyists and special interest groups corrupt the core purpose of the initiative.”
Again, you’re repeating Jason’s mindless talking points. What could possibly happen that’s worse than the deliberate destruction of games people bought and enjoy playing?
"If enough consumers AND developers come together with concrete demands, it’s going to be hard for the powers that be at Activision or Ubisoft to make the issue go away."
No actual proposal, just “let’s talk about it.” I don’t blame you for being lazier than Ross Scott and not spearheading a movement to stop the deliberate destruction of video games, but you’re not even willing to put your thinking cap on and look at what SKG is about.
You either don’t care about the preservation of video games because you personally don’t care, or believing in Jason as an authority figure takes priority for you.
I have read the text in the EU petition as it is written and come to my conclusions on my own. You are making an assumption that because I come to similar conclusions as piratesoftware that I am simply following whatever he says.
When you put up a proposal, a voter initiate, or a constitutional amendment (California had a lot of those while I lived there) you read the text that is to be added to law. I don't recall if I watched his FAQ video, because I read the text which is what people are signing, and ultimately this is an EU matter.
"to believe that companies wouldn’t spend a month of work to comply with a billion-dollar market" - I can tell from what you have written here that you haven't worked in software development, or at least haven't worked in development at a large scale company. This isn't a simple, "Just write code for a month and it's good!" solution, depending on the game and how it is architected, changed could range from a quarter to a full year to fall into compliance with a change in law.
And even then, per the text of the initiative there's no clear "Do X to comply" with this petition, because it's vague. It invokes various EU consumer protections laws to solve a problem, but has no time table.
The closest example I can give you is when the EU required GDPR compliance with allowing EU citizens to force companies to delete their data when they requested it. Companies were given 2 years to come into compliance with this law, and as someone who was a developer at the time I can say that this was a tall ask for some companies with how they stored their data.
As someone that learned about the SKG initiate about a week ago, I don't have concrete answers for what should be done because that's not a reasonable request. I talked about some sections I think would be good for us to have in the US, that is the starting point I have so far that I think would be good for here in the US. To come to the conclusion that someone not immediately agreeing with SKG and saying, "We should make more concrete requests" means that an individual doesn't care about preserving games and doesn't care is absurd.
@@OujirouYT I'll ask you again to really think about where you actually stand. Should publishers and developers have the right to destroy what players paid for?
"You are making an assumption that because I come to similar conclusions as PirateSoftware, I am simply following whatever he says."
Do you think I was born yesterday? Literally one of the very first things you bring up is Jason Hall's misinformation videos, and you repeat the misinformation contained within them.
"As someone who learned about the SKG initiative about a week ago, I don't have concrete answers for what should be done because that's not a reasonable request."
But you do feel it's reasonable to make a disparaging video against an initiative you didn't even bother looking into? An initiative that multiple people, including actual devs and publishers, have spent years of their lives working on, and you make a video simply boosting a famous internet grifter like Jason Hall, who is lying about it?
Jason Hall's 20 years in the industry include making furry art, QA testing, and being a server mod. His actual experience as a dev is one very basic bullet-hell game and an EarthBound clone that has been stuck in development for 8 years.
Pretty much the opposite of an actual authority in the field.
By the way, the SKG initiative has the full support of actual dev veterans with 30 years as developers, actual developers making successful games that sell millions of copies and are now cult classics-not Twitch streamers creating motivational videos that constantly make excuses why their game isn't finished yet.
If you don't oppose developers and publishers having the right to destroy what players paid for, then simply say that game preservation and consumer rights is not something you really care about. That is an okay position to have.
But making a video claiming you care about it and not even looking into the only large initiative ever to try and stop deliberate game destruction makes you look dishonest and foolish.
I did not address most of your points because they don't apply to SKG, and DaGrox94's comment already showed you how you didn't understand what an EU initiative is.
How about instead of parroting some Twitch streamer, you actually do some research before disparaging an initiative people have worked years on to create?
Accursed Farms, aka Ross Scott, made that really easy for you. You can just watch a short video and be more informed; there is no excuse. I recommend "Giant FAQ on The European Initiative to Stop Destroying Games!" on Accursed Farms' channel.