the goverment is there so they can control poeple on what they do keep the rich richer just a small thing before corona most poeple didnt know about lgbtq and after corona its plastered evrey where btw not hating on lgbtq
PirateSoftware's take was really fucking dumb. I was embarrassed for him. For him to take issue with Accursed_Farms tone and words about how politicians want easy wins and this initiative looks like an easy win for them to break down all forms of dialogue with Accursed_Farms lost me any respect I would've had, had he disagreed more cordially offering his opinion instead of acting like big man baby.
(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)
well Heartbound, Thor's game, has Said achievements are used as a piracy measure. Said that the initiative by Accursed Farms goes into an established law, and now Thor has to be able to be support his partially online game offline, once the server on Steam stops supporting his backend. You can see how his piracy measure is compromised.
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.
Government interference isn't necessarily a bad thing. Remember that auto manufacturers were vehemently against the addition of seatbelts to their cars as standard equipment because it raises costs. The government stepped in and now it's mandatory. But you can *still find cars that don't have them equipped!* Cars didn't disappear because of the law. Neither will games. In fact, the proliferation of games that you can play however you want will actually get better. As long as the store buttons say "purchase" and not "lease" or "rent" that's misleading if the publisher can revoke my ability to play because they don't support the game anymore. Thor wants to go with half measures because he knows that won't work. Because he has a stake in it now, skin in the game, because he works for a publisher. You can say I'm purchasing the license, but if you can take that license away, it was never mine and therefore not a purchase. Thor can, for the purposes of this petition, get fucked.
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:"
wdym, he always advocates for better work enviroments for AAA devs, and is extremely supportive of indie games, telling people to make videogames, he comes off as "corporate" because indie developers shoud KNOW THEIR WORTH and not sell the games they work so much to finish at 2 dollars
@@HERTZZBR Making your games cheap or free is actually based because people will pirate them anyways. You'd might as well help them out by letting them have the game for free while also avoiding them possibly getting a virus for wanting to play it.
@TotallyNotaBunchofCats You're wrong about everything in this video. Completely misrepresented him and didn't even mention the real points Thor made. You just made a rage bait video for your followers to jerk to.
Ppl really need to start pointing out the fact that PirateSoftware is a Nepo baby, and treat his takes as such. He graduated from college in 2009 and got a job straight into Blizzard to work on the sequel to their 2nd most important IP. That literally only happens if your dad works at Blizzard.
Hot take: If Ross's campaign would kill off live-service games? So much the better. Live-service games are predatory and parasitic, and I will not mourn their loss.
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.
@@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
I know you IRL and seeing this on my RUclips feed was wild. Additionally 100% agree, all these companies would have to do at EOL is provide the sever files and un hard-code the connection. And if I'm gonna be honest I miss browsing public servers.
What I find most baffling is how this "game-dev" (Thor) does not understand how you can put "server-logic" into a client. There are tons of games that has a "create server" option made directly into the game...
Hobby game dev here: There are reasons why server logic is not included with clients in some games, especially always online games. Some servers are built around certain tools like docker, which is somewhat difficult to install on client's computers. On windows specifically, Docker needs WSL (Windows subsystem for linux), which most users don't have set up. There's also the reason that the devs or company does not want any alternative servers to their game and including it with the client would let you do that. Those reasons are mostly for games like battle royales or MMOs where you have a ton of people in the same server. This does not excuse the fact that a server download should be available anyways, alongside the ability to actually join those servers without a modified client. For games with lower max player counts, it makes a lot more sense to embed the server into the client, as the average player could A. Actually fill those servers and B. The average player's PC won't die when doing so. A prime example of this is TF2, where the player count on a regular server was 24, until recently when they updated the max player count to 100, which needed one of the best cpus (Ryzen 7800x3D) and tons of optimizations to run without crashing.
This really isn't the case of a "game-dev" not understanding this. This is YOU not understanding this and going full dunning kruger effect. The amount of nuance to this issue couldn't fit in a bible long RUclips comment. What you are saying is the networking equivalent of the " Game dev isnt hard, just press the make game button" guy.
As a gamers we should think less about developers and more about signing this thing. Once we have signatures, EU will do the thinking about developers. We just need to share it as much as we can and take care we get million signatures as required.
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.
11:54 Solid video overall and I will nitpick this one point: it's very difficult to undo government overreach. This is the one point where I agree with Thor - once government gets involved in a bad way, it's very difficult to stop that juggernaut of bureaucracy. Private businesses can go out of business if they mess things up too much, but government is guaranteed to be funded by taxes regardless of how disastrous their policies are, and many will just borrow money into oblivion rather than fix their mistakes. With that being said, Thor is acting like signing the petition means citizens will have no further input and be barred from the legislative process once it passes. I highly doubt that's the case. From my understanding, the initiative just requires an official "yes, we'll look into it" or "no, we won't bother trying to address this" from the EU representatives. If they opt to "look into it", then I imagine there should be plenty of time and opportunity to consult the representatives and push them towards the proper wording.
I totally agree its purposely hard to undo gov stuff. It definitely it weaker part of my argument especially since I like in the US, so i cant get personally involved with my reps. Thanks for your feedback!!
Part of the problem is that Thor is looking at this from an American perspective, and it's a very American perspective to be skeptical of one's government, particularly when it comes to crafting intelligent legislation. The other part of the problem is that he's looking at this strictly in the context of a game dev, which isn't all that surprising. You should see him actually play video games: he plays them from the perspective of a game developer too, meaning he tends to miss intuitive functionality and doesn't make any attempt to experiment, leading to such hilarity as taking over half his playthrough of Tunic to figure out how to run, despite having unlocked the manual page for that function like four minutes in.
@@pyrioncelendil To be fair, it's much more difficult to concentrate and figure things out while streaming. Tunic is difficult enough to figure out without that added burden. Someone on reddit said that they completed the game without the shield because they never found it.
There's such a big difference between a racing game that featured online play, where you could even race against bots, that gets sunset without any means to play offline, and an MMO. I do not expect my MMO accounts to remain in service forever. An MMO for me is the account, and even with private servers existing from reverse-engineering the packet traffic going to and from the live servers, if I was still playing WoW and Blizzard ended its service, those private servers don't matter to me. All my progress was on the official service. I think it's great there are private servers in existence if the Blizzard services was ended however, and it goes to show that there will be talented players that will reverse-engineer and create online capabilities for games that long-since has stopped having support from the publisher/developer. This happens time and time again. Old games gets multiplayer added back, even sometimes added in games that never featured multiplayer originally. I don't expect a publisher/developer to keep a server running forever when it's financially not viable to do so anymore. I don't expect them to provide the source code for their product when they decide to end the service. But I sure expect a "if (no server) remain playable" part of the code where it will at least leave gameplay that makes sense for offline play, playable. If there are already bots to go up against, there is no reason it should require online play. If it can have a P2P sunset code made in advance, where there are no longer official servers but you can connect to friends that host like in the good old days of only a few years ago, why not add that in as you sunset your live service. The packet traffic should be largely the same, except it'll go to a client that plays and hosts the game, not a server. That code can be kept under wraps until the end of service, then you release the patch that allows for peer to peer gameplay. Or you can let enthusiasts figure out the netcode themselves and not go after them if they manage to create functioning servers for a game you no longer support. I also find it worrying how in example Ubisoft wants to make every game live service. Single player games are now "live service" and "always online". If we don't get any sort of guidelines for selling such products to consumers, we'll see more and more games suddenly stop being playable as the publisher decides its no longer viable financially to keep the service running, with the latter being understandable of course. I mean, I am fine with the proposed rule being that they are not allowed to sell such "live service" games with the text "Buy" at all, and they are required by law to make the button for a monetary transaction say "Rent" or otherwise a descriptive word that indicates that you are not owning what you are spending money on. That will have a good chance of sorting it out on its own if enough players avoid renting said games because they want to own what they spend money on and know that they can fire that game up 10-15 years down the line when nostalgia kicks in and they want to play some good old "classics". Money talks. That may very well be "the death of live service" as PirateSoftware put it, as effectively as any other regulatory action. If live service games for rent don't sell, publishers will make sure to develop products that can be sold with that "Buy" button again. If enough gamers don't care and are fine with renting, well then there's no problem for the publishers and the rest of us who don't want to rent will have less games we buy and play.
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.
like it or not you are NOT buying a product, you are buying a license to use a product. Not sure how people are baffled by this as its been around in media for a very long time. Just like movie DVDs and music CDs...Business practices have changed a bit over the years due to how the internet has changed but overall it still stands that you ONLY purchase a license. When it comes to video games, if you want `ownership` then just buy physical otherwise you are at the mercy of the distributor ( Steam, PSN, Xbox )
At 2:00 on PirateSoftwares video he stays "This initiative doesn't work for ALL games..." and uses live service games as an example as to why Stop Killing Video games is stupid. Moreover, the game that sparked the controversy was The Crew which is a 10 year old game known as an online only game. You knew what you were in for. You are rage baiting with this video and the people agreeing with you know just as much if not less about the situation as you do. You're wrong in every sense with this video. He may be a developer, but that makes him more qualified to speak on this than someone like you who misrepresents facts with emotional appeal. You. Are. Wrong.
Yeah, it's important to remember that Thor's protecting his material interests as a game developer who earns a living off of IP, which means at a certain point his interests are contrary to the interests of players, no matter how well-meaning he may be up to that point. He does seem to hyper-focus on MMOs, with one of his arguments being MMOs operate in a mode where preservation is not technologically feasible, which could be a reasonable argument. (He does also make an argument about who gets to profit off it, which is illuminating on how IP is effectively landlording, where mere ownership is profitable, not work.) However, because his material interests are in the ability for game developers and publishers to withhold their works (as markets only exist in the existence of scarcity, artificial or otherwise), there is an incentive for him to extrapolate his hyper-focus on MMOs into denigrating the game preservation movement as a whole. If games are preserved, there is no scarcity, and with no scarcity, there's no money.
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
@@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)
PirateSoftware always sides with the corporations and everybody mobs behind him. He talks as if he's being paid off by lobbyists, and it's disgusting and I've stopped watching his videos. I've never seen anyone buddy up so hard with large corporations ripping off their customers. Easily my least respected gamedev youtuber.
I'm here to explain my points, hot takes and all. I'm likely not going to respond to his second video. I find it to be even more incredulous, corporate espionage go burrrr.
@@aHedgerowFrog oh no. Should I need footage again would you say to not use the text based game? Its a slay the princess a very good game. My point is a rebuttal to Thors first video. I want there to be some guide rails that keep as many video games as possible functioning. I also find Thors core argument (call out/ stop companies from selling you licenses instead of the game) a strange criticism of the proposal. I'd gladly chat more about specific points he or I have.
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats Its nice to have some more visual, here its more likely to try to keep up with the text story😁. I just saw Ross's video and got some more context. I am very interested in where this will go and maybe "any publicity..." is good in this case.
"Printers" was a bad example. Printer companies have been doing the planned obsolescence thing for years. I also wish games could all be archived in a playable state, but I also understand that could be an immense amount of work in some cases, and there would be a not insignificant extra cost. High development costs means less profit for the studio, higher prices for consumers, and more independent studios just outright failing. It sucks, but I kinda agree with Thor on this one, just out of practicality.
Funny you say that, most indie developers usually publish tools to host your own servers for free (it also makes sense as an indie to do that because if your community hosts servers that means you don't have to waste resources doing it yourself), it is usually AAA developers the ones who require you to connect to a modher server in order to play.
I used printers because they already fuck you about. I'm not sure if anything is a good example since games are an intangible (infinite) medium. I think retrofitting games to comply would absolutely suck but making future games be easy to EOL thats just another checkbox. (also his whole they would do corporate espionage thing I think is more telling than his other arguments)
@@elisehalflight connecting to a server purely to play is absolute garbage that needs to go, there’s no excuse for it, especially in single player or even peer to peer multiplayer games. The comparison of a true live service game to an indie game isn’t really fair though. Eg self-hosting (and the dev work for) say a Minecraft server is not the same as the dev work needed to create self hostable version of a game largely built around client/server interactions such as FFXIV which has been going for 10+ years. Even beyond the server work, core elements would need to be overhauled to allow a SP experience as major elements of the game require forming parties as well as mechanics within the fights that revolve around multiple people (and even parties). Even if you do all of that, it’s not preserving a game or the experience, it’s creating a new one no one asked for.
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCatsIt's a bit more than a checkbox. It would have to be implemented differently to "run at home", as these services are built to use giant databases and be massively scalable. The point about data mining is also pretty valid. They could release a "clean" version, but that would be more work/cost to make also.
as someone who HAS seen thor's short that was mostly about how offensive security specialists work(i think it was about employee training so they don't answer questions they shouldn't because hack?), he has a ton of one sided beef with the government. he's also paranoid af. and contrary to the "wise man" aura he gives off, he isn't the smartest tool in the box. he might be pro game preservation, but he's also not letting the government handle it.
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.
oh no the industry plant whose whole career exists thanks to nepotism tries to protect corpo's interests. What a surprise. Seriously, I could never understand why anyone would listen to and take this guy seriously. If a person starts every argument with "I have 20 years of experience", you know they are not an expert if they still need validation after so long.
Owning games in this day and age…isn’t real. They are all licenses TO PLAY. That’s what you get with digital libraries. You want to change that - only buy physical. Or mix and match, like I’ve done. DRM SUCKS. I’m split 50/50 on the topic. I agree with Thor. I also agree with everyone else. It’s a tough topic. Live service games should die off. Me being a destiny 1 & 2 player…I understand that means I won’t be able to play the game anymore. Will I accept that my $15,000 I have sunk into the game is gone in a flash. Yes. I accept that. 😢 Does that make it acceptable? No. Is that the right thing to do for everyone who plays? also no. Do I think all live service games are bad? No..not at all. Remember: this is in the EU. Not the US. Anyone’s opinion on the topic who resides in the US…is completely invalid. Including mine. And including Thor’s. And most likely most of you reading.
A couple of things, but first it is great to see you engaged with your comments showing that you care about this discussion. I do have some issues with the video and bellow you can see timestamps of your arguments. 4:35-4:58 The opening of Pirate Software's video is not manipulation and fear mongering With this being a hot issue It is smart to open with an introduction of who you are and why you are doing this as he has done on both of his Apex Legends Vulnerabilities videos and his video showing that anyone can make good games and encouraging them to do so. It is not manipulation it is an intro of who he is. Saying that he does this "so our medium doesn't die out and it never will. That's the whole intention of all of this." (0:31-0:37 of "Stop Killing Games" Pirate Software) It's not fear mongering saying that it never will die out is not causing any fear. Saying that this law "can't kill video games and neither can Pirate Software" is a little off. This proposal if enacted into law with no changes will kill any video game that requires a connection to a publisher/developer server due to how vague the proposal is. Claiming his reactions seem off the cuff is a blatant misread of his video. Everything he is discussing is already pulled up in the browser including evidence for a later point of how as sequels of the game come out the player base of the original diminishes. 6:39-6:50 The proposal is Vague The proposal is vague due to the fact that the only instruction is to leave the game in a "playable state". Later on in the video you mention EA shutting down Darkspore. The publisher can argue that the game is in a "playable state" because or the community GitHub that allows access to play the game. What about GTA5 when they shutdown the online servers will the game be in a "playable state" with only the single player accessible. One can argue that Cyberpunk 2077 was in a "playable state" at launch but its in a much better "playable state" when the DLC Launched. Playable is subjective and lacking a clear definition leaves it open to interpretation. 7:38-8:00 The printer analogy For a live service game using the analogy of a physical good is apples to oranges. They are a service paying for World of Warcraft isn't paying for the game it's paying for access to the server. Paying for The Crew isn't buying the game it was paying for access to the server. Paying someone to mow my lawn isn't me buying them it is paying for their service. My printer has a service where I can send a document to an email address and it automatically prints it. I pay for that service upfront included in the cost of that printer. There will come a day where that service no longer works it is ridiculous to try to legislate that the printer company has to create a toolkit for me to host my own server to do that. 8:30-8:40 There is no allusion Claiming that "he alludes to this problem about lying or being mislead as to what you are actually buying." is just wrong, he says it explicitly. "A player should be well informed at the point of purchase that they are purchasing a license, not buying a game"(13:12-13:17 of "Stop Killing Games" Pirate Software) 9:58-10:05 He is not arguing that saving games is bad At no point in "Stop Killing Games" does Pirate Software say that saving games is bad the title of the video kind of says what he wants to happen. In fact he says the opposite in his video, "If it is a single player experience that has online only functionality specifically just to shut down the game in the future, and the online only doesn't actually add any gameplay functionality. I'd agree with you that's a shitty business practice." (5:35-5:46 "Stop Killing Games" Pirate Software).
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
I think the crux of it is this: We're the gamers, the consumers of the product. We want rights regarding our purchases. Let's maybe not forget piratesoftware is a developer. A maker of said products. The consumers want protection against developers and publishers. You gotta expect the very target of this kind of movement will have objections against it. This is the order of things.
It's not about preserving games period. It's about not taking away games that were bought by consumer. If game is a service, then publisher should not have been cheating consumers by selling it as a product. We don't buy TV channels on DVD/BR, are we? We buy subsriptions. That's it.
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!
I'm sorry. I lost you at "let's just unmake the law". This is such a childish take. I might not completely agree with Thor, but he has a valid point. You not so much.
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? 😅
@@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.
Soh... How many here (including you totaly) thinks Thor said "We dont want any regulation" ? Because if thats what you heard from other people telling you to picket him, you have not paid attention to him. He has issues with the spesifics of this wording, because he knows its gonna end up being interpeted by 60+ year olds with no idea what is going on, and THAT will ruin a lot of things that it was not intended to be affecting. I have not heard him not willing to chat with the initiative, but so far most people are behaving like in this comment field, just throwing out accusations against him that has no footing in reality and he refuse to engage with people like that. You yourself are even going full conspiratory "He is a game publisher ergo he wants to hinder this because it will stop him". He has adressed this several times. His games as far as i know are not online live services? And if he wanted money he would keep doing his old job, hacking powerplants for the goverment. He worked something like 10-20 weeks a year and earned more than most people do for a full year.
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 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. :)
4:40 thats not textbook fear mongering, thats just textbook rhetoric--establish ethos with his bona-fides (credibility, the idea of why i should listen to Thor about this) and then establish pathos with "i dont want games to stop being made" (pathos is the emotion that the listener is supposed to feel, the idea of why should i care about this in the first place) fear mongering would be Thor saying the industry is actively dying and that his ideas are the solution. Compare how Thor opens this conversation up with how literally any political rally or debate speech opens up and you'll see real fear mongering. You also immediately say that you don't believe in his credibility. Maybe you don't but you hold that point back until you've started to pry open his points. by saying this right off the cuff, you are immediately saying "don't believe what this guy says", whether or not its intentional. finally, having not heard his specific takes on this, i would've greatly appreciated more context. you can't just say "heres what i took away" without showing/linking/clipping out where you took that away from. otherwise very solid video from someone with only 35 subs (i am now one of them lol). good editing, good voice over, keep it up.
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.
@@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.
Boiling down Thors take to saving games is bad demonstrates a bad faith engagement with what his arguments are. Thor Clearly pro game preservation, but he also has a more nuanced take then every game can and must be preserved not matter the cost. He is offering the developer perspective to the conversation, which is an extremely important one if you actually care about this issue.
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.
This Totally Not a Bunch of Cats video is creating a gross misunderstanding of Pirate Software. Pirate Software is not against the idea of planned obsolescence for games, or a corporation radical. If you actually watch his video, he explains that the language in the initiative can be damaging to the games industry as a whole if it is initiated into law as is due to being vaguely worded. I totally agree. If this initiative goes forward as written, and becomes law, this would dissuade developers from creating online multiplayer games, or prevent EU as a whole from having access to online games because devs would rather not have to deal with the law at all. This law would mean devs have the choice to maintain servers for the game forever, or entirely reverse engineer the game from the ground up for their dwindling audience costing almost as much as it did to create the game. This is a lose-lose scenario for devs, and especially indie devs. The initiative should be solely focused on "always online games."
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.
If you are going to act like you're paraphrasing someone, just clip them and respond. You did that with the first clip but nothing further? You're going quickly because you don't have anything to support your end. Your logic falls short when you rush it like you tried saying he does.
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.
4:00 I'm not sure I understand where he is arguing against "Stop Killing Games". A company making a tournament for their game that is in an offline functionality makes sense when EVERYONE IS IN THE SAME ROOM. It's called a LAN party these days. That isn't the same as making it playable from a distance offline. That requires internet. Frankly, YOU don't seem qualified to argue any of this. You play games, not make them.
What you are asking for is the death of live service games. No one will ever make another one. What you are asking for, is, you have to continue paying insurance and registration on your shitbox car in your backyard that doesn't work anymore, that no one uses, despite it being off the road.
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)
The publisher sells the consumer a limited license, which allows the publisher to do many things, including disabling the game. I don't understand the argument for disallowing this practice.
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.
?? 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.
Games are where my friends are, where I spend money and where my career lies. This is important to me. Why should the things I buy be worth less than the things others buy? Picture a printer. What if your printer was EOLed every 5 years because the server it connects too was taken down?
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats printer is an interesting comparison to make because of the prohibitive expense of ink. 8/10 times you run out of ink, that printer has been EOLed already, not because of functionality, but because its just likely to be cheaper to buy a whole new damn printer (also HP totally does this, but by forcing you to buy their brand of ink, they will literally just turn it off if you try to use third party ink)]
Forcing companies to provide server code to continue running the game is a bad idea. The way the petition is written could kill live-service games entirely. Pirate software isn't defending the practice of discontinuing games, but rather the saying the wording of the proposal put forward is short-sighted and won't have the intended outcomes.
Here is what I think is telling about his opinion. He doesnt have a solution. He just has complaints. Server code is given out by tons of games. (Minecraft,TF2, 7 days to die) Lets be real live service games make tons (billions/10^9) of money when they go big. When it's time to kill them. There will not be many players. I do not see how this matters. When there is not enough money to keep the lights on what are they protecting? (they still have their ip so its not that). Also Thor was not always a developer, he was catching cheaters and hackers.
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats The big ones do, not ones by smaller studios. This law will make it so ONLY the big players can take that risk. Just because some games are architected in a way to release the server code doesn't mean all are.
@@SpicyPete Why should the government decide that murder is illegal? The answer to this question is the same as the answer to "Why should the government decide that live service games need to go?"
You know, all your stuff falls because you NEVER buy a game... it is NEVER your, you buy a LICENSE for the game itself. Like any other softwares and apps... Most people fails to understand this.
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.
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
If the government isn't making laws by the people for the people, then what the fuck is a government for?
Protecting business owners and financiers.
Keeping the richer half of the population rich
Maintaining monopoly and racketeering the population
the goverment is there so they can control poeple on what they do keep the rich richer just a small thing before corona most poeple didnt know about lgbtq and after corona its plastered evrey where btw not hating on lgbtq
for the rich and companies
PirateSoftware's take was really fucking dumb. I was embarrassed for him. For him to take issue with Accursed_Farms tone and words about how politicians want easy wins and this initiative looks like an easy win for them to break down all forms of dialogue with Accursed_Farms lost me any respect I would've had, had he disagreed more cordially offering his opinion instead of acting like big man baby.
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)
well Heartbound, Thor's game, has Said achievements are used as a piracy measure. Said that the initiative by Accursed Farms goes into an established law, and now Thor has to be able to be support his partially online game offline, once the server on Steam stops supporting his backend. You can see how his piracy measure is compromised.
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.
Government interference isn't necessarily a bad thing. Remember that auto manufacturers were vehemently against the addition of seatbelts to their cars as standard equipment because it raises costs. The government stepped in and now it's mandatory. But you can *still find cars that don't have them equipped!* Cars didn't disappear because of the law. Neither will games. In fact, the proliferation of games that you can play however you want will actually get better.
As long as the store buttons say "purchase" and not "lease" or "rent" that's misleading if the publisher can revoke my ability to play because they don't support the game anymore. Thor wants to go with half measures because he knows that won't work. Because he has a stake in it now, skin in the game, because he works for a publisher. You can say I'm purchasing the license, but if you can take that license away, it was never mine and therefore not a purchase.
Thor can, for the purposes of this petition, get fucked.
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:"
Ironic the dude has a company called Pirate Software, while being corporate as f***, as he said the mentality of nu-Blizzard and Amazon studios.
Yeah feels like a strange mentality. (If youre wondering I have cats!)
He comes off the same way as Dave the Diver, trying way too hard to seem indie but everyone knows that's not the case
wdym, he always advocates for better work enviroments for AAA devs, and is extremely supportive of indie games, telling people to make videogames, he comes off as "corporate" because indie developers shoud KNOW THEIR WORTH and not sell the games they work so much to finish at 2 dollars
@@HERTZZBR Making your games cheap or free is actually based because people will pirate them anyways. You'd might as well help them out by letting them have the game for free while also avoiding them possibly getting a virus for wanting to play it.
@TotallyNotaBunchofCats You're wrong about everything in this video. Completely misrepresented him and didn't even mention the real points Thor made. You just made a rage bait video for your followers to jerk to.
Ppl really need to start pointing out the fact that PirateSoftware is a Nepo baby, and treat his takes as such. He graduated from college in 2009 and got a job straight into Blizzard to work on the sequel to their 2nd most important IP. That literally only happens if your dad works at Blizzard.
Hot take: If Ross's campaign would kill off live-service games? So much the better. Live-service games are predatory and parasitic, and I will not mourn their loss.
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
I know you IRL and seeing this on my RUclips feed was wild.
Additionally 100% agree, all these companies would have to do at EOL is provide the sever files and un hard-code the connection. And if I'm gonna be honest I miss browsing public servers.
YOOOOOOOOOOO ITS MY BOIIIII. How long did it take you to figure it out (that is was me)? We should chat up text me.
11:20
"We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us."
that could be a proverb or is!
What I find most baffling is how this "game-dev" (Thor) does not understand how you can put "server-logic" into a client.
There are tons of games that has a "create server" option made directly into the game...
Hobby game dev here: There are reasons why server logic is not included with clients in some games, especially always online games. Some servers are built around certain tools like docker, which is somewhat difficult to install on client's computers. On windows specifically, Docker needs WSL (Windows subsystem for linux), which most users don't have set up. There's also the reason that the devs or company does not want any alternative servers to their game and including it with the client would let you do that.
Those reasons are mostly for games like battle royales or MMOs where you have a ton of people in the same server. This does not excuse the fact that a server download should be available anyways, alongside the ability to actually join those servers without a modified client.
For games with lower max player counts, it makes a lot more sense to embed the server into the client, as the average player could A. Actually fill those servers and B. The average player's PC won't die when doing so. A prime example of this is TF2, where the player count on a regular server was 24, until recently when they updated the max player count to 100, which needed one of the best cpus (Ryzen 7800x3D) and tons of optimizations to run without crashing.
This really isn't the case of a "game-dev" not understanding this. This is YOU not understanding this and going full dunning kruger effect. The amount of nuance to this issue couldn't fit in a bible long RUclips comment. What you are saying is the networking equivalent of the " Game dev isnt hard, just press the make game button" guy.
@@zekenebel I am not saying it is not hard to make it.
@@XDRosenheim no but ur condescending someone who has a backlog of experience that you urself don’t.
you know I thought he was talking about Thor and not me....tiz a silly place.
As a gamers we should think less about developers and more about signing this thing. Once we have signatures, EU will do the thinking about developers. We just need to share it as much as we can and take care we get million signatures as required.
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.
11:54 Solid video overall and I will nitpick this one point: it's very difficult to undo government overreach. This is the one point where I agree with Thor - once government gets involved in a bad way, it's very difficult to stop that juggernaut of bureaucracy. Private businesses can go out of business if they mess things up too much, but government is guaranteed to be funded by taxes regardless of how disastrous their policies are, and many will just borrow money into oblivion rather than fix their mistakes.
With that being said, Thor is acting like signing the petition means citizens will have no further input and be barred from the legislative process once it passes. I highly doubt that's the case. From my understanding, the initiative just requires an official "yes, we'll look into it" or "no, we won't bother trying to address this" from the EU representatives. If they opt to "look into it", then I imagine there should be plenty of time and opportunity to consult the representatives and push them towards the proper wording.
I totally agree its purposely hard to undo gov stuff. It definitely it weaker part of my argument especially since I like in the US, so i cant get personally involved with my reps. Thanks for your feedback!!
Part of the problem is that Thor is looking at this from an American perspective, and it's a very American perspective to be skeptical of one's government, particularly when it comes to crafting intelligent legislation. The other part of the problem is that he's looking at this strictly in the context of a game dev, which isn't all that surprising. You should see him actually play video games: he plays them from the perspective of a game developer too, meaning he tends to miss intuitive functionality and doesn't make any attempt to experiment, leading to such hilarity as taking over half his playthrough of Tunic to figure out how to run, despite having unlocked the manual page for that function like four minutes in.
@@pyrioncelendil thats crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not going to say I haven't missed obvious shit tho...
@@pyrioncelendil To be fair, it's much more difficult to concentrate and figure things out while streaming. Tunic is difficult enough to figure out without that added burden. Someone on reddit said that they completed the game without the shield because they never found it.
Thor could've kept Maldavius Figtree on the down-low if he didn't repeatedly post cringe
There's such a big difference between a racing game that featured online play, where you could even race against bots, that gets sunset without any means to play offline, and an MMO. I do not expect my MMO accounts to remain in service forever. An MMO for me is the account, and even with private servers existing from reverse-engineering the packet traffic going to and from the live servers, if I was still playing WoW and Blizzard ended its service, those private servers don't matter to me. All my progress was on the official service. I think it's great there are private servers in existence if the Blizzard services was ended however, and it goes to show that there will be talented players that will reverse-engineer and create online capabilities for games that long-since has stopped having support from the publisher/developer. This happens time and time again. Old games gets multiplayer added back, even sometimes added in games that never featured multiplayer originally.
I don't expect a publisher/developer to keep a server running forever when it's financially not viable to do so anymore. I don't expect them to provide the source code for their product when they decide to end the service. But I sure expect a "if (no server) remain playable" part of the code where it will at least leave gameplay that makes sense for offline play, playable. If there are already bots to go up against, there is no reason it should require online play. If it can have a P2P sunset code made in advance, where there are no longer official servers but you can connect to friends that host like in the good old days of only a few years ago, why not add that in as you sunset your live service. The packet traffic should be largely the same, except it'll go to a client that plays and hosts the game, not a server. That code can be kept under wraps until the end of service, then you release the patch that allows for peer to peer gameplay. Or you can let enthusiasts figure out the netcode themselves and not go after them if they manage to create functioning servers for a game you no longer support.
I also find it worrying how in example Ubisoft wants to make every game live service. Single player games are now "live service" and "always online". If we don't get any sort of guidelines for selling such products to consumers, we'll see more and more games suddenly stop being playable as the publisher decides its no longer viable financially to keep the service running, with the latter being understandable of course. I mean, I am fine with the proposed rule being that they are not allowed to sell such "live service" games with the text "Buy" at all, and they are required by law to make the button for a monetary transaction say "Rent" or otherwise a descriptive word that indicates that you are not owning what you are spending money on. That will have a good chance of sorting it out on its own if enough players avoid renting said games because they want to own what they spend money on and know that they can fire that game up 10-15 years down the line when nostalgia kicks in and they want to play some good old "classics". Money talks. That may very well be "the death of live service" as PirateSoftware put it, as effectively as any other regulatory action. If live service games for rent don't sell, publishers will make sure to develop products that can be sold with that "Buy" button again. If enough gamers don't care and are fine with renting, well then there's no problem for the publishers and the rest of us who don't want to rent will have less games we buy and play.
"This will not be a drama channel"
- Proceeds to be a drama channel.
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!
like it or not you are NOT buying a product, you are buying a license to use a product. Not sure how people are baffled by this as its been around in media for a very long time. Just like movie DVDs and music CDs...Business practices have changed a bit over the years due to how the internet has changed but overall it still stands that you ONLY purchase a license. When it comes to video games, if you want `ownership` then just buy physical otherwise you are at the mercy of the distributor ( Steam, PSN, Xbox )
At 2:00 on PirateSoftwares video he stays "This initiative doesn't work for ALL games..." and uses live service games as an example as to why Stop Killing Video games is stupid. Moreover, the game that sparked the controversy was The Crew which is a 10 year old game known as an online only game. You knew what you were in for. You are rage baiting with this video and the people agreeing with you know just as much if not less about the situation as you do. You're wrong in every sense with this video. He may be a developer, but that makes him more qualified to speak on this than someone like you who misrepresents facts with emotional appeal. You. Are. Wrong.
Yeah, it's important to remember that Thor's protecting his material interests as a game developer who earns a living off of IP, which means at a certain point his interests are contrary to the interests of players, no matter how well-meaning he may be up to that point.
He does seem to hyper-focus on MMOs, with one of his arguments being MMOs operate in a mode where preservation is not technologically feasible, which could be a reasonable argument. (He does also make an argument about who gets to profit off it, which is illuminating on how IP is effectively landlording, where mere ownership is profitable, not work.) However, because his material interests are in the ability for game developers and publishers to withhold their works (as markets only exist in the existence of scarcity, artificial or otherwise), there is an incentive for him to extrapolate his hyper-focus on MMOs into denigrating the game preservation movement as a whole.
If games are preserved, there is no scarcity, and with no scarcity, there's no money.
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)
PirateSoftware always sides with the corporations and everybody mobs behind him. He talks as if he's being paid off by lobbyists, and it's disgusting and I've stopped watching his videos. I've never seen anyone buddy up so hard with large corporations ripping off their customers. Easily my least respected gamedev youtuber.
Prime example of how you can talk your way up with confidence and bullshit.
"I really don't like it when someone refrains your argument" as he does exactly that...
I'm here to explain my points, hot takes and all.
I'm likely not going to respond to his second video. I find it to be even more incredulous, corporate espionage go burrrr.
what are your points? also- the text based game kept distracting from what was said..
@@aHedgerowFrog oh no. Should I need footage again would you say to not use the text based game?
Its a slay the princess a very good game.
My point is a rebuttal to Thors first video.
I want there to be some guide rails that keep as many video games as possible functioning.
I also find Thors core argument (call out/ stop companies from selling you licenses instead of the game) a strange criticism of the proposal. I'd gladly chat more about specific points he or I have.
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats Its nice to have some more visual, here its more likely to try to keep up with the text story😁.
I just saw Ross's video and got some more context. I am very interested in where this will go and maybe "any publicity..." is good in this case.
@@aHedgerowFrog I think it is. It got a big boost!
"Printers" was a bad example. Printer companies have been doing the planned obsolescence thing for years.
I also wish games could all be archived in a playable state, but I also understand that could be an immense amount of work in some cases, and there would be a not insignificant extra cost. High development costs means less profit for the studio, higher prices for consumers, and more independent studios just outright failing. It sucks, but I kinda agree with Thor on this one, just out of practicality.
Funny you say that, most indie developers usually publish tools to host your own servers for free (it also makes sense as an indie to do that because if your community hosts servers that means you don't have to waste resources doing it yourself), it is usually AAA developers the ones who require you to connect to a modher server in order to play.
I used printers because they already fuck you about. I'm not sure if anything is a good example since games are an intangible (infinite) medium.
I think retrofitting games to comply would absolutely suck but making future games be easy to EOL thats just another checkbox. (also his whole they would do corporate espionage thing I think is more telling than his other arguments)
@@elisehalflight connecting to a server purely to play is absolute garbage that needs to go, there’s no excuse for it, especially in single player or even peer to peer multiplayer games.
The comparison of a true live service game to an indie game isn’t really fair though. Eg self-hosting (and the dev work for) say a Minecraft server is not the same as the dev work needed to create self hostable version of a game largely built around client/server interactions such as FFXIV which has been going for 10+ years. Even beyond the server work, core elements would need to be overhauled to allow a SP experience as major elements of the game require forming parties as well as mechanics within the fights that revolve around multiple people (and even parties). Even if you do all of that, it’s not preserving a game or the experience, it’s creating a new one no one asked for.
@@PixelBurstHD I mean.... Rusty Hearts is hosted by fans without issue....
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCatsIt's a bit more than a checkbox. It would have to be implemented differently to "run at home", as these services are built to use giant databases and be massively scalable. The point about data mining is also pretty valid. They could release a "clean" version, but that would be more work/cost to make also.
as someone who HAS seen thor's short that was mostly about how offensive security specialists work(i think it was about employee training so they don't answer questions they shouldn't because hack?), he has a ton of one sided beef with the government. he's also paranoid af. and contrary to the "wise man" aura he gives off, he isn't the smartest tool in the box. he might be pro game preservation, but he's also not letting the government handle it.
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.
oh no the industry plant whose whole career exists thanks to nepotism tries to protect corpo's interests. What a surprise. Seriously, I could never understand why anyone would listen to and take this guy seriously. If a person starts every argument with "I have 20 years of experience", you know they are not an expert if they still need validation after so long.
nice video, thanks!
i actually agree with pirate but i still signed the eu petition out of spite
I think time will show this choice to be a good one.
Owning games in this day and age…isn’t real. They are all licenses TO PLAY. That’s what you get with digital libraries. You want to change that - only buy physical. Or mix and match, like I’ve done. DRM SUCKS. I’m split 50/50 on the topic. I agree with Thor. I also agree with everyone else. It’s a tough topic. Live service games should die off. Me being a destiny 1 & 2 player…I understand that means I won’t be able to play the game anymore. Will I accept that my $15,000 I have sunk into the game is gone in a flash. Yes. I accept that. 😢 Does that make it acceptable? No. Is that the right thing to do for everyone who plays? also no. Do I think all live service games are bad? No..not at all. Remember: this is in the EU. Not the US. Anyone’s opinion on the topic who resides in the US…is completely invalid. Including mine. And including Thor’s. And most likely most of you reading.
yeah its unfortunate that we dont really have a horse in this race when it will affect us!
only the Demo of Darkspore works and you can only make Darkspores thats all no further gameplay but you can convert them to use them in modded spore
im tempted to toss a darkspore video on the pile. Since to child me it had a dope cover.
"if something goes wrong we can just unmake the law"???????
yeah the its legal to drink in the US and it wasnt always.
A couple of things, but first it is great to see you engaged with your comments showing that you care about this discussion. I do have some issues with the video and bellow you can see timestamps of your arguments.
4:35-4:58 The opening of Pirate Software's video is not manipulation and fear mongering
With this being a hot issue It is smart to open with an introduction of who you are and why you are doing this as he has done on both of his Apex Legends Vulnerabilities videos and his video showing that anyone can make good games and encouraging them to do so. It is not manipulation it is an intro of who he is.
Saying that he does this "so our medium doesn't die out and it never will. That's the whole intention of all of this." (0:31-0:37 of "Stop Killing Games" Pirate Software) It's not fear mongering saying that it never will die out is not causing any fear.
Saying that this law "can't kill video games and neither can Pirate Software" is a little off. This proposal if enacted into law with no changes will kill any video game that requires a connection to a publisher/developer server due to how vague the proposal is.
Claiming his reactions seem off the cuff is a blatant misread of his video. Everything he is discussing is already pulled up in the browser including evidence for a later point of how as sequels of the game come out the player base of the original diminishes.
6:39-6:50 The proposal is Vague
The proposal is vague due to the fact that the only instruction is to leave the game in a "playable state". Later on in the video you mention EA shutting down Darkspore. The publisher can argue that the game is in a "playable state" because or the community GitHub that allows access to play the game. What about GTA5 when they shutdown the online servers will the game be in a "playable state" with only the single player accessible. One can argue that Cyberpunk 2077 was in a "playable state" at launch but its in a much better "playable state" when the DLC Launched. Playable is subjective and lacking a clear definition leaves it open to interpretation.
7:38-8:00 The printer analogy
For a live service game using the analogy of a physical good is apples to oranges. They are a service paying for World of Warcraft isn't paying for the game it's paying for access to the server. Paying for The Crew isn't buying the game it was paying for access to the server. Paying someone to mow my lawn isn't me buying them it is paying for their service. My printer has a service where I can send a document to an email address and it automatically prints it. I pay for that service upfront included in the cost of that printer. There will come a day where that service no longer works it is ridiculous to try to legislate that the printer company has to create a toolkit for me to host my own server to do that.
8:30-8:40 There is no allusion
Claiming that "he alludes to this problem about lying or being mislead as to what you are actually buying." is just wrong, he says it explicitly. "A player should be well informed at the point of purchase that they are purchasing a license, not buying a game"(13:12-13:17 of "Stop Killing Games" Pirate Software)
9:58-10:05 He is not arguing that saving games is bad
At no point in "Stop Killing Games" does Pirate Software say that saving games is bad the title of the video kind of says what he wants to happen. In fact he says the opposite in his video, "If it is a single player experience that has online only functionality specifically just to shut down the game in the future, and the online only doesn't actually add any gameplay functionality. I'd agree with you that's a shitty business practice." (5:35-5:46 "Stop Killing Games" Pirate Software).
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
become a drama channel, very lucrative rn and you're good at it
🤣
that would be passion! I love me games!
ruclips.net/video/JjSHF-ZwRYQ/видео.html Also not all drama!
I think the crux of it is this: We're the gamers, the consumers of the product. We want rights regarding our purchases. Let's maybe not forget piratesoftware is a developer. A maker of said products.
The consumers want protection against developers and publishers. You gotta expect the very target of this kind of movement will have objections against it.
This is the order of things.
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.
It's not about preserving games period. It's about not taking away games that were bought by consumer. If game is a service, then publisher should not have been cheating consumers by selling it as a product. We don't buy TV channels on DVD/BR, are we? We buy subsriptions. That's it.
BFTME 2, that cut me deep, I also lost my copy, sadge.
we are brothers! I dont even have a cd player and sometimes I still crave that game.
I got kicked from his minecraft server after all them were being total losers trying to look down on everyone else
Yes, game is yours servers and infrastructure and code are not. Do with the binaries what you'd like.
i bet you cant even describe his detailed reasoning as to why he's "opposing" the campaign because you missed the whole fucking point of his video
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.
I'm sorry. I lost you at "let's just unmake the law".
This is such a childish take.
I might not completely agree with Thor, but he has a valid point. You not so much.
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.
Soh... How many here (including you totaly) thinks Thor said "We dont want any regulation" ?
Because if thats what you heard from other people telling you to picket him, you have not paid attention to him.
He has issues with the spesifics of this wording, because he knows its gonna end up being interpeted by 60+ year olds with no idea what is going on, and THAT will ruin a lot of things that it was not intended to be affecting.
I have not heard him not willing to chat with the initiative, but so far most people are behaving like in this comment field, just throwing out accusations against him that has no footing in reality and he refuse to engage with people like that. You yourself are even going full conspiratory "He is a game publisher ergo he wants to hinder this because it will stop him". He has adressed this several times. His games as far as i know are not online live services? And if he wanted money he would keep doing his old job, hacking powerplants for the goverment. He worked something like 10-20 weeks a year and earned more than most people do for a full year.
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. :)
4:40 thats not textbook fear mongering, thats just textbook rhetoric--establish ethos with his bona-fides (credibility, the idea of why i should listen to Thor about this) and then establish pathos with "i dont want games to stop being made" (pathos is the emotion that the listener is supposed to feel, the idea of why should i care about this in the first place)
fear mongering would be Thor saying the industry is actively dying and that his ideas are the solution. Compare how Thor opens this conversation up with how literally any political rally or debate speech opens up and you'll see real fear mongering.
You also immediately say that you don't believe in his credibility. Maybe you don't but you hold that point back until you've started to pry open his points. by saying this right off the cuff, you are immediately saying "don't believe what this guy says", whether or not its intentional.
finally, having not heard his specific takes on this, i would've greatly appreciated more context. you can't just say "heres what i took away" without showing/linking/clipping out where you took that away from.
otherwise very solid video from someone with only 35 subs (i am now one of them lol). good editing, good voice over, keep it up.
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.
I mean sure, good points etc, but could you not spoil a good game on the background?
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.
Boiling down Thors take to saving games is bad demonstrates a bad faith engagement with what his arguments are. Thor Clearly pro game preservation, but he also has a more nuanced take then every game can and must be preserved not matter the cost. He is offering the developer perspective to the conversation, which is an extremely important one if you actually care about this issue.
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
This Totally Not a Bunch of Cats video is creating a gross misunderstanding of Pirate Software. Pirate Software is not against the idea of planned obsolescence for games, or a corporation radical. If you actually watch his video, he explains that the language in the initiative can be damaging to the games industry as a whole if it is initiated into law as is due to being vaguely worded. I totally agree. If this initiative goes forward as written, and becomes law, this would dissuade developers from creating online multiplayer games, or prevent EU as a whole from having access to online games because devs would rather not have to deal with the law at all. This law would mean devs have the choice to maintain servers for the game forever, or entirely reverse engineer the game from the ground up for their dwindling audience costing almost as much as it did to create the game. This is a lose-lose scenario for devs, and especially indie devs. The initiative should be solely focused on "always online games."
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.
If you are going to act like you're paraphrasing someone, just clip them and respond. You did that with the first clip but nothing further? You're going quickly because you don't have anything to support your end. Your logic falls short when you rush it like you tried saying he does.
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.
Thanks for doing this!
Thanks for watching. I've been a gamer longer than ive been a game developer. I was more or less compelled to do this.
4:00 I'm not sure I understand where he is arguing against "Stop Killing Games". A company making a tournament for their game that is in an offline functionality makes sense when EVERYONE IS IN THE SAME ROOM. It's called a LAN party these days. That isn't the same as making it playable from a distance offline. That requires internet. Frankly, YOU don't seem qualified to argue any of this. You play games, not make them.
What you are asking for is the death of live service games. No one will ever make another one. What you are asking for, is, you have to continue paying insurance and registration on your shitbox car in your backyard that doesn't work anymore, that no one uses, despite it being off the road.
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)
The publisher sells the consumer a limited license, which allows the publisher to do many things, including disabling the game. I don't understand the argument for disallowing this practice.
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.
"most games work indefinitely" that's just wrong. even if unfortunate.
?? 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.
huh
HONK
Bad take in bad faith
Could you be more specific?
Almost as if no one actually listened to what he said and your brain rot kicked in hard. Anything to try and grow your channel though huh?
Games are where my friends are, where I spend money and where my career lies. This is important to me. Why should the things I buy be worth less than the things others buy? Picture a printer. What if your printer was EOLed every 5 years because the server it connects too was taken down?
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats printer is an interesting comparison to make because of the prohibitive expense of ink. 8/10 times you run out of ink, that printer has been EOLed already, not because of functionality, but because its just likely to be cheaper to buy a whole new damn printer (also HP totally does this, but by forcing you to buy their brand of ink, they will literally just turn it off if you try to use third party ink)]
Thanks for spreading the word.
Forcing companies to provide server code to continue running the game is a bad idea.
The way the petition is written could kill live-service games entirely. Pirate software isn't defending the practice of discontinuing games, but rather the saying the wording of the proposal put forward is short-sighted and won't have the intended outcomes.
Here is what I think is telling about his opinion. He doesnt have a solution. He just has complaints. Server code is given out by tons of games. (Minecraft,TF2, 7 days to die) Lets be real live service games make tons (billions/10^9) of money when they go big. When it's time to kill them. There will not be many players. I do not see how this matters. When there is not enough money to keep the lights on what are they protecting? (they still have their ip so its not that).
Also Thor was not always a developer, he was catching cheaters and hackers.
And killing live service games is bad because..?
@@Mate_Antal_Zoltan Why should the government decide what sort of games are viable to build?
@@TotallyNotaBunchofCats The big ones do, not ones by smaller studios. This law will make it so ONLY the big players can take that risk.
Just because some games are architected in a way to release the server code doesn't mean all are.
@@SpicyPete Why should the government decide that murder is illegal? The answer to this question is the same as the answer to "Why should the government decide that live service games need to go?"
Thank you
great vid, great take, instasub!
You know, all your stuff falls because you NEVER buy a game... it is NEVER your, you buy a LICENSE for the game itself. Like any other softwares and apps... Most people fails to understand this.
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.
This video is catastrophically wrong, and entirely out of line.
nice power word 💪. We are at 232.7k signatures brother. We can save them!!!!
This comment belongs on Thor's video.