Stop Killing Games
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Here is an easy breakdown of how I feel about this initiative.
I cannot and will not support a vague and potentially dangerous start to this conversation.
Call out the specific business practices that need to be resolved, not just games in general.
Part 2:
• Stop Killing Games - 2
Watch the stream here:
piratesoftware...
Join the community here:
/ discord
#Pants #StopKillingGames #PirateSoftware
- Edited by Sunder
Let's do a little round up for everyone in the comments saying the same stuff.
1. "Why shouldn't we have the right to the server binaries so we can keep playing these games?"
- Are you going to allow monetization of these servers or not?
If we don't allow monetization - Who would be the party that enforces non-monetization of that server?
If it's the government I feel like we're making an insane amount of red tape.
If it's the original company then this doesn't work if they shut down.
If we don't allow monetization - Who is going to pay for the hosting if the servers cannot be monetized?
If they cannot be monetized then these servers will also eventually shut down due to cost.
We don't up preserving games like this we just shift their death down the road.
If we do allow monetization - This leads to a really weird attack potential if people can monetize the servers.
- You make an awesome game that has a small community.
- I want to monetize that game and run my own servers.
- I create a shitload of bots and constant exploits to erode the game and your business.
- Your business closes and you now have to give out server binaries to keep the game in a playable state.
- I can now profit off your work via private servers.
This isn't unlikely as we've seen mass attacks such as with TF2.
We actually see echoes of this in the mobile market already as well.
The only defense right now is DMCA or other takedown measures.
Devs legitimately have very little protections as-is and this would erode that further.
This creates an incentive for abuse where the abuser is protected as they are within their legal right to operate said "abandoned" games servers.
2. "He's just a rich ego now"
I've been an indie dev for 8 years now and most that time I made less than Federal minimum wage.
I have just gained financial success in the last year due to the community supporting me in what I do.
Now that I make more I have poured it all back into that community, charity, and animal rescue.
If I become a millionaire then I have failed. Your attacks here make no sense.
3. "He's not even offering solutions he's just yapping"
Except I have offered a solution.
Inform the customer at point of purchase that they will be getting a license to the game.
It should never be posed as a purchase or buying the game at all. Because you aren't.
You're buying a license and a big part of the problem is that players don't know what this means.
Licenses like this allow developers to ban bad actors from the service and are insanely important.
Inform the customer correctly and the grand majority of issues here fall away.
4. "He banned Ross and hates players."
No I did not. Ross is not banned on this channel.
We've been blocking and banning people who are posting hate speech, doxxing attempts, and insane false information about me.
As of now that list is over 1,000 people just from the last three days alone.
Has some splash damage happened here? Probably. Shit happens and a deleted comment is not the end of the world.
It's not that deep.
5. "It's easy to do because the FAQ said so."
It's very clearly that nobody involved in writing that FAQ actually makes games.
I've had a 20 year career in the industry spanning from QA, Engineering, IT, and Red Team.
These demands are not "simple" problems to solve and cannot be done easily even for new games.
It's not feasible to produce the requested content in this initiatives current form.
Demanding this and stating that all developers are wrong and greedy is actually absurd.
6. "This won't even effect Live Service games read the FAQ!"
I did and the FAQ does not change the potential damage done to live service games.
Under the current initiative all games would need to be made into a playable state at end of life.
This puts a massive extra financial burden on specifically live service games while incentivizing single player ones.
Why would I spend extra money building a live service distributable server for end of life?
I wouldn't.
I would just make single player or local play games as they cost less to produce under this scenario.
For those that say "Good" and dislike live service games, that's not a good position.
Your personal dislike of live service games should not control developers on what they could or should make.
Nor should it limit players in their options of what kinds of games they have access to.
7. "He won't even talk to Ross"
Correct. I think his position is disingenuous due to his comments about how this could be pushed through government.
It's a bad direction, removes validity for what the initiative is trying to do, portrays the process in an incorrect manner, and just builds sensationalism.
Thinking that kind of language is ok puts him squarely on my "not worth it to talk to" list as there are others that could have a more productive conversation.
Louis Rossman and Asmongold have much better takes on this and actually try to engage about the issue in a measured way.
At the end of the day I am now and always have been a game developer.
The majority of my platform has and will continue to be advocating for teaching how this industry actually works.
This flashpoint moment is the greatest example of why players need to actually know how games are made.
Why do you think I run game jams or a discord to help you make games?
It's so you can see that requests like this don't make sense and gain perspective on the industry.
It stops the internet hate machine from band-wagoning against developers which always happens due to lack of perspective.
Stay frosty.
Ok greedy game dev.
Second!
If a game is terminated in a time-span of 2 years after purchase, the price of the game should be refunded in full to the gamer.
It's the first time I completely disagree with you, it's crazy. I'm so baffled by your takes. The fact that you say that Ross has a disingenuous position is insane to me, he has stated over and over again that he just wants to play the games he buys, if he's wrong iyo then at the very least have a conversation, I can only assume it's a conflict of interest as many people have since you always seem so reasonable and in this one you are completely against logic... I don't get it.
What happened to Ross' comment?
I personally like how Capcom shut down megaman xdive and then released a version of the game that %100 runs offline.
just gonna let you know percentages go on the right side of numbers, so instead of %100, it's 100%, not trying to be picky or anything, just letting you know for future reference 🙃
@@baronblitz4936 look at that! You DO understand what Thor's saying, afterall!
@@CrashRacknShootbut thor misunderstood the petition itself, so you being a huge smug asshole over it is ironic
Moreover, the version they shut down was free to play. You didn't even buy the game in the first place. You only bought it if you wanted to keep playing it offline, which is a completely fair transaction.
This is a shit game I know but I still want to commend square for patching an offline mode to their avengers game that's how you do it. Why the fck does an always online singe player game needs to exist anyways.
5:53 the problem was that the Crew was sold at full price even in 2023 and nobody warned buyers that the game will be unplayable in a year. That's why even German law dictates that a service needs to announce its cancellation at least 2 years prior.
Of course the toxic argument comments have 300 comments and the comment providing context is a barren wasteland.
@@davidnymann5423 because no one really cared about The Crew 1, it was a dead game anyways, barely had a dozen players
@@theultimatep1e40 bad take
@@theultimatep1e40 what stupid logic so youre implying that the quality of the game is what dictates the fairness of the sale/takedown? If youre favourite game just shut down and got deleted from youre library you would 100% be irritated, The Crew 1 was an example of this happening in practice and how this is legal and it shouldnt be. Quality of the game and service has nothing to do with this issue it being gone forever is the problem.
@@HegeRoberto and that is good legislation, but that is not what this signing is for
The only thing you missed about The Crew Thor is that it HAD a single player campaign. They killed the whole game, not only the online part.
@@mkyprm that’s one of the big things… all the time I spent playing the game was single player… multiplayer occurrences weren’t as common, and weren’t necessary.
He actually addressed that the game likely couldn't stay up because the license was going to expire for the cars they used in it.
@@michaelkaruza490 and that’s a fair way to approach it, licensing is expensive, and it’s not worth it if there are very few new game sales.
What Microsoft does in this instance is remove the game from sale, and allow the game to still function as normal for anyone who owns it. And not only that, they announce it a few months ahead of time and put it on a steep discount until it’s delisted from the store…. I believe Forza Horizon 4 just got delisted recently, and it’s still perfectly playable, and Horizon 3 was delisted several years ago and is still playable.
@@michaelkaruza490 Just more reason why licensing is stupid.
@@lenajohnson6179 do you think companies should be allowed to ban cheaters from video games? Or is licensing still always stupid?
These sort of arguments are why Johnny Silverhand blew up Arasaka Tower.
One hundred percent.
Johnny Silverhand did not blow up Arasaka Tower. That engram copy of his mind just wishes he did and made itself believe it to be the case, in typical Johnny ego fashion.
Morgan Blackhand actually pulled off the job. Where Johnny was unceremoniously shot in half by Smasher.
But even then, the whole game itself is a (matrix type) simulation, so there's a potential argument that it never really got blown up.
@@MrCreativent
Not the point, gonk.
Valve solved this problem 20 years ago. All of their multiplayer games are playable offline.
Playable offline, and community servers are a thing. I dont think theres a solid argument to be made against letting players make their own servers.
there's a difference between match multiplayer and MMO multiplayer. and with spaghetti code these days, theres just too much work involved for almost no benefit to the developers.
it wasn't valve that solved it, it used to be the norm 20 years ago.
@@tomedwards6512 Then maybe make your games right the first time.
@@tomedwards6512People have done it for MMOs. Multiple times. Community made MMO servers are a thing.
"single player games that are online only are rare"
Not so rare anymore, not at all.
I’m curious name 3
@@_The_Gem_In_Igacha open world games as example
@@_The_Gem_In_I Genshin Impact, Honkai Starrail, Zenless Zone Zero, SnowBreak, Neverness to Everness, and many more!!!!!! These are gacha games though, not typical western live service.
@@luckyfabbio_789 name some that do not have a multiplayer component and are strictly single player
@@BarbarasMilk They are still games. They all apply.
"What's the most important aspect about any game? Well, being able to fuckin play it!"
-AVGN
Goated quote. So fucking relevant.
yea, but that doesnt apply to online games. Online games should not be required to be run indefinetly.
@@theultimatep1e40private servers exist.
@@theultimatep1e40 yes but the problem is that the Triple A industry is slowly making all games Online games. Even the single player ones!
@@spacefaringyoshi you are not forced to play AAA, there are a lot of alternatives. People want to buy something specific and complain that is not made exactly like they want... it's backwards, usually you will see something you like them buy it, not the other way around...
"Game companies have no intention to let customers retain their purchase, yet games and game features are sold as goods, not services."
-Ross Scott
Yes, but that’s not the point of why Ross is making the initiative. If it was just to lobby game companies to market accurate wording in the “purchase” their games (licenses) then Thor wouldn’t have a problem, and because the initiative is so vague it could start precedents that we just can’t see the impact of at the moment
@@jamesreagan8175 The reason Thor doesn't have a problem with putting a better wording on games stores is because he knows it wouldn't change a thing. People will still buy the games, they'll still be surprised when a dev just deletes their purchase, and the history of our medium will still be destroyed for a sliver of profit.
The initiative is suggesting we do something that would actually help with the problem. Thor is suggesting we put a bandaid on it and stop talking about it.
@@jamesreagan8175 the initiative is vague because it is not the final law but just an idea.... basically write something quickly on piece of toilet paper and that is the same thing...
The best thing about 90's games is you can still play them.
That's what we need. To be able to play game. Single player games shutting down is dumb af
Only 90s games... no game past 1999 is playable anymore according to this comment...
😂😂😂
@@soulreaperx7x Your reading comprehension skills are failing you. "the best thing about 90's games.." that dose not exclude games made outside of the 90s.
if you have the software and the hardware sure but many games from that era are now lost to time.
Except their enhanced remakes are being told they do not have access to the original songs and artwork included therein. Because some repo-man kingpin monopoly now wants you to blow them for acess to what you already own. (Its like buying an old suit and taking it to a tailor yet being told you cannot polish up and reuse the old buttons.)
Personally I think such necromancers who gatekeep old childhood memories need be charged under desecration of a corpse, potential grooming of minors, vandalism laws. It is after all described as a "body of work". Congress need only reaffirm what is already on the books and where it needs to go. Then we can end all this woke copyright nonsense from the papermills and port town yokels.
Isn't the idea to get the companies to give the players tools to run their own servers, when the company wants to kill their own servers?
pay special attention to what Ross says IN HIS OWN VIDEO at timestamp 1 : 46, quote: "This would NOT require publishers to give up any of their intellectual property rights, give up their source code--though that one would still be nice, it wouldn't require endless support."
Can't run a server if you don't own the IP, and the initiative does not want the IP
@@postpenultimate5777 "Can't run a server if you don't own the IP,"
Huh? I can fire up a TF2 server right now. Does that mean that I own TF2 IP?
no that is not the idea, according to that ross loser publishers will not be required to give up their tools/intellectual property rights.
@@eliminatedzergling1685 Why are you calling him a loser? What's he done to you?
@eliminatedzergling1685 okay so?
the crew was "online only" because ubisoft wants to use online DRM. there was a single player mode.
But sadly he is right with what he said - if you make a google picture search of the game box it has an easy to see label on the back 'online connection required'. People can't say they didn't knew it wouldn't work without the connection, but I disagree with is opinion. I think think a patch removing the online requirement for single player should have been made
@@seanthiarIt doesn't say "Will be unuseable in the future" though. As Ross said support ending didn't use to result in the game being bricked
well, if i you be someone who develops a game, that is primarly online, I would programm most of the logic on the server side. This ensures, as already stated, the integrety of the game.
As I already have most of the games logic on the server side, the only logical cost effective way for a single player mode is, to just reuse the online game logic. So for the comsumer it looks like a single player game, but in reallity its just a one player online session.
@@seanthiar I still have my online connection, I am online, the game isnt... so I cant play the game I paid money for because they decided they dont want to let me own what i bought anymore.
@@wocky7369 No you don't let you because its costing more money for them to allow you to do so. You are the one who didn't take into account that a part of your purchase was that online functionality that costs money every month for a company to keep running. What you are asking for is this part of the games industry to disappear because it strictly isn't profitable. The fact this game lasted for 10 years is an insane runtime for a game to start with.
League can be kept in a playable state by releasing server software. The creator doesn't need to run that server, other people can do that.
So that is absoltely not an argument.
And on a local level, you can run a private server for friends.
So again, online games, can be run locally, by making a local server.
League already has a LAN mode anyway, they are just withholding that only using it in official tournaments
yes, very disappointed that he did not even address this. also, it's not like we expect the company to keep the game operational. the big issue with the crew is not just terminating the servers but activating a killswitch in the client. if the community is dedicated enough, they'll reverse-engineer the server communications and back-up the assets it's happened before. sometimes they're even leaked the sources [like toowntown].
The other big thing that makes League a bad example is League is free. No one is buying League (at full price, mind) and then being told a month later, "Nah, you can't play anymore."
also, lol is safe from this, cause its free to play
@@gustavogomez141 LoL may not be free from this since they are still selling skins. If people buy those, then the question remains, how do they keep access to the skins they purchased?
9:35 - I love ross scott, but he typed that without having dealt with the ESA or any of their ilk. _there is no such thing as an "easy win" with regards to anything in the gaming industry._ I have been defeated repeatedly after throwing tons of time, effort, and money into making an exemption to section 1201 of the DMCA that allows you to repair your own property. Section 1201 is the part of the DMCA that says you cannot break a digital lock in hardware you have purchased. So, for instance, a disk drive that is paired to a processor dying on an old console. If a smart person reverse engineers this & comes out with a tool that figures out how to pair a different drive to that console so they may repair their broken console... they can be put in prison. The ESA is a large reason that is still there.
Politicians like easy wins, which 99% of the time are laws that screw over everyone equally. This would not be an _"easy win."_ I would chalk ross saying that up to inexperience in getting laws passed & lobbying
13:10 - I agree with this.
13:20 - Here is the part that I'd love to hear further discussion on from people with more experience/expertise(aka, anybody) when it comes to these types of games. Revoking a license to the game when someone cheats to protect players is one strategy. Keeping the game functional to the individual accused of cheating, while removing someone's access to utilize official servers if they cheat: is this possible? Is it possible to hardcode one's identity into the game at the time of sale(i.e. a one time registration w/ their email/userid), that can be revoked from being utilized on any server if they take part in unacceptable behavior? If I am accused of cheating while playing the crew, I may be banned from their server, but does one have to be banned from playing the game in any form?
7:25 - the car licensing point. I was guessing & pulling that out of my ass in my video. I guessed based on 15 years of experience in a completely unrelated business. I didn't read that wiki before saying that the car licenses being temporary & the renewal of it would be a decision made based on the number of active players. I just figured it to be a high likelihood based on _similar_ business experience. Wow!
My problem is the licensing agreement for the cars is done without taking into consideration the person who bought the game. Even if it is the shittiest game in the world that I no longer want to play, if I bought it, whatever licensing issue Ubisoft has should be _their_ problem; *not mine!*
I forget what this costs & I am commenting on my phone while feeding my fish, so excuse me if this is wrong, but... wasn't this game $40-$60? I am used to old games. The Italdesign Nazca C2 can't be taken away from Need for Speed III: Hot Pursuit, because back then when they licensed the ability to use the car, they realized you couldn't take away the ability to use a game. Therefore, licenses like this didn't exist.
I am opposed to this on the principle of the matter; if there is anything that may cause a game like this to stop working at a later date, I want it disclosed, with details on the earliest possible end date, like a "best by" date on an egg carton, on the box of the game. That is separate from the pricing. When I was a kid buying need for speed or gran turismo as a greatest hit cost twenty dollars and whatever cars were in it were licensed for life. Now cars in games are temporarily licensed to the point that the entire game can be disabled at this price? That's really lame.
We had the ability to buy games at these prices that wouldn't just disappear because license agreements like this weren't a thing before it became technically possible to take back a game.
It is understandable that they would not want to renew the license for a game that wasn't bringing in new money. at the same time, it's aggravating that Ubisoft wants the ability to make decisions at a later date based on information(price of license renegotiation + number of players), without giving customers the ability to make an informed purchase decision upfront. They could do this by saying the following: *"On XYZ date, the license for ABC expires. If this game is not making us enough money at that time to justify renewing the license for ABC, the game will cease to work on XYZ."*
It is such a kick in the ass that Ubisoft wants to be able to make business decisions that make sense for themselves based on licensing agreements, without letting consumers make decisions about their _purchase_ based on these licensing decisions. As a pessimist, I like being proven wrong, since it means the world is a better place than I thought. In this case, the worst case scenario that I pulled out of my ass wound up being right.
Long comment, but 100% worth the read. Commenting to bump, use the timestamps if you need.
"Politicians like easy wins" - you just said the gross thing, I guess he can't talk with you either from now on...
@@Corvx Very next sentence is him saying this wouldn't be an easy win (also only commenting so more people see this)
Will be funny to see Thor delete this comment like he did mine and probably a thousand others. "Splash damage". 😂
Re: banning practices. I remember reading about a game where all the cheaters they caught instead of being banned was placed in the same instance/server/lobby to play only each other. 😂
Can't remember what game it was right now though. But the article was about novel ways developers have dealt with cheaters in the past.
And about licensing: There have in the past been games delisted from storefronts because of licensing agreements to music in-game that expired. That ONLY meant that the publisher was no longer able to _sell_ the game. Not that buyers of the game would lose their access to the game and it's music. I believe there are instances of such games re-listed, but without the licensed music they weren't able to re-license.
"If we don't allow monetization - Who is going to pay for the hosting if the servers cannot be monetized?"
Me? On my local server running on my machine? For just me and my buddies? We had this technology 30 years ago...
@@WwZa7 I saw someone in the comment thread above this one saying fine, keep the games running, as long as you guys want to pay the hundreds of thousands in server costs! Like, *my guy!* it does NOT cost that much to run a local server.. what are these people smoking?!
as a (now former) fan of Thor myself, it kills me that the majority of his fanbase are, and I know I’m generalizing here, brain dead kids from YT shorts. It’s not their ignorance that irritates me, it’s that they simply don’t *want* to learn anything, and will continue arguing from that place of ignorance blissfully. Besides that, I believe a subset of people become so parasocially enamored with their favorite content creators, that they start to believe they can do no wrong or ever be incorrect on something. Kind of wild to actually see it play out in real-time though.
@@jamesf4423saying now former means you just want to hate and piss off.
so go on, piss off
@jamesf4423 I assume that wasn't about ye random G-Portal server that you can spin up as you wish (that can barely support 10 people playing ay), but actually paying the developer to keep /their/ servers up. As someone who deals with server infrastructure professionally (not for games but doesnt matter, cost is cost), I highly doubt that servers can be crowdfunded when player counts are already in the double digits (i.e. >100). In a professional space, cloud-based servers on AWS, Azure, etc. cost thousands of dollars yearly (granted not hunderds of thousands unless youre spinning up hundreds of servers). Not only that, but Im sure even IF a company set up a donation or subscription service to keep servers running, it would have to be taxed which reduces funds recieved, further increasing the cost players would have to pay to hit the margin. Again, this is not a problem of "can we", but of how sustainable it is, and I for sure would not pay >$20/mo just to have a game's server up, Ill go play a different game. And keep in mind, not all of that miniscule playerbase would or COULD pay to keep the servers running.
And btw Im an European myself, I dont agree with some of Thors phrasing, I personally think Louis made some better points, but that doesn't mean Thor's just blatantly wrong about everything, people need to listen to each point and not discard everything if they disagree with but one, I keep seeing that more and more all over the web, people are too black & white in their thinking. The amount of people shitting on him just because they think "Oh he's a dev, ofc he wants to be off the hook" due to such is absolutely ridiculous. The point I do agree with is, I do not want such an initiative to fail just because it's poorly presented and potentially dangerous and vulnerable to be easily picked apart by Big Dev™ lobbyists or outright declined to be considered. It simply needs more thought and work. Cuz mind you, after it's submitted, an initiative is generally resolved within 6 months, meaning AFTER that period, we the people (or the Initiative organizers at least) may not have any input to the actual forming of the law beyond, AND there is no appeal process, so this is not a "lets start a communication with officials cuz this may take years" situation. In the end, we all want something like this to pass, (including Thor eh) but we also gotta be a bit more careful to order to hopefully make that happen
@@jamesf4423 Me running a minecraft server for my friends (I am paying extravagant costs for the electricity to run the server)
@@jamesf4423 Honestly I feel like you just misunderstood his entire take to write this comment. Most people in the comments are arguing for what Thor wants, while pretending that it's not what he wants. He never at any point in the video said people can't locally run the game on their machines or shouldn't be able to. His entire take was that companies shouldn't be expected to pay themselves to keep the game online forever - which is a valid take. The initiative is worded like this, and it's wrong and dumb.
The initiative should be written better, and then he would support it. It's as simple as that. His entire issue is that the way it's worded is stupid and makes no sense, and doesn't address the actual problem - and if it did then he would support it.
5:12 Dude, Dataminers literally found a disabled offline-mode in the code.
Bang.
Likely unfinished i would guess
@@LostManeUnlikely since they would have used it to develop and test the game...
@@LostMane I can't know about that, you may have a point
But even if that is true, I would argue that it would have been way better for* ubislops reputation if they had finished developing it, instead of removing people's access to the game.
Also, not gonna lie, I can perfectly imagine this mode being finished, and that Ubisoft just didn't wanna hand it out, as we are to get used to not owning our games lol
*Edit: typo
Did they find something that address any of the distribution rights or licensing issues? I thought not.
you dont have to convince me thor, i've alredy signed.
Thor really helped to spread the word. Glad he’s doing his part
truly he only made the reasons behind the initiative much more appealing. Is Thor astroturfing??
@@AGenericAccountno he’s not astroturfing, he’s say that the reasons behind the Stop Killing Games initiative is disgusting and that what it’s trying to target shouldn’t be the target… live service can’t run indefinitely if it only has a dozen people playing. What it should be targeting are games that advertise as a single player game, add on multiplayer and then shut the game down completely
@@keydrag4309 "live service can’t run indefinitely if it only has a dozen people playing" well, if i understand the initiative (vague language, so can't say) what they are asking for is ways to allow the service to be ran by any user willing to. Community servers are a thing, and some of them do have dozen people playing. What should not be allowed is to force a company to pay the price of indefinitely running that service.
@@keydrag4309 that's the thing they aren't asking the devs to continue to support the game, just make it so players are still able to play either offline or client based
as a casual follower ever since the beta release of Heartbound, this is extremely disappointing to watch.
while Ross's movement has its issues (understandable, the man has never claimed to have inside knowledge of the industry), completely dismissing and throwing away a pro-consumer initiative like this by explaining how live services *currently* work and how players never had ownership of their games, setting this down as an immoveable fact, misses the goal of the movement entirely. The way live service games are currently developed should NOT be the standard, that's the point.
you talk about how dangerous this movement is, how much work developers would have to do to provide post-service functionality, about how live service games may not even continue to be made because of this... but who are we kidding here? Live service games are THE most profitable form of entertainment in the history of ANY medium. Do you truly genuinely believe legislation that forces companies to create end-of-life plans for their games will keep them away from the potential constant unending billions of dollars in revenue every year that a successful lives service game provides?
you talk about providing players with the tools to create their own servers as if it's a tremendous undertaking too costly to perform, and yes, that may be true for some existing large multiplayer games that never planned for this kind of transition, but this once again shows your careless disregard for this movement as Ross has stated multiple times this is for FUTURE multiplayer titles, not existing ones. a game designed from the ground up with an existing end of life plan is not an outrageous ask, if anything, it should be the standard. A standard which will obviously be very costly to implement at first (but will still be a miniscule cost by comparison to how profitable these projects are), but will naturally be optimized as these games will CONTINUE to be developed in the future, because let's be honest, every publisher and studio wants a cut of that GAAS pie.
it *should* be the standard to develop games with online functionality that will still be in *some* playable state as long as you've purchased it. it should not be outrageous or gross to ask companies "what will happen to the game i bought in a few years, will i still be able to play it?" and have them respond with either yes or no.
and in the end that's what this is all about, it's about supporting and strengthening consumer rights, forcing companies to be responsible and accountable for the pieces of art they task their developers to create, ensuring works can be preserved instead of allowing them to be thrown into the garbage and lighting the thing on fire once it stops being profitable, because "that's just how it works right now" doesn't make it right.
why are you against this as a developer? do you simply not care what happens to the work you poured so much effort on while working under these companies? where is the passion? where is the interest in preserving art? it does not make sense to me to be against this initiative simply because "this is not how it works" as if the way it currently works is fine.
your reaction to this initiative makes you look entirely dismissive of consumers and unconcerned with games as an artform, which I can't imagine will be liked by new indie developers who look up to you and your channel for advice. I'd urge you to reconsider your stance but based on further comments after the reception of this video I don't believe you will.
I still hope you are able to weather the storm of negative comments that these types of videos usually attract and that you have a good day, thank you for at least being honest and open in your beliefs and priorities even if I thoroughly disagree with them.
Very well articulated.
Based
The problem isn't the idea, but the way this is being carried out. Did you listen?
Understand your point, but at the same time have really big concerns. You throw "live service games are THE most profitable form of entartainment", which is very bad argument. It's not like we don't have failed live service games at all and it's not a formula for absolute win. I think that Thor pointed a pretty big issue with the monetization side. We either need to somehow control it, in case of not allowing it, or we need something that won't allow a malicious attacks on the game with the goal of receiving server binaries.
Honest and open? He misrepresented Ross's arguments and then deleted Ross's comments when he tried to clarify. There's nothing "honest" about this.
That's so weird.
Valve dropped support for 3 Counter Strike games,
but I can still boot up CS 1.6 right now and play online without any issues.
Guess Gaben IS the gaming god after all.
@@virtualashez That's maintenance, not development.
@@noxmore Its still a poor move from Valve, but to be fair,
We can play i am pretty sure all Valve games, so TF 2, CS Go [which you can only now play trough Beta CS2 branches], Dota 2, offline. Internet could go out, the world could suddenly have no internet and you could still play those games and play bot matches. If only more could actually do that.
Because Stream has a built in multiplier thingy for ALL games (that have functionality to be played by more than one player) sold on the platform. The service is free. So it is only natural that Valves own IPs also use that infrastructure.
CS was designed around "listen servers" and LAN (Local Area Network). Newer games are designed without these components because of pirating.
@@virtualashez they are not required to update the game.
Remember this. When retail WoW dies, private servers will still run.
Yea, that's the point. But in this case the private servers exist reverse engineered the real one. Not because anything was released or something.
@@krux02 Indeed. Literally all Ross is asking for is that it be legal for those servers to run.
@@duckshallrule6937 I mean, that's Thor's point. That's not all that Ross is asking for. If that is all he intends out of this initiative, then the language isn't specific enough to represent that purpose. Otherwise the broad language is a major issue. This is a common problem when creating law. Am I just watching a different video than everyone else?
@@Spiarmf But it's not vague. What Pirate means when he calls it 'vague'. Is that he wants this initiative to only target single player games. We want ALL games. Multiplayer included to be made playable without connection to the publisher, when official servers are shut down. Which is exactly word for word what the initiative says. He wants us to effectively ask for less. And we don't want to.
@@Spiarmf Ross repeatedly and explicitly stated that the companies aren't required to provide anything. It is purely intended to, as the name suggests, stop companies from preventing people from playing the games.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I signed the initiative immediately.
The idea that people won't host game servers if they aren't allowed to monetize them is extremely silly, there are DECADES of old games all of which are still playable and active thanks to fan hosting their own servers. The official matchmaking servers for Counter-Strike Global Offensive shut down recently after Counter-Strike 2 came out, but the game isn't rendered unplayable, you can still go and play it on community servers. This used to be the NORM!
@@MissTomi Exactly. And even if there wasn't, nobody is saying we should legalize monetization on private servers. In fact, if this initiative gets its way, then so long as there's an option to run a server, even if literally NOBODY hosts one, that puts devs in the clear.
I don't really get the problem with monetization either.
If official publisher killed the game they shouldn't be worried about other people monetizing it.
It's childish to only care about a toy to a point that other kids don't get it.
I also think his monetisation argument is intentionally misleading. Yes, someone could, in theory, sabotage a live service game to force that developer into dropping support and letting people host their own servers.
But if everyone can host their own server, why would anyone choose to play on a monetised server?
@@Ollybollyk monetized Minecraft servers are pretty popular.
Theres still a few dudes keeping private servers up from Wolfenstiens Enemy Territory way back from 2001.
That game was like 85% of my childhood.
Essentially 'You will own nothing and be happy'
I reject that.
Thor: the language is too vague
Ross: That's why it is an initiative not a legislation
I know right, and then he's calling Ross disingenuous when his entire argument is a strawman.
The issue is that Thor is looking at this with American tainted glasses, and not in the mindset of the European Union, which... can you blame him? He's American lmao
@@cipherx2181 Yes, of course you can blame him. He literally opened the site and it literally says it is a proposal to take action. It doesn't say "this is a tool where random peopl can make laws and if we reach 1m, it gets taken 1:1 as a law". Dude has some responsibility.
@123Handbuch yeah, and if politicians get a look at a proposal they'll just be like "yeah good enough I have no fucking clue what's going on lmao", the EU's system isn't like that, but the American system is even worse than that. You literally can't trust American politicians to do the bare minimum amount of research, let alone look past all the complex things.
@@cipherx2181 Also Thor is looking at this without any sort of Attorneys present. Remember how many Ross had to talk to regarding law leading up to this. He has been prepping this for 6 years, only to tear it down as "disingenuous" ouch! Heck, his Games as a Service is Fraud video came out on Apr 25, 2019. Thor goes "I disagree" while taking it in bad faith, OUCH! That is not like how I normally see Thor think about things, perhaps he got a wild hair up his ass?
Easy there guys, Thor is from US and A, he's not used to have good consumer protection.
Ah, Americans, right?
Consumer… protection? I’ve never heard of this before. Is it like how half of food products have the labels that say they cause cancer
He also seems definitively evil
@@kristijanpetrovski2576 "Evil" implies cartoonish levels of villainy. It's easier to say he's a capitalist who's disagreeing with an initiative that would potentially hurt his bottom line. Because he is. And before anyone gets confused, that is **absolutely not** a statement defending his viewpoint.
@@alvatoredimarco lol semantics...
I use evil from a moral perspective. Willfully executes immoral actions (lying and attacking others)
The fact that I need internet connection to play a freaking Gran turismo 7 is a bad joke. And when they end "support" they better give offline functionality.
given Gran Turismo Sport's closure enabling offline functionality, we expect GT7 to follow suit
That's a weird example and has to do with the Multiplayer side and their deal with the FIA to have sanction e-sports events. The game should have never been called GT7 and instead GT Sport 2.0 or something similar since it is not really a single player game imo. But at least with GT Sport before they shut the servers down they made everything single player related like the license's and events all available offline so I'd assume the same with GT7 given Polyphony's track record with online services.
A-Spec is 3 my guy, the best GT ever
@@EmTekTube My biggest problem is that "game as a service" in the case of Gran turismo 7 literally what destroyed the game for me, its not gran turismo anymore, like you said its not a single player game anymore, could not agree more and that's the reason im eternally pissed at polyphony for letting that happen.
@@failadin1nonono, see, listen to Thor. At the end of the video, he says that doesn't make any sense to him over and over. You're gross and wrong for wanting your new games to work 20 years in the future just like your old games!! There could be consequences!
"In Terms of Service you are not buying the game" will not work in Europe, because Europe does not allow contracts to redefine the law.
That's not what is happening.
You're buying a subscription / license to play an online game, you're not buying a game. There are two different things for sale here, one of which has a different set of conditions than the other. You can buy an apple or you can buy a container of applesauce, two different things despite similarities.
@@hoshisabi No, in Europe, you buy the game. If later down the line, the publisher revokes access, you have now entered a legal gray area. Unlike the US, Europe does not allow EULAs to overwrite basic consumer protection, but these specific cases of digital distribution have never been outlined in detail. That is what this initiative seeks to remedy.
@@hoshisabi N matter how much people try to redefine things, it doesn't change the legal standing. Games are not, have never, and will never be services. They are products.
TOS that do that in the USA is ALSO illegal but Good luck fighting them with out a Fuckton of support.
EU still only has you buying a license. They allow you to resell that license, but it is still a license.
Just because it is normalized for service games to be like that, not mean it should be.
this
Do you even know why it s like that ? Do you know why ?
Whats the alternative? Forcing the company to continue running a server they can't afford to run?
@@krackawoody2556 ...No. You'd know if you watched the actual video concerning it, but the point is to allow personal servers to keep the game going. It takes at most a day or two for a dev to make the servers something which can be flipped over to the costumer's side if they're shutting down.
so youre gonna force all developers to do what you want?
instead of going to something like the FTC to make the distinction clear between games you own and games you license.
Pirate Software: The problem isn't the cage that is slowly being built around you. The problem is your expectations of freedom. Just stay still for a bit, you'll love it.
As a player turned dev myself I'm... disappointed. It's like people don't remember that what SKG is asking for used to be the norm. To this day I can fire up a Modern Warfare 3 server (the original) and host a game with friends. It's not something I do often, but the option is there and it costs the company that made the game nothing. The new Modern Warfare 3 will become unplayable when ATVI decides its time is done.
I agree with that, but they are not being anywhere specific enough, and they are using very underhanded tactics to try and get this passed through a goverment that, while significantly smarter than the one of my home country, is still VERY lacking in knowledge of the videogames industry and thus very likley to misunderstand it and pass bad legislation, there are constant issues with this with goverments pushing bills to try and protect kids online that will kill the concept of free speach online due to how they are written. This is my main BIG porblem, and appears to be thor's main problem as well.
Well, that maybe what he's trying to ask for. Unfortunately, the language he's using would not result in us getting that. Language used is very important in legal stuff. What SKG is asking for is far too vague to actually get any actionable and useful results from.
Besides that, he has a wrong impression of politicians. They are sharks, not sloths. And unfortunately they would get some kind of easy with this. Just not anything would benefit game developers or players.
One is P2P, one isn't. For a dev, you're either just as ignorant on server architecture as non-devs, or you're opting not to mention the backend differences, which is dishonest. Either way, I wouldn't buy your product, I'll pass on an ignorant or dishonest dev.
@@StrangelyIronic Modern Warfare 3 (old one) is NOT P2P on PC. It has dedicated servers.
@@FireFox64000000 If the language he's using wouldn't result in that, then perhaps you and Pirate Software should tell him that? Ross offered to talk to him about it and he deleted the comment. Ross will absolutely be willing to discuss this, his videos on the subject show he's taking this seriously. He's talked to multiple lawyers about this and is attacking from the angle of multiple countries, hence this EU initiative.
The Crew had a single player campaign, Thor. And was selling for full price I think in some regions on the last year of its run. I think its important to point that out.
This seems to be lost on some. Crew is *barely* an online game, it was basically tacked on there. Oh no, I won't see ghost people randomly dotted across the map, there was still an entire game.
They argue in bad faith about stuff they don't understand, they are just a bunch of stupid libertarians scared of muh government, if the industry was doing right by it's consumers we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Yes and that sucks, but the right place to press the issue is the company itself, not the legal system.
What are you saying, are you expecting him to actually research before grand standing?
@@raevenrises7595 That's obviously regarded because nothing you or anyone can do will ever stop the company from intentionally destroying the product you paid for lol
Wasn't one of the issues with The Crew was that there was a single player mode thats locked out without modding the game?
Hi, I played the crew for nearly 400 hours. 95 percent of the entire game is single player.
@@GalaxyMii Complete and total lies. You can even go and watch Ross' game dungeon on the game. It has a campaign, but it was ALWAYS online through the whole thing, and you played with other people online throughout the whole thing.
It's hard to even call the campaign truly "single player." It was this weird hybrid thing, sort of like Dark Souls but not exactly even in the "single player" where you'd form Crews (clans) and get points from your races as a crew to progress. Most of this was done by doing multiplayer races, which because it was always online, the game defaulted to.
More to the point, the campaign is like, even with the point grinding like 20 hours long. If you played The Crew for 400 hours like you're claiming, you'd be playing multiplayer. This was not a 400 hour long JRPG with reams of text and 100 hours of cutscenes.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe But it's like Forza Horizon, you play with bots (called Drivatars on Forza) - Otherwise, you just wouldn't be able to set difficulty settings and etc. It is still mostly singleplayer. I raked about 50h on it and never played a single multiplayer/online race.
Edit: But to be fair, I do agree with Thor. The Crew was "online-only" from day 1, even if you didn't need to interact with the online stuff.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe I think you missed the point of their comment entirely and went on about something completely different. Also people do like to just play one specific game a lot and still not interact with certain aspects of it. Happens quite a lot, especially in racing games.
@@MidlifeCrisisJoenice argument, small problem with it, I only played multiplayer a handful of times, I mostly played around in the huge open world by myself because the game without multiplayer was just that fun. Going on cross country police chases was epic. This is like saying taking down far cry 4 is reasonable because anyone can jump into a game with you.
Comment from Running with Scissors Software on Ross's most recent video:
Thanks for the shout out! We feel obliged to explain our position now, and why we care about what is going on here.
We’re just an indie dev with no ‘live service’ plans, but we are a publisher and developer that have worked to keep our own games playable for literally decades at this point - even if it’s not in our best business interests, hence why we wholeheartedly support this initiative.
In the unlikely event we did end up with a live service game, there would be an end of life plan built into it - if nothing else but so that our own developers, that would have spent years working on it, would not see their work just vanish one day.
For our part, as long as we are around we endeavor to keep our games playable, at the very least on PC. We’re not perfect, but we do try ,given our limited means as a truly independent studio. Here is our (obviously written with our own bias) track record:
POSTAL (1997) - We no longer update this game, so we made it open source and made it free. We have in the past rolled community updates into the base game, and will always try to make sure it survives any OS version updates. But if the time comes we’re not around, at least the source is out there for anyone interested to fix it up, should some OS update breaks it.
POSTAL 2 (2003) and its DLC Paradise Lost (2015) - We sell and even update this game to this day. We’ve had to fight to keep it working during Windows and Linux updates. Sadly, Mac support is no longer that easy due to them dropping 32-bit support, although we did make a serious effort to try and get it sorted. We can’t release the source code because Unreal Engine 2 is not open source, which is a shame.
The Mac situation bothers us though, so hopefully we can work that out one day. It was sold to Mac users, so they should still be able to play it, regardless of the paradigm shift Apple introduced with their hardware and software.
Postal III (2011) - Not a game we developed or published, but we fought hard to get the game working again on Steam after the DRM servers went down (that we never agreed should have been a thing in the first place). We didn’t profit from that, it was just the right thing to try and do for those that paid for the game, and thankfully it worked out.
POSTAL Redux (2016) - It’s come to our attention that there is a generation of CPU’s the game now crashes on due to it’s very old Unreal 4 version, so we’re currently looking into fixing that by updating the engine version, but it’s turned out to be more complex than we thought so it’ll be a while. This game is not a massive seller for us to be honest, but we can’t ignore the inconvenience for those it affects.
POSTAL 4 (2022) - Still very much working on this game, about to add co-op, and soon workshop/modding support. Thankfully Epic does allow the source code sharing of Unreal 4 and 5 games, unlike Unreal 2, so once the workshop is out, it’ll be safe in the community's hands should we ever fold. And we’re looking to make sure that the servers for co-op can be maintained as long as anyone wants them to be.
Anyway, to anyone that made it this far, thanks for reading. We just figured it was worth explaining why we’re supporting this cause - it’s because our own game preservation is important to us, and therefore understand why overall game preservation is vital.
We obviously do care about money and paying the bills so we can keep supporting our devs, but we also care about the community - so we take the L in some situations financially, in order to look after those that help get us here.
Best of luck in your endeavors Ross! And those supporting him!
Before you serve food, you need a food handler's permit. Before you dig for construction, you need to call to ensure you don't hit a pipeline. Before you make a live service game, you need to have a plan for what happens when you decide to shut it down.
Wins for consumer rights are wins for everyone in this age of not owning anything.
"But if we ban child labour, then the entire economy will collapse!"
Read his pinned comment before yapping
Put amazingly.
@@Alpha_GameDev-wq5cc people are not going to play on private servers of a game that is known to be bad, even if it's after the "attack". This pinned comment attack is very high cost for almost 0 reward. If ubisoft makes a game, i inflate it with bots and crash it over the course of 5 years (imagine the cost of that!!!), i'm getting 100 players that are still playing after 5 years, to play on my private servers. This is ridiculous, this is simply NOT VIABLE and will never happen.
@@AyoKeito wtf are you on about?
i love how whenever presented with a bad consequence of the live service model like it being rendered uplayable, including the singleplayer campaign, the response we get is "but thats normal". Did it ever occur that it being normal is a bad thing? Maybe games being unarchivable and made to be wiped from the earth when theyre no longer profitable through predatory microtransactions or subscription services might be a bad direction for the industry to go in.
I don't know how old this guy is but his overview of the situation seems rather short sighted in terms of the history of video games as a whole. This is a still a rather 'new phenomenon'. And yet he acts as if 'this is how it's been it will forever be'.
Na this clown is too far up his own arse
this kid doesn't even have a clue of what he is talking, it makes me really sad because this is now getting "normal" for a 10yo game "uhhhh" (as he said)
You clearly didn't watch his video. He explains that in the case of a game like the Crew, the entire game is based around driving a vehicle, which they paid the vehicle manufacturers for a LICENSE to use said vehicles in their games, that is a standard practice that has been going on for well over 20 years. Those licenses have a time limit on them, after which time the game maker can either pay another license fee, or remove the item from play that they had a license for, in this case they'd have to remove most if not all branded cars and model new ones, all for free and to a game that has an average player base of less than 100. As Thor said, the intent of this initiative is completely off base by being proposed as an 'easy win for politicians that don't understand gaming anyway', which as Thor pointed out in the video, isn't the attitude this issue should be approached with, as there could be far reaching consequences resulting from heavy handed legislation. Is Ubisoft in the wrong for how they handled the Crew? Yes. Is this blanket proposition going to actually fix the issue at hand, or is it just going to work to shoehorn game developers into not taking risks with creating online games and instead sticking to single player experiences.
@@tdeneen31 I'm sorry but this car licensing argument is in no way an excuse neither does it make any sense. Take any old need for speed game (NFS carbon) for example. The servers have long shut down, but players are taking into their own hands to make their own multiplayer alternatives. I'm dead sure that the car manufacturers licensing for that game has long died now. So what? It's abandonware, devs shut it down, players are keeping it up and the cars are still there. You don't see car manufacturers chasing Joe or Carl because they're hosting a home server to play NFS carbon, do you?
Try to understand that one thing is a company keeping a game online and monetizing it, whilst having perishable licenses they need to renew. Another thing is a game that was killed off, and players are taking into their own hands to keep it online, which is WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR this whole time, without companies trying to C&D it. That simple.
Why do we have to let companies be so consumer unfriendly (either intentionally or not) and get away with it? Why are people even defending them? Aren't they still making money? I don't get it.
"This isn't law, this is just something to get the conversation happening"
One minute later
"This has no specifics and would kill all gaming"
Like yeah, it has no specifics because it is meant to start the conversation, not be the words written on the bill.
9:27 “Politicians like easy wins, and this doesn’t require them to do much at all”
this is not the language u use when u want nothing more than to “start a conversation.” whether it was his intention or not, the wording used here makes it clear that he wants this to be passed. and as thor said, that is very scary because that sets precedent. having a bad precedent is worse than having no precedent at all because all future decisions will be looked at with this precedent in mind
@@jonathanfreeman5398 That video was put up way before the initiative was made available, and at the very start when he was brainstorming how putting a motion like this through would even be possible. He was literally uninformed at the time, which changed a lot over time, but even he admits he doesn't know what he's doing; hence why he's asking for feedback frequently.
@@jonathanfreeman5398 Yeah no fucking shit he wants this to be passed. Why is that something bad to want? You people like Thor who make such a big mess out of him saying that are so fucking weird, it's just how politics works - it's not disingenuous in any way to try and be politically adept.
@@TheRedKing247 It's actually nuts the moral grandstanding over saying "politicians like easy wins". Totally unhinged behavior if you aren't terminally online because...everyone says that, it's just the truth. EVERYONE likes easy wins.
If Thor actually believed in consumer rights he could easily help improve the language in the initiative, he's pretty damn articulate and has a lot of experience in the gaming industry. Instead he's demonizing it which might sway anyone uninformed on the topic who's only casually interested and unwilling to have a dialogue about it, which would bring the initiative more attention and views. Thor knows how the RUclips algorithm works. This is intentional.
"Live service game publisher against being held responsible and needlessly lashing out".
Once again, Thor showing us that he isn't all about good vibes and cuddles.
I'm a software engineer and I understand client-server software. We make software for enterprise clients and the clients host their own servers for security reasons inside their corporate networks behind firewalls. Which means yes, we distribute server binaries. Here's a proposal:
1. The game studio or publisher should be able to shut down their first party servers for live service games once providing said service is no longer profitable.
2. If the owner of the IP no longer wishes to host servers they should provide server binaries.
3. The cost of running third party servers is irrelevant. If no-one is willing to host a server then there is no server, and that's on the gaming community. If there is someone willing to eat the cost of hosting servers then the owner of the IP should not be able to shut them down, as long as they are not providing said service themselves. If owner wishes to reactivate first party servers, they can start taking down third party servers. If the servers shut down due to cost, fine. But there should be a possibility for someone willing to host a server to do so.
4. We should not allow monetising third party servers. Donations are fine.
5. Enforcing monetisation is on the owner of the IP. If the studio shuts down and the IP gets acquired by another company then the enforcement duty transfers to the new owner. If no-one acquires the IP and it becomes abandoned, then said IP should become public domain. At this point no-one appears to care about this IP, so yeah - monetise all you like.
6. We don't need to apply this retroactively. Some servers may have been architected in a way that makes it hard to provide server binaries. We can say that any live service games released after 2028 or some other future date will have to provide server binaries upon server shut down. This gives studios time to make the necessary changes to server architecture to enable compliance with the new legislation.
7. The game studio should not make existing user data available to the public. That means that players will lose in-game progress and will have to start from scratch if they play on a third party server. There's no way around that. User data should remain private.
8. Since we don't allow monetisation, any items that players used to be able to purchase via micro-transactions should become free on third party servers. Some micro-transaction options could be removed entirely to help with resulting balancing problems, such as XP boosts on in-game currency. However, things like weapons or skins should not be removed.
All of the above should be considerations made by company leadership when making the decision to develop a live service or to shut one down. If this means that a few live service games will not get made, fine. However, I do not believe that this will shut down the entire industry. Successful live service games will still be massively profitable for the developer and they can enjoy the profits for a decade+, even if at some point they will have to release the server binaries. The possibility of striking gold with a successful live service will continue to motivate people to develop these games.
It will not become too expensive to develop live service games. Single player games are cheaper to make today - you don't have to worry about servers at all. And yet live service games keep getting made.
I think these are really good points.
to point 7: they could send each user their own data in a last day patch.
This would possibly enable some to edit the files get get more stuff, but that on the new hosts to handle, if they even want to.
Correct me if II am wrong, but you can easily use those server files to run the game on your own PC and then connect through the client right? It's not that different from how you can make a Minecraft or CS go server using the specific files on a server or you can do it locally. You can even use third party software to allow others to connect to your network and play. At most you would need a virtual machine if they only had linux or if it required a specific windows client for best performance.
I can imagine there being exceptions but the only one I can come up with is the client or server side having the IP hard coded in the exe instead of in another file.
@@RisPeK About your last paragraph, Live service games keep being made partly because they are easy to shut down. If you strike gold, you keep printing money, if it fails, you shut it down, like The Day Before.
Adding these restrictions would be unfair to small development teams that now have even more labor to do that is unnecessary.
In all art, creators have the right to stop distribution of their work if they desire. Why is gaming specifically the one place where perpetuity should be legally mandated?
@@AfutureV Because the cost of entry of "buying the game" That is why. If a game did not have an upfront cost it wouldn't be an issue. F2P games die constantly. People paid 60 bucks upfront for The Crew.
Additionally, City of Heroes source code was given to the people running the private servers.
@@AfutureV Maybe games shouldn't be made to be easily shut down as soon as they stop making a profit? Maybe a little consumer protections at the cost of business is good?
“This isn’t possible”
Meanwhile whole servers are going up for consoles with shutdown digital storefronts
Yeah, I guess he missed the whole Insignia Project for the Original Xbox, private WoW servers and what not.
Wiimmfi has been around for a decade at this point with pretendo following suit.
Yup, this Thor guy is a shill. Name and shame.
@@theotherjared9824 And not to mention Monster Hunter Frontier was brought back by fans. So it's absolutely possible, I'm just disappointed to see Thor acting in corpos' best interest instead of peoples'.
These are fan efforts. If independent parties wish to make something that'll keep these services going that's amazing.
However, we cannot expect everyone to feel that way, much less a company that lives or dies by their profits.
This stuff costs money, and it requires upkeep, which requires staff, which requires payment.
Just because some fans can do it with their free time, doesn't mean it is viable for a company to do so.
You're dealing with two completely different structures there.
Just to clarify, it was never said that the publisher NEEDS to keep the live service online, even Scott Ross says that wont happen. Instead he says that they should be a way that the consumer can play the game when the publisher no longer WANTS to keep the service online.
Also, where do we 'buy' games anymore? is it not all licensing now? Do we even have a choice anymore?
His point is still the same. In order for live service games to be played when the service is no longer online, they have to be completely changed, and not for the better.
There's a big difference between say, a game like Elden Ring which is mostly single player with some online elements, and League Of Legends. Elden Ring could, with some rewrite, be made to deactivate the online elements and still function the same. League of Legends however, could not.
For one thing, making a game like League Of Legends work without network, so over LAN, invites all kinds of cheaters in. It's a nightmare. And if you say "Ok make LAN AND online available in the game, that way Online works differently" then you are asking to code 2 completely different games at the same time, and maintain them.
It's not a simple issue.
@@voltdriver Quote from Ross Scott:
This isn't about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it's primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.
@@voltdriver Just give us server source code or compiled executables. That way we can run the server ourselves. Done.
I think many publishers don't think about attachments on to their game especially when players grind for thousands of hours, that's why they only 'license' it to players. For online single player games, an offline patch is a must at the end of life, especially with racing games.
@DarksWolf550 this is legit the point!
“This would destroy live service games”
Aaaand, signed
like, one of the most despised aspects of modern gaming dying is not something I will weep for
@@darthgamer9861 How about you don't play those games and live on? Because trying to erase something that people like just because you don't is pretty stupid.
"Stop killing games - unless it's the games I don't like"
You're pretty fucking stupid aren't you kid?
@@KanaraVeluna The thing you like will be erased by the people who gave it to you in the first place you mook, the initiative is there to hopefully propose a law that will allow you to play that thing in the future so all the money you sunk into the predatory live service game doesn't go into the eather once it gets erased from existance
@@j4kfr05t5You clearly don't know what you're talking about,EU law is not retroactive,the game already released can still be shut down meanwhile there won't be any future games of that genre because of the regulation becasue it will bleed money of the devellopers if it fails.
I disagree. If some people can recreate Nintendo network server to still have Wii U and 3DS online in 2024 and onward, and that without the help of Nintendo, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be in the hand of Ubisoft to let us create custom « the crew » server before disabling their own.
We aren’t asking for publisher to leave their online server for ever, but to allowed us to play the game even if the server are off. Just let us host custom server.
Even if they don't supply the original server code, they could at least publish an API spec as to how that server responds, which would allow for quicker alternative implementations.
@@robert_may now that I think about it.
A studio of 1000+ devs I'm sure they can find a few to handle the discontinuation process, it's 2024 not 2004.
@@robert_may Exactly. Give the people a means to re-create the thing, even without infringing on existing patents if it comes to that.
Would love it if the wording of the proposal would bring up that as an option, but based on what I was in the vid, I don't think it does. The question seems to be if we prefer doing nothing or accepting a high risk of doing the wrong thing, and Thor prefers to do nothing in that circumstance.
that isn't what the initiative is saying - so you're making a completely separate argument. The initiative says it would require companies to invest in a method of providing servers for use after they sunset - not allow people develop their own.
Ross deleted comment:
"I'll just leave some points on this:
-I'm afraid you're misunderstanding several parts of our initiative. We want as many games as possible to be left in some playable state upon shutdown, not just specifically targeted ones. The Crew was just a convenient example to take action on, it represents hundreds of games that have already been destroyed in a similar manner and hundreds more "at risk" of being destroyed. We're not looking at the advertising being the primary bad practice, but the preventable destruction of videogames themselves.
-This isn't about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it's primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.
-A key component is how the game is sold and conveyed to the player. Goods are generally sold as one time purchases and you can keep them indefinitely. Services are generally sold with a clearly stated expiration date. Most "Live service" games do neither of these. They are often sold as a one-time purchase with no statement whatsoever about the duration, so customers can't make an informed decision, it's gambling how long the game lasts. Other industries would face legal charges for operating this way. This could likely be running afoul of EU law even without the ECI, that's being tested.
-The EU has laws on EULAs that ban unfair or one-sided terms. MANY existing game EULAs likely violate those. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA. The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely.
-We're not making a distinction between preservation of multiplayer and single player and neither does the law. We fail to find reasons why a 4v4 arena game like Nosgoth should be destroyed permanently when it shuts down other than it being deliberately designed that way with no recourse for the customer.
-As for the reasons why I think this initiative could pass, that's my cynicism bleeding though. I think what we're doing is pushing a good cause that would benefit millions of people through an imperfect system where petty factors of politicians could be a large part of what determines its success or not. Democracy can be a messy process and I was acknowledging that. I'm not championing these flawed factors, but rather saying I think our odds are decent.
Finally, while your earlier comments towards me were far from civil, I don't wish you any ill will, nor do I encourage anyone to harass you. I and others still absolutely disagree with you on the necessity of saving games, but I wanted to be clear causing you trouble is not something I nor the campaign seeks at all. Personally, I think you made your stance clear, you're not going to change your mind, so people should stop bothering you about it."
"The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely. "
Wouldn't that make it illegal to ban someone from a live service game?
@@conniescurse7325 no, cause they would have broken the agreed upon contract or TOS on purchase. If you break that contract and get banned it is your fault.
Same with McDonalds, if you go in and buy a burger and decide to throw the burger at the employees you broke their rule on contract in the premises so you will be removed.
Why was this comment deleted? What is going on?
@@KhadiPlays Thor got bent over by Louis and his butt hurts so much he had to delete it
Let me rexplain what he said as a dev myself - When you code a game it can be multiplayer or singleplayer and you cant have both mixed in. The multiplayer code is not compatible with singleplayer, and when you want to have a singleplayer part for a multiplayer game so they would never die it means to be making a whole new game. And also this will make it very hard for indies to make live service games.
The Crew (2014):
"In the single-player campaign the player controls Alex Taylor. He is a witness to the murder on his brother Datton, the leader of a crew called the 5-10's, but is arrested himself. Five years later he is given the opportunity by the FBI to hunt down his brother's killer Dennis 'Shiv' Jefferson, the gang's leader, as he is deployed to unmask the corrupt FBI agent Coburn who is also involved. He has to join the crew himself and make a name for himself to rise up the ranks." - MobyGames
"The Single-player campaign was up to 20 hours long" - Wikipedia (after Polygon)
Thor casually applying US specific legal logic and legislature process to a European initiative as an argument for why we shouldn't get onboard with it.
@@ronanmcw 'merica 🇺🇸
He also tried to claim that no game that is single-player that requires a constant online connection, so it really is incredible that a man who claims to care is a man who did literally zero research and just spunked his shitty opinion into 2 videos. Really has sullied my opinion of him
Mojang (developers of Minecraft) used to have a digital TCG called Scrolls. It was supported for a while until it eventually shut down many years ago. That game was a client-server game.
That game is still playable today, because what the devs did was essentially release the code for both the client and server, so the game is still up because the community themselves are hosting the servers that the client connects to.
Theoretically speaking, if let's say League of Legends would shut down, Riot could do the same thing. I do of course that there might be a lot of other problems with this that might make it difficult to actually do for some games for other reasons, but it should at least be possible without needing to massively rebuild the whole architecture of the game.
Also when Mojang did this, they actually changed the name of the version of the game they released like this in order for it not to infringe on the copyright they had on Scrolls
Problem is that developers that make multiple games will probably reuse some or most of that code. Releasing it publicly will just make it easier for people to abuse and manipulate the code to cheat, or worse harm other players by stealing login or credit card info.
@@darktangent10 the Minecraft game works by running a Minecraft server and then connecting to it, your email is not leaked by this and it doesn't cause cheating.
@@elorrambasdo5233 but you're still making it easier for abuse down the line, which can't be easily remedied without a dedicated dev team. It's a good solution that neither have talked about, but it's not a silver bullet, especially taking licensing into account
damn dude forgot that game even existed i remember totalbiscuit playing it back in the day was actually pretty fun
@@darktangent10 Totally legit services and publishers running high profile games steal login and credit card info all the time, not just from hackers but from employees within the studio, so that's not really much of a point. And the ability to copy and reuse code from another developer in no way guarantees another game will be successful or even functional.
I really liked Thor's shorts because he came across as someone humble but also clearly knowledgeable about his area of expertise and willing to help others achieve things they might not even try because they seem impossible.
Using your online influence to try and kill legislation someone is working on tirelessly is completely antithetical to all of that, especially with his refusal to just talk directly to Ross. Judging Ross entirely on one segment of one video out of the hours upon hours of content he's produced on the issue is simply an insufficient amount of due diligence for the damage this does. Consumer-led movements like this are difficult and require immense effort to get off the ground - if you're going to be naysaying them (causing significant damage with significantly less effort) I believe you need to be taking basic steps like talking to the figurehead of the movement before detracting from them. Thor states how unreasonable it is that people are ignoring his 20 year career and 8 years as a penniless indie dev when criticising him, I would say the same is true for his criticisms of Ross and his movement.
I do think, as Louis Rossman says in his response video, that Thor has relevant expertise and a sizeable following that he could be using to help shape this legislation. If there are circumstances where it would be reasonable to say this needn't be mandatory, he can help make sure those are known so that they can be accounted for in later steps of the process. I personally don't think that putting "you don't own your game" in an EULA is sufficient justification for not having a meaningful end-of-life plan and I certainly don't think that it is necessary to sell games as licenses so you can revoke access to features from bad actors. But if Thor thinks those things he can be taking steps to prevent them through collaboration rather than purely destruction.
I also think it reflects poorly on Thor that Ross's comment responding to this video has clearly been deleted or is otherwise inaccessible. You can find people who have copy and pasted the content of it, and it is clearly not only respectful but kind. Calling someone clearly disingenuous then allowing evidence to the contrary to vanish doesn't sit well with me.
Ultimately, I'm pretty disappointed with Thor's response here. I don't believe any of the conspiracy-theory "Thor is an industry shill" nonsense, but this does seem like a classic case of making a strong statement without due diligence and doubling down to protect your ego when challenged. It frightenes me to think Thor could become the next Jordan Peterson if this is how he handles things like this. I'd urge him to reconsider his approach here, but I suppose ultimately he's said his piece and it's up to supporters like Ross and Rossman to convince people Thor's concerns will be handled.
To anyone who supports the movement reading this: harassing Thor validates his decision not to support this movement. If you aren't convinced by Thor then express that perpsective respectfully and with love since you're expressing it to someone who clearly also loves games. Smart people disagree, and for a variety of reasons. Don't turn a movement spawned by a love for games into a movement of hate.
Be a mule will he, be a mule he will
It’s simply not antithetical. He simply believes that this initiative, particularly due to THE WAY THAT IT IS WRITTEN, will be harmful to both the dev and the consumer.
This is not antithetical to the thor that did and does all the things you mentioned in the first paragraph.
Your whole comment simply misses the point of what Thor said. He has a problem with the unscrupulous nature of the initiative and specifically with the targeting of “all games” in the objectives section of initiative description.
Don’t you see how creating laws that impose constraints on game developers, both indie and corporate, is potentially dangerous? Don’t you think such a thing should be handled carefully?
If this initiative were to pass, there is a risk of the EU commission imposing a law that requires game developers to offer eternal access to any game they distribute, which as Thor points out is a huge problem in the case of client-server online games, as they would have to pay for the server upkeep regardless of 0 active players for instance. In this case, I would have no hope of ever launching my own an online client - server game, because I would have to commit to its eternal upkeep if this initiative gets processed in the wrong way (which is perfectly possible because what does the EU commission know about games).
@@robertruta687If he only had actually read it and not ignored the parts directly clarifying what he complains about, while also being aware that the petition would not actually reflect the final law that is made...
@@richardimreviragosi6413 In my opinion he did read it. He read the stated objectives of the initiative and if there objectives are already poorly formulated then we have a huge problem.
Isn't it problematic for your stated goal to be:
"This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state."
"Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher."
You have no idea how this will get processed by the EU parliament. They could easily impose a law saying that game must be permanently playable after being purchased. This makes it waaay more risky and costly for both indie and corporate devs to develop online only games.
I think it's simple.
6:30 NOBODY IS TELLING THEM TO. It says either let players play offline or let players provide their own ways to run servers. Not continue to support live service even though it's dead. And it's a bad example cus the game is absolutely playable offline for the single player component, they just choose not to.
Its like this. For movies, usually you have the choice between the physical version of film or the digital. The consumer who buys the physical version gets to keep that, even if the digital is taken away. But for games, if you have the physical disc, its the exact same as buying it digitally. If that game gets taken down, there's no way to play that physical disc, hell, phsycial disc's for games are becoming obsolete cus of this
@@JojoTheVulture I dunno about other countries (I actually suspect most of them are better about it) but at least in the USA if you own a digital copy of a movie you're legally entitled to make a copy of it "for archival purposes".
Go make your own game or buy the full IP if you want to run free servers
@@Maximilian1990 horrible take. That should not be how things are. I'd have to make a clone of my favorite game? And have the risk of it being taken down too?
The Crew never had a singleplayer offline mode. It was effectively a racing MMO. Playing it singleplayer was just not grouping up with friends or the people you met in game. You were always connected to the server, you always had to be online to play the game. There are reddit posts from 2014 asking about the implementation offline mode. It never happened.
"This is bad, if this petition passes, it would damage all live service games"
Holy shit, where do I sign?
Truly the best thing ever. I wish I could sign more than once
You're endorsing the destruction of a game model a huge amount of people actually enjoy because of how you feel. It's textbook evil.
@@Cyb3rHusky And Thor is endorsing the destruction of games that people have already paid for. Textbook evil
@@Cyb3rHusky it's a bad and predatory game model that should die.
@@Cyb3rHuskyoh no! Some no name weak scrub NPC is trying to guilt trip me who has no power at all to stop me from signing that petition. Because you said something, I will sign it right now just to spite your waste of an existence you call a life. Sorry sellout, I'll do what I see fit and you have zero power to stop me with your elementary textbook narcissistic gaslighting, too bad your attempt ended in a critical failure. Maybe if you were preaching this to your furry friends someone would care, but I don't know you from Adam, you don't contribute anything in my life so you fail. Good job wasting your time, you stopped nothing.
Its like he refuses to understand that "Online only" is an umbrella for Planned obsolescence in many video games.
many, not all, and that's the point. why do you all fail to understand something so simple?
@@NetherPrime why are you so die-hard on seeing this initiative as a killer for those few then? Why do you fail to understand something so simple? (
heard he got so defensive because he's making one
@@NetherPrimeThis is the type of mindset that impedes progress. Just like how we need police reform in the US and there's people that go "well not all cops are bad" like yes, _everyone_ knows that, but the point is to get rid of the bad ones.
So saying that not all online games are planned for obsolence is the same thing.
He understands just twerking for corpos right now
Ross's comment, which Pirate Software deleted:
"I'll just leave some points on this:
-I'm afraid you're misunderstanding several parts of our initiative. We want as many games as possible to be left in some playable state upon shutdown, not just specifically targeted ones. The Crew was just a convenient example to take action on, it represents hundreds of games that have already been destroyed in a similar manner and hundreds more "at risk" of being destroyed. We're not looking at the advertising being the primary bad practice, but the preventable destruction of videogames themselves.
-This isn't about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it's primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.
-A key component is how the game is sold and conveyed to the player. Goods are generally sold as one time purchases and you can keep them indefinitely. Services are generally sold with a clearly stated expiration date. Most "Live service" games do neither of these. They are often sold as a one-time purchase with no statement whatsoever about the duration, so customers can't make an informed decision, it's gambling how long the game lasts. Other industries would face legal charges for operating this way. This could likely be running afoul of EU law even without the ECI, that's being tested.
-The EU has laws on EULAs that ban unfair or one-sided terms. MANY existing game EULAs likely violate those. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA. The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely.
-We're not making a distinction between preservation of multiplayer and single player and neither does the law. We fail to find reasons why a 4v4 arena game like Nosgoth should be destroyed permanently when it shuts down other than it being deliberately designed that way with no recourse for the customer.
-As for the reasons why I think this initiative could pass, that's my cynicism bleeding though. I think what we're doing is pushing a good cause that would benefit millions of people through an imperfect system where petty factors of politicians could be a large part of what determines its success or not. Democracy can be a messy process and I was acknowledging that. I'm not championing these flawed factors, but rather saying I think our odds are decent.
Finally, while your earlier comments towards me were far from civil, I don't wish you any ill will, nor do I encourage anyone to harass you. I and others still absolutely disagree with you on the necessity of saving games, but I wanted to be clear causing you trouble is not something I nor the campaign seeks at all. Personally, I think you made your stance clear, you're not going to change your mind, so people should stop bothering you about it."
wait he really deleted his comment? that doesnt look very good
Damn, did he really delete such a well-mannered comment, completely devoid of any sort of harassment or ill intention?
Omg.. Deleting this comment really shows his true colors.
Did he really deleted this? Wild… such pettyness wow
@@viejitaloca2810 He'd rather keep beating the strawman I guess.
I feel strongly that you completely missed the mark here. As someone who has, even in small parts, worked on Northstar, the Titanfall 2 Custom Server and modding framework, why was a solution like this not discussed here?
Northstar was possible because respawn did add a peer to peer lobby system, which was not really useable, but nonetheless neccessiatated the core server dll being shipped with the game.
Theres also things like WoW custom servers.
The Crew just needed to release server binaries, not be "converted to singleplayer"
@@laundmo maybe adding a UI to connect to a server you prefer also. That shouldn't be too much work.
Exactly!
your entire premise operates on the assumption that private servers are not illegal. Which they are. Even Mods themselves exist because the devs don't pursue legal action, since all this technically infringes on copyright.
You are basically asking "EU pls make Piracy legal, k10xbai"
Did you read initiative? there will be no servers
@@petitblanc7343 You are utterly anti-consumer :)
Telling the consumers how things work aint solving the problem when they wanted the things to be changed.
Anyway, piracy rules I guess.
If the game is killed and the servers shutdown, I, as a consumer, should be able to make my own private server and not have it be taken down. I'm not taking any market share or competing with the developers at that point, because the game doesn't exist anymore.
You could always just make you own game, without using someone else's assets.
@@MasterAarott Not the same thing. This isn't an individual appropriating another game's assets for profit, this is about ending the trend of ephemeral digital purchases and volunteers freely extending the life of software instead of allowing for the needless accrual of bit rot. It's about more freedom for consumers.
@@MasterAarott It just wouldn't be the same game
@@MasterAarott Sure, but I should also get to keep the product I paid for. That's how commerce works.
Yeah, if I wasted thousands of dollars on anime waifu/husbando gacha only to have the game shut down forever and all the stuff I paid for gone, I'm demanding my f- ing money back.
Man it really is funny that someone whose entire persona is based on the fact that piracy is not morally wrong due to companies breaking ownership rights, is against enforcing those exact rights
Seeing his reaction I think it's more of an aesthetic than a principal.
Meanwhile EU Pirate Party: "Sign it. Here's link."
Actually, Thor is vehemently against piracy, he's mentioned on stream and in his discord, PirateSoftware is not for/about actual piracy.. As expected of a corporate shill though, to be honest. Milks what little time he spends on programming heartbound on twitch, to get more money, while pretending like he's doing what he does to teach others about game design.
First of all his company name is called pirate software. As in pirate as in the noun not a verb. Secondly it is obviously not the same thing, one of the main ideas with his point is that it'll hurt indie studios the most and pirating stuff is about pirating big greedy studios and probably not the indie game makers just trying to make a living that charge a lot less for their games and are most often better games morally
@@SasukaRHit doesn't matter either way?
Indie companies don't make insane propertiary server infrastructure arrangements that can't possibly be hosted locally, because they don't have money for that anyway, and most of them understand that people don't like when you take away something they paid for.
The biggest moral reason for piracy is that companies circumvent ownership rights with DRM or using the "live service" scam, and the latter is exactly what the initiative is fighting against.
There is not a more genuine person on RUclips, maybe the internet, than Ross Scott.
THIS IS THE STATMENT FROM ROSS IN RESPONSE TO THIS VIDEO ⬇
"I'll just leave some points on this:
-I'm afraid you're misunderstanding several parts of our initiative. We want as many games as possible to be left in some playable state upon shutdown, not just specifically targeted ones. The Crew was just a convenient example to take action on, it represents hundreds of games that have already been destroyed in a similar manner and hundreds more "at risk" of being destroyed. We're not looking at the advertising being the primary bad practice, but the preventable destruction of videogames themselves.
-This isn't about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it's primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.
-A key component is how the game is sold and conveyed to the player. Goods are generally sold as one time purchases and you can keep them indefinitely. Services are generally sold with a clearly stated expiration date. Most "Live service" games do neither of these. They are often sold as a one-time purchase with no statement whatsoever about the duration, so customers can't make an informed decision, it's gambling how long the game lasts. Other industries would face legal charges for operating this way. This could likely be running afoul of EU law even without the ECI, that's being tested.
-The EU has laws on EULAs that ban unfair or one-sided terms. MANY existing game EULAs likely violate those. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA. The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely.
-We're not making a distinction between preservation of multiplayer and single player and neither does the law. We fail to find reasons why a 4v4 arena game like Nosgoth should be destroyed permanently when it shuts down other than it being deliberately designed that way with no recourse for the customer.
-As for the reasons why I think this initiative could pass, that's my cynicism bleeding though. I think what we're doing is pushing a good cause that would benefit millions of people through an imperfect system where petty factors of politicians could be a large part of what determines its success or not. Democracy can be a messy process and I was acknowledging that. I'm not championing these flawed factors, but rather saying I think our odds are decent.
Finally, while your earlier comments towards me were far from civil, I don't wish you any ill will, nor do I encourage anyone to harass you. I and others still absolutely disagree with you on the necessity of saving games, but I wanted to be clear causing you trouble is not something I nor the campaign seeks at all. Personally, I think you made your stance clear, you're not going to change your mind, so people should stop bothering you about it."
Gonna copy past this one just in case it gets deleted too.
What are those "earlier comments" Ross mentioned in the last paragraph?
Would you mind posting a link to that original comment from Louis ?
Just to be sure Ross really said that..
Amazing response and full respect. Hope this initiative goes through and I disagree with thor on this and how he approached it.
@@Armed_Plumber I'm curious about this as well. There's disagreeing with someone, then there's completely delegitimizing your own stance by acting immature and unprofessional. Really...interesting strategy to approach the topic widely considered to be a good for all gamers as an opponent, and beginning said opposition by resorting to sophomoric assertions and/or insults to the person spearheading the project. Its like taking shots at Keanu Reeves because you don't like the Stand Up to Cancer Foundation he is a major contributor to.
3:55
This was already adressed by Ross.
He said closely to: It doesn't matter, even if you played a game, forgot about it, it does not matter. What if you remembered that you had this game 15 years later and wanted to play it?
You should be able to.
And i agree with that. It's not even unrealistic. I myself played many games with gaps that were 5 years apart.
I mean shit happens, move on I guess. Or rewatch gameplay on youtube
@@Hakeraiden and what if the gameplay video either don't exist or were taken down?
@@Hakeraiden
If I wanted to replay a game that I really liked, I should be able to, especially when I, as the consumer, paid for it
Moving on is exactly why greedy companies can get away with this practice, singleplayer with online components, multiplayer, no matter what. Battlepasses already have a FOMO problem, why should we apply that to videogames too? Why should I be forced to play it before they decide 1 year later to shut off the servers? Should I even play multiplayer anymore, if I know that I wont be able to experience a fun game anymore, maybe even a game thats one of a kind
If those problems persist, the company should give the community the tools to make fanservers or something similar
Huge triple A companies can even let those servers run, hell valve does it. Aint noone want to buy ricochet but the master server is still up
@@EliJ0nes1998 grow up
@@Hakeraiden I'm gonna steal 100$ dollars from you and tell you to move on and look at the pictures of money.
Trolls used to be believable
A major example of this being a bad take: Test Drive Unlimited. Essentially one of the games that likely inspired The Crew. It had a similar massive online multiplayer function, open world, licensed cars, licensed music, etc. That game got a sequel.
These games are both STILL PLAYABLE in single player and with mods - MULTIPLAYER. Even after sequels and server shutdowns. This is the correct way to do it.
The idea of “you’re only buying a license to play the game” is fine and all, that’s practically how all software works except there’s NO EXPLICIT EXPIRATION DATE ON SAID LICENSE. This includes the other previous examples of TDU1 and 2. We only have a license to play it, we don’t own the IP. But that said license doesn’t expire and I paid full price for both games and I should damn well still be able to play those games (which you can).
@@DarkestDawnZK but saying "you're only buy a license" is just disingenuous. When you buy games on online marketplaces these days, you don't get the game as you would a regular product, you get a license like with any other digital product. You buy music? You get a license. You buy movies or shows from the Microsoft store? You get a license. You buy a software? Again, license. It's no coincidence that recently we had people complaining about not being able to transfer your steam library to your heirs when you die, because you don't buy the games, which as such you could easily leave to them, but instead the games' licenses.
So it's not really an argument, otherwise you could say "since you buy the licenses to the games, even though they aren't live service games ergo no additional costs to us, you shouldn't complain when we leave the game unplayable since, after all, you have no right to it. After all, you bought a license, not a game".
You... really didn't pay much attention to the video did you? Or the ToS for any online game?
@@JD-ms7lk arguably you could copy the actual files, whether you install them from a disc or steam. Yes with Steam there’s a bit more to it to make them work in that case but still.
@@Ailieorz I did, but the ToS is the problem working against the consumer here. But again in my examples, that’s how The Crew should work especially when most of the game is a single player campaign with additional multiplayer functionality. Forcing that to be an online only game and removing all functionality is against the consumer. Games like The Crew aren’t like Overwatch or WoW where the core of the game and campaign is online. Ubisoft is being like a lame parent here and taking it away “Because they said so” instead of actually caring about their customers. But again back to one of my main points. When you buy a license to use that software, it doesn’t expire unless it explicitly says that which, 99% of the time, they never say that. Windows 7 has been out of support for a long time now but I still have a PC that runs it to run some older software and it’s still connected, online, and functioning. But I dont own the IP of Windows. Just the license to keep that system running for as long as I want.
@@DarkestDawnZK I mean, you could, but many Steam games have DRM which makes them unplayable if you aren't connected online at least every X days (I don't exactly remember how often you need to be connected). And I don't necessarily mean Third party DRM, I mean Steam itself functions as DRM. Only DRM free games would be playable like that.
Still the point remains that, even with DRM free games, Steam only sells licenses, so you are not allowed to do what you want with the game. You wouldn't be allowed to burn it onto a CD and lend it to a friend for instance, like you would be able to with a physical disc.
Let's say for example your account got banned, but you still had the files of DRM free games. If this was a physical game, nobody could stop you from playing that game, but in case of Steam DRM free games, since you own a license, with the banning of your account, you would lose the right to play that game and would technically constitute piracy.
And then there is also the question of your library. Usually even if a game is delisted, you still are able to play it if you bought it. But then there are cases like the Deadpool game where it was removed from even the libraries of people who bought it. I remember people getting compensated by Steam for it, but still the point remains. Normally this isn't a thing I worry about. Even if Steam shut down, according to Valve they would void DRM and let everyone download all their games. The problem I want to highlight is simply with owning licenses in general and not the product.
I mean even GOG sells licenses and not games. Only, as far as I know, their terms allow much broader rights regarding their licenses than other platforms, since their whole Shtick is that you own your games DRM free and can do whatever you want with them.
CEO: *stands on position that benefits CEOs*
The internet: 😮
Something else to consider: These things get *heavily* watered down once talks start. You don't start a multi-country negotiation against massive businesses from your "minimum acceptable" proposition, you start with the broadest, most heavy handed solution and then hope it will end up with an reasonable decision that is not entirely filled with loopholes.
@@shanematthews1985That's why this initiative makes it possible.
@@shanematthews1985 Shipping binaries is usually fine for middleware, which is how they did it for decades already. No need to expose proprietary source code. And if it's somehow not fine, then those license negotiations will just have to change in the future. Laws are rarely retroactive. And if they are in breach already, then they fucked up and that's not the customers problem.
@@shanematthews1985 It's impossible, guys. We did it for decades, several games from the 80s and 90s can be hosted on consumer hardware with very little knowledge but middleware...it's impossible. Right.
So... Let us start with one not targeted at what we actually want to prevent? Let us go into the discussion about wanting a company to stop polluting the local wildlife by demanding they do cease a good chunk of their operations? (With the pollution coming from that chunk of their operation)
@@Furavara Good freaking lord, if you don't want to read what the initiative is about, then at least listen to someone who understands what the initiative is about.
Asmongold's video "gamers rise up" explains it very well and clearly, you should watch it if you can't be bothered to actually read the initiative.
I just don’t think you get it. You’re misunderstanding the entire point of the initiative, and for someone who is usually so rational and level-headed, it disappoints me that you’re not at least willing to keep an open mind on this or have a genuine discussion on why this initiative even exists in the first place.
The point isn’t to force companies to run dead games at a profit loss. The point is preservation. Why anyone would be okay with the complete and utter deletion of a project simply because it is a video game baffles me.
>The point isn’t to force companies to run dead games at a profit loss. The point is preservation.
The 'point' is very well understood. And the contradiction that exists in the above statement is very clearly explained.
‘the point’ doesn’t matter when it comes to legislation, what matters is the outcomes, and in the case the outcomes are bad
The point is, all the Thor dixk sucker's are coming out without even reading what's actually written. Yall are literal clowns
@@DomhnallPHow is it bad? Oh you don't know just because Thor said gross. You are listening to a blizzard dev, no THAT should tell you enough little bro
@@Mendicant_Bias My subscriptions are public, you can see i’m not subscribed to thor, i was directed to this video by a linus tech tips video, so I’m not just some meat rider. it’s bad because mandating that live service games are supported in perpetuity regardless of profitability is going to make publishers unwilling to support them entirely, nobody in their right mind would willingly tie that stone round their neck. And the way the idea is being pitched as ‘an easy win’ that politicians will happily use as a distraction from ‘real issues’ is super fucked up, imagine someone saying that about basically any other social issue and it becomes completely unacceptable, so why is it an ok justification in this case? Policy should never be pushed on the basis of the likelihood of its success, that’s absurd. it should be presented on merit, and in this case, while there is a case to be made for some policies to be implemented with regards to anti-consumer actions, forcing developers to either pay for servers for life or not to make the game is just going to inevitably result in the game not being mad, and that’s bad.
btw infantilizing someone on the internet just because you disagree with them is weirdo behaviour
AAA publishers in the late 90's and early 2000's: "We shipped our game with dedicated server tools bro, they're on the CD you can make backups of. We hope you and your buddies will have fun running a private server 25 years from now"
AAA Publishers now: "uh oh sowwy the game you paid $60 for last year isn't so popular anymore so we're going to have to revoke your license to play it :( :("
Imagine defending this shit lmao.
@@Chilevec No, he just doesn't like the conversation in the first place because it goes against every sensibility you'd learn at Activision-Blizzard in the first place. We had dedicated servers, modding, ect in all of our older titles. They worked until live service killed them off. You can't act like it never happened.
@@welcometochiles6156 Thor has evil blizzard cop running in his veins, He only thinks about how to screw over the playerbase.
@@yunoyukki7344 ???
@@yunoyukki7344 agree with you 100 percent
big facts
I did my part and signed the initiative
You pay for a game, you should be able to play it 20 years later, period.
That is stupid.
@@macewindu5195 Every game I own I could play it even 200 years later
@@ReachTimeToWin and?
@@ReachTimeToWin just don’t get live service games since this pitfall of them is obvious and inevitable, if you dislike a game that is a temporary experience, that you know will not be able to be played forever, then do not get that game.
@@macewindu5195 Horrible take.
5:20 "Everything that I found online shows that the game was always marketed as 'online-only'"
Dude, the wikipedia page for the game says it has a "Single-player Mode" right there on the sidebar
fr!
Sadly you are wrong - wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. Make a google picture search for 'ubisoft game box the crew' and check the pictures of the back of the game box. It says 'online connection required' with an easy to see label. But I still think they should have updated the game with an offline patch at least for single player. But what do you expect - It's ubisoft. I know why I don't buy ubisoft games....
You can have a game be single player but still need to be online to be playable. Sim city is a great example.
Yeah it says exactly that, and the phrase is still right. You can have a singleplayer mode AND be online-only, being online isnt being multiplayer.
You're conflicting the terms.
I think PirateSoftware has a bias being a developer. Developers benefit from old games dying off, they don't make any money on people enjoying old games.
The Crew has a significant amount of singleplayer content. Framing the game alongside something like FF or League where it is ONLY a multiplayer game is absurd.
But was that content all running client-side or was it just creating solo instances of the multi-player game and having the server do the same things it did in multi-player sessions? If it wasn't 100% client-side then migrating the functions the server was performing into a client is a large undertaking.
There is a lot of good arguments against Thor here. But this comment is just jumping on the band wagon without understandig the issue.
It is valid to talk about FF or league alongside The Crew here. The petition is about ALL games. including singleplayer and multiplayer. ALL, not some
@@snowconureexpect the other games listed don't have the single player component they're talking about. The game has a 20 hour single player mode, which is why he's specifically talking about the Crew and why they can't be conflated with these two games. Not only that, The Crew had an offline mode in the code that Ubisoft failed to enable.
because it wasn't about single player content. He showed us that The crew was marketed as an online gaming experience. Did you even watch the video? I don't understand how you missed this.
@@crushycrawfishy1765 I have the game and I can guarantee you that it has a singleplayer (with a story) and an online multiplayer. It is stupid that the whole game is gone after the servers shut down.
Edit: I hadn't seen any advertisements about the game when I bought it. I just read the covers which stated that that the game included a 1 player mode and an online multiplayer mode.
There is an "internet symbol" on the yellow multiplayer icon, but not on the blue singleplayer icon. So even though the cover says that an internet connection is required, does it really mean anything? Especially when most big games today need to be updated via internet before you can start them even for the first time.
1. If I buy a game I want to own it.
2. If I'm buying a licence I want to be aware of the fact that I'm buying a licence and not the game.
3. The developer should not be allowed to revoke the licence if the consumer hasn't agreed on it.
4. It should be stated what parts of the game require an internet access.
The entire point is the current live service model SHOULDN'T be the standard.
4:03 doesn't matter because those 12 million people who have bought the game, still should be able to play the game whenever they want to.
Ross is arguing for video game preservation for all games, including online service games. He's not asking for every game developer to host game servers forever at a company loss, just that there are measures to always access the game. Especially if you purchased it while it was hosted by the developers.
Then it should be written like that in the possible initiative. Not be open to interpretation and confusion (like it is now). I know it isn't Ross's job to be a lawyer but it could be more clear. Otherwise you end up hurting other developers (usually smaller ones) with imprecise language while trying to target bad practices.
@@mir8651Law must be open to interpretation, you can't define specific cases because that creates loopholes. The way the initiative (which is always going to be vaguer than an actual law anyways) is written is how lawyers advised it should be written.
The video clearly states that the current drive does NOT do that, it's MUCH to vague and broad and fundamentally abusable
@@Pi0h1 That makes no sense. Otherwise everything would be vague and nothing would be actionable or definable in court LMAO Court cases would be a nightmare.
You can't make an initiative. Make the wording on it vague and then expect everyone to agree with it. The loopholes you mentioned happen from a lack of precision in the language, not the opposite.
@@jujuteuxOfficial Yes it does. It's not Vague. It's literally on the site. It's written in bold text in the FAQ. Pirate simply did poor research.
Here's the quote. "Q: Aren't you asking companies to support games forever? Isn't that unrealistic? A: No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary."
…. All game purchases are licenses now, every EULA I have seen in the last 20 years has said that. It’s been that way for a while. We need to eliminate that language from all TOS.
Exactly, it's bullshit. And as others said, if a game is not a good, then piracy isn't stealing.
it's not "now" it's since the atari 2600 days
You don't own Super Mario Bros ! Nintendo does
What you own is a licence to play the game forever
@@redstone0234 Isn't that just how copyright works in general? What they are talking about is the right to own the product you are buying. Nintendo could not just break into your home and take back your copy of super mario brothers.
@@redstone0234 Absolutely nobody thinks you're supposed to own the video game itself and not a copy of it that is yours to do with what you please. This is a stupid semantics argument made for the sake of being correct. Shut up.
fun fact TOS and EULA are not legally binding documents . While its true games are sold under licensee they are sold as a PERPETUAL license meaning you will always have access the the Good you purchased.
I think this video does more to try to stop or kill “Stop Killing Games” without presenting a solution or alternative, which will ultimately do more harm than good. As it stands, this video just seems like a defense of the status quo instead of a “this should get some critical corrections before moving forward, and here are the corrections.” I do agree with Thor at the end when he says companies should be required to tell you you aren’t purchasing a game, just licensing it, but that shouldn’t be the be-all end-all.
And yet this drama is raising a lot of awareness!
@scpWyatt
Thor is not obligated to provide a solution. This video is in response to constant questions by his viewers on his opinion of the "Stop Killing Games" initiative.
"As it stands, this video just seems like a defense of the status quo" Thor briefly touched on this in the video calling out the vagueness of terms in the initiative and perhaps he should have elaborated more, but he has explained further during his live streams at the dangers of not having precise wording of potential laws. That not vetting the exact nature of said laws could lead to irreversible damage many people and companies.
@@TheBerzerkerlord Exactly.
@scpWyatt I am sorry but him warning of this doing more harm then good and him not being able to in good conscience being able to support it does not put him in the spot to be obligated to provide an alternative. How is pointing out "This is not it, chief" doing more harm than good? If someone had a solution to the problem of tumbleweed and a scientist warns: Yes, this will work, but it will also kill a lot of local plant species and do a lot of harm so we should not do this! - Is the scientist now doing more harm than good because she has provided no alternative to deal with tumbleweed and the tumbleweed problem continues?
@@TheBerzerkerlord of course Thor isn’t obligated to do anything, Im not saying he is. Am I not allowed to be disappointed in somebody’s handling of a situation regardless?
Additionally, as far as I know, petitions are not meant to be final precise representations of the law. At least here in the U.S., I’ve never seen a petition held to such a high standard. The idea isn’t for lawmakers to just take this and copy-paste it into “The Law.” I’m no expert on UK politics but that would be insane for anyone to assume that. It’s Lawmakers’ and lobbyists’ jobs to write the final letter of the law, not concerned citizens.
Again, I’m from The States, so maybe in the UK the public ARE the ones that are supposed to figure out all the legalese before they bring it to their representatives, idk man just seems weird to me.
Because Thor simply doesn't care if games are killed off forever, so he has no reason to propose an alternative.
This almost feels like a strawman argument. Target the mission statement then twist it into something easier to argue against.
"Gross and disgusting" holy shit you need to chill out, things like the Adobe products fiasco and older games being at risk of becoming lost media just because of infinite greed by companies is what's gross and disgusting, idk if you're just being incredibly short sighted or straight up openly defending anti consumer practices because you're looking at the whole thing like a company dev, look at the gaming industry in the ps3/xbox360 and ps2/xbox original era, a bunch of single player and multiplayer games worked just fine if you were offline and wanted to play with bots, "live service" games needing a permanent internet connection is a completely made up arbitrary requirement by companies in order to control what we own and to take things away from us and force us to buy something again, freaking Unreal Tournament and Quake III Arena had bots MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO, this is not some sort of magical advanced technology that is too complicated to implement for poor little baby developers and poor innocent triple A companies, give me a break
Yes, it is disgusting to push legislation through a body you claim has no experience on the industry because you think it will distract from issues that actually matter.
@@silasstryder I actually didn't. He actively stated that politicians will do it because it's easy, gives them a win, they don't care, and it can help distract them from bigger issues. It's awful of someone to knowingly push an initiative that the legislature isn't well versed on because they're do-nothing politicians. It's corrupt and horrible.
@@michaelkaruza490 you have no clue how EU legislation works and it shows. industry leaders are deeply involved in law making. it's not like some random bureaucrat dictates whatever he feels is right. interests and concerns of all parties will be considered.
@@HyperionStudiosDE oh, is that why it was a good thing that EU lawmakers don't care about video games making this easier to pass? Oh yeah, I'm sure he was championing the rigorous process they'd put this legislation through to make sure it turns out perfectly.
@@michaelkaruza490 completely irrelevant what "he" thinks or wants. legislators will investigate this issue independently and involve all parties of interest.
Hellgate London was a live service game with a fully developed singleplayer campaign with server login, that eventually transitioned to multiplayer, then completely shutdown, but the disc version allowed a single player version to be installed (complete with secret areas). This was then bought by Hanbitsoft and retooled to remain worldwide multiplayer until they closed the service to non-Korean users. Hanbit under player pressure, converted the game to a singleplayer fully offline version. but also still maintains a Korea only version that remains multiplayer.
So it's possible but it does take a lot of work.
City of heroes and battleforge (now skylords reborn) have managed the feat for their live service games as well.
Yes and that's why this is important. It would save so many games from dying, i do not know what thor is smoking
Hellgate london. Lol my buddy bought a 3 figure lifetime subscription at release. Lifetime was only like 3 months.
@@levi7581 just because 1 or 2 games have managed to do it, doesnt mean all games can, and most important one how many publisher/developers are gonna spend so much money just to convert a online game into a offline version?
@@levi7581 Thor made a slightly sloppy video unfortunately. I think he means to say he's all against shitty practices but this needs to be written more precisely for him to even consider it. As written, Thor is not happy with it. his twitch stream (live until 12PM PDT) explains more over and over again (and not necessarily with any deeper explanation) but unfortunately it's not captured in this RUclips.
I signed “stop killing games”. I understand how games function and I still signed it because we need to go back to when we owned our copies of the games. Not owned the intelectual property but just our copy of the game which we expect to function whenever we fire it up.
I recenly started playing Assassin’s Creed Black Flag and I noticed the game does not function without Ubisoft login. I have no intention to play the multiplayer component of this game. I am glad the game offers this because many people like co-op, but I see no reason why is my single player story component locked behind an online gatekeeper. This is just a tiny example of a major problem in the industry.
Just take a look at Nintendo Switch and how many games you can play without Internet and without even having a Nintendo account at all. You can take out the console out of the factory packaging, turn it on, insert the game and start playing. It will be the same in 30 years if the device remains functional for that long.
You think The Crew is an “old” game which does not deserve to be played anymore? I beg you to reconsider that opinion.
Yeah, he clearly has no idea what The Crew is or even is about, he took everything at face value and didnt bother reading
Yup, he obviously didn't do his research. What a clown.
But do you want to punish every live service game?
@@tru_0a not the case, it only affects after end of life
@@tru_0a no. not even one.
"This will kill all live service video games"
Do you promise? I really hope youre right on this, we have been working so hard on this.
Pirate games has convinced me to sign because of that statement
just don't buy them?
@@zealot2928 Very bad take. Almost every AAA game is having this stuff grafted onto them. And the social element of games will pressure people into buying games with elements they don't like, so they can play with friends. If your entire friend group is playing live service games, and you lose out on getting time to socialize with them because that's how other people are spending it, is 'don't buy them' really a reasonable solution? There's more then 'voting with your wallet'. Nobody 'voted with their wallet' for DRM, or SBMM, or any number of awful new additions that nobody likes. "Vote with your wallet" works somewhat as a rule but there are ways it can be beaten. These features are meant to be burdensome, but they force people to engage with their mechanics meant to monopolize your time. Stuff like daily login rewards, weekly caps, its all specifically to gate you so you have to keep coming back in order to get the things you want out of the game.
My brother in Christ you vote with your wallet
@@DaWhim2380 never worked, never has. Go sign instead
StopKillingGames it isn't about converting multiplayer games into single player games, and it is also not just about single player games that shouldn't have required a connection to a server, it is simply about leaving games in a playable state when developers end support, whether that be by providing a way for people to host their own servers or by providing an offline mode, there would be no need to rearchitect games like League of Legends since it would still be connecting to a server, just not the defunct official server.
Ross is essentially arguing that if you buy a game whether it's single player or not, you should own that copy of the game, meaning that neither the publishing company nor the devs can take it from you or render it unusable after the point of sale.
for example if you buy a chair and take it home, then after some random amount of time the company that made that chair shows up and throws that chair into a woodchipper leaving it as a pile of woodchips, you technically still have it but it has been rendered unusable by the company that made it, that would be destruction of property.
the main difference here is that for physical items someone would have to physically show up to destroy your property, the way that this is done for games is by requiring connection to a server that at some arbitrary time will be shut down rendering the game unusable.
personally I would like to be able to use the stuff I buy, whether that is on the day I bought it or decades later, the alternative is that you don't own anything you buy and it can be taken from you at anytime.
while this would require additional work on the part of the devs of live service games it would not require nearly as much work as you've implied, and would ultimately be worth it to prevent the destruction of these games.
side note about the crew specifically, the crew actually did have an offline mode that appears to be fully or nearly fully functional, it currently isn't accessible but would have required minimal work from the devs to unlock it.
I am certain you have zero experience of deploying apps into the cloud or datacenters.
@@NTR-Impact I do. And I'm more than happy to do that for an old game if a community of 50-1000 players can play it. Just let me change the addresses in your code or let me put a custom .ENV in the same folder as the binary. Like they should have been doing since the beginning?
My face when i buy a fruit and a month later i cant eat the fruit anymore 💀
We would all like to be able to use the things we buy indefinitely, but when that chair is costing a publisher millions of dollars to maintain, just so you and 3 other people can sit in it. What would you do in that situation?
Invest even more time and money into the chair so that one of those 3 people can maintain it themselves?
All of the people that complain about this problem would make the exact same decision as these publishers if it was their money that was being drained supporting 10 year old games that barely anyone is playing.
Your first statement is wrong, that's literally something the creator is asking for. Multiplayer online live-service games being converted into fully playable offline experiences including Free-To-Play. Also, micro transactions are licensed game items which you have access to for the lifetime of the game or account, it's not a chair... it's a PNG of a chair that the SERVER validates ownership of. You can't buy a drink at a bar and leave the premises with the glass, you're there for the experience not ownership. If that bar shuts down or the brewery stops making that batch... well that's up to them to offer it as a bar only tap.
Now, I agree it'd be awesome for games to allow private dedicated servers, but that would need to be done with the knowledge that the game won't have FULL functionality. Games with only partial single player experiences would REQUIRE breaking any online connectivity which requires licensing or verification. Asking devs to make sure that single player functionality works in an offline state is a completely different request than making an online service game fully functional without a server connection, and in both cases would require additional dev time and resources (bringing up development cost).
Absolutely wild to me that a man who encourages you to make games is advocating for companies to be able to just take away your art from your audience. If you work for a big company, the art that YOU worked ok can just disappear at the flip of a switch, completely without your input.
Having an "end of life" plan is not a radical idea in software engineering. This is stuff we were taught about in undergrad.
Also, WoW Ascension. That alone pretty much counters most of his arguments. It's not about providing the servers, it's about providing the means to MAKE servers.
A single game example doesn’t debunk the entire argument. League was a perfect argument as to why this cannot work.
Any game that needs to manage data between gameplay instances cannot operate in this environment ,period. These games can’t exist without a global management of data and there’s no such thing as a trusted third party just as there is no trusted client.
I understand your concerns for the art side of things but the art is not owned by you, you accept this when you take the paycheck for the work you do for someone else. This is how every industry in the entire world works. And I say this as someone who has slaved over software doing and seeing this exact thing.
Your point matters more towards preservation which I do Infact agree with.
Ok what about LoL? What about Monster Hunter Now and Pokémon Go? How about any game that has to sync data accross all instances of the game for it to function properly? What you're asking for would get rid of all those games.
@@zekenebel What about League stops it from having offline/LAN mode?
The matchmaking? That isn't needed for the game to work. Skins-access server? Could make all unlocks accessible by shutdown (or keep as is)
You do know that dota-OG (what league is based on) did not have a centralized server?
Dota2 does actually have client side hosting capabilities, and a fully working offline mode (vs bots)
@@michaelkaruza490 What we are asking wouldn't get rid of those games, you are just talking out of your ass without knowing shit about game dev or software development in general. Everything this petition is asking for is not only perfectly possible, but it should be mandatory by law. If you want to keep buying games that will be unusable in a couple years that's on you
@@bafat-cb4in databases are much more important than you think to these games. This poses so many questions about what exactly developers would need to provide to players as a single player experience because this could easily digress into a situation where developers would need to have an exact version of the online game capable to be played LAN/ singleplayer. If giving players access to all the server binary’s wasn’t such an issue. Why does obfuscation even exist ? My point is that , due to the nature of certain games, the necessity of s single player experience is so much more work for developers and maybe the most pointless thing if the game isn’t designed to be played this way in general. The problem that Thor mentioned comes into play here. There’s way to much nuance to this to try to enforce it for every game.
How can you say you don't have a conflict of interest with a straight face?
By being a shill
He doesn't have a conflict of interest, he's not employed by Ubisoft or any of the other companies that are being targeted by this initiative. He's an indie developer with experience in the industry, that makes him informed, that's not a conflict of interest.
@@thetwilight2448 You are not informed. This targets ALL games FOREVER if the Initiative were directly implemented. It just so happens that Thor has stakes in games that are online-only that this could potentially harm, which seems to be in part why he's taking this sort of stance.
@@duncangreywater What stakes does Thor have in games that are online-only? Does he have shares in these companies? Is he profiting from the sales of these games?
@@duncangreywater Thor has stated that he is not connected to online-only games in the *pinned comment* of this video. He just thinks that this is a vague initiative and is focusing on the wrong issues. Please inform yourself before stating stuff.
Petition signed.
Not gonna sit here and listen to you call an amateurs approach "disgusting", misguided? Sure, but it stinks when you're displaying an equal level of ignorance despite experience in the industry, very childish.
Can we bring back dedicated servers 🥺
pay special attention to what Ross says IN HIS OWN VIDEO at timestamp 1 : 46, quote: "This would NOT require publishers to give up any of their intellectual property rights, give up their source code--though that one would still be nice, it wouldn't require endless support."
as an old-head, it sounds nice. not very compelling at all to developers, and most players don't want them.
having the option would be cool and based tho.
@@postpenultimate5777 copy-paste response that has nothing to do with op
@@postpenultimate5777 Tons of games offer dedicated servers. That's neither IP rights or source code.
@@postpenultimate5777 you can set up counter strike 2 dedicated server right now because you don't need ip rights or source code for that
I feel as if you're grossly missing the point, Thor:
-This initiative isn't going to set any kind of precident for laws. That's just not how the EU works. All this will do is get the converstation rolling and nothing else.
-Ross has said in previous videos that he doesn't want developers to retroactively go back and patch older live service games, and admits it would be too much work. This is only to stop games in the future from having no end-of-life plan.
-He's also said he doesn't want developers/publishers releasing source code. Only to provide enough code to have a chance to get a game running after shutdown, even if it takes the community work to do.
-You can't make comparisons like WoW and not acknowledge that private servers have existed for it since forever, and I refuse to believe you didnt use offline internal testing servers while working at Blizzard.
-Deleting comments that disagree with you makes you look worse by comparison.
He’s not deleting comments that’s RUclips’s dogshit ai.
he hasnt deleted comments bro what do you mean, the only thing deleting comments is probably youtube when someone says something thats flagged.
Yep I do not understand this video at all. When I heard Thor disagrees with it on Asmongold channel, I was looking towards the explanation why. This is absolutely shiet take on wrong assumption that this is law that will be send in pdf file to European parlament, they will look at it, be clueless what it is about and vote YES!.
If you will read too much into his language as Thor did, yeah he sounds bad. But this video is targeted at Europeans. Saying "this has chance to pass, because politicians do not care" is bad choice of words, but we can all agree that for example in my country, changing name of spread butter because it does not contain butter is kinda simplier law and thing to think about, than regulations of nuclear energy for example.
Agreed, I agree at least since bro said nothing wrong here I mean I agree with both of you actually.
@nappygrimm6411 Ross has left a comment on this video, and it's been deleted. He proved it by posting the comment he left on his Twitter account.
He also deleted another comment from Ross on his Stream VOD where he was discussing this too. It won't show up even if you search for it. There's proof of all of this in Louis Rossmann's video on the topic as well.
Thor deleted comments, or at the very least chat banned Ross so that his comments no longer show up whenever he posts. Either way, it's a bad look.
I still have my original Battlefield 1942 disks. I can still, to this day, get an older computer, stick it in the corner, configure a BF1942 server, load the Desert Combat mod, and publish the IP. No one can stop me from doing that. This is what Stop Killing Games is about. Going back to that world of the late 90's and early 2000's, where the companies who sold games never hosted their own servers, and instead, the playerbase hosted the servers. This practice was ended, because publishers had to put in more effort than the bare minimum of incremental updates to a sequel, because low effort and inferior sequels were being forced to compete against their previous versions. If they weren't substantially better, people would keep playing the old one. The publishers want to be able to take the old game out behind the shed, so that they don't have to compete against their own product, even if the players like it better. That's morally bankrupt.
I agree with that to a certain extent some companies do use it to take out their own competition with their old games. But you also have to think about how if a game only has 5-30 players playing it that company is no longer making a profit or breaking even running the servers. I think the best way to go about this is: money to run game
Because players simply hacked and cheated. There was a point where you could log into any Counter Strike server and there would be at least two people running cheating mods. Often more. So players complained. For a decade they complained. And the result was companies simply removing that way of doing business. Now everything is client-server and tightly controlled, especially since micro-transactions exist - and this means storing your information somewhere.
@@plektosgaming Those servers were community moderated and hackers were swiftly banned. Hacking is now more rampant than ever, because 99% of the banning is done by automated systems.
@@vola-2899 Most of the games the "community" would claim that we all were full of it unless we literally caught someone 360 no-scoping while jumping off of walls and bridges. The enforcement was actually crap most of the time, because it was often the friends of the owner or the owner themselves.
Exactly! These games should be built from the ground up with that in mind so at the end of it's life on cloud servers, they can give the option to allow local servers, LAN and peer to peer.
"I cannot and will not support a vague and potentially dangerous start to this conversation."
I cover a lot of government and nothing grinds things to a standstill more than people creating catch-22 situations of "We won't agree to start developing a plan until we have a plan developed."
that's simply not what he said, nor what he implied. What Thor intended seemed much more along the lines of 'this is not the angle we should start developing this plan from'
@@Viper-zk9mv because, his team is dropping a live service game so, if this initiative moves forward he'd be forced to do a lot more work he doesn't want to, IE he'd need to do his job and give people a product, he wants full control over his product. It's a biased take from a biased dev
@@lordrevan571 what live service game is he releasing?
There's a step before that. Where he eliminated the government as the platform the plan. Thus it's not part of the equation. There still is a plan being developed. Just not in the way you want it.
@Alex_Barbosa he very plainly did offer a solution, or at least guidelines with which the initiative should be rethought
So what protects us from all games becoming online so they can take support and the game away whenever they want ?
not buying those games. vote with your wallet
If you lack the capacity for basic self-control with what games you buy, I guess nothing
@@pureexile1702 You will be outpaced by unthinking consoomers that do not consider the consequences of their purchases. Your suggestion effectively boils down to "Stop playing games entirely" at some point within the foreseeable future, which is a daft suggestion when there's instead the option of simply giving players the means to keep running the games they paid for.
@@pureexile1702 In that case there will be a time where there is no alternative. Not everything can be solved by voting with your wallet.
@@pureexile1702the fact that these games are becoming more and more common is the direct result of "voting with the wallet".
I'd rather just vote, so other people can't vote more than I can.
Europe doesn't do precedents in law, the initiative is to get the conversation started, yes it won't be easy to transition, but we can't be okay with companies selling online games that don't do well after a few months and just shutting it down. The consumer paid for the game, the consumer should be entitled to at least play the game for a number of years, and I do know The Crew was online for a large number of years but the game continued to be sold until the moment it was shutdown, that shouldn't happen.
Requiring a company that has a live service game to stop selling a soon to be discontinued product, unless they are entering into bankruptcy procedures, without notifying the potential customer that this will happen at point of sale is a business practice that needs to be stopped. A 6 month period before shut down where sales stop or all customers are warned clearly that there is a terminal date on the game service would make sense.
He even showed in the video that it was not sold till it shut down.
He literally showed in the video that it wasn't being sold until the moment it was shut down, and no one was playing it. Anybody buying in that late into the lifecycle of a game with multiple sequels out would know what they're getting into anyways.
@@AnonymousONIagent He showed it wasn't being played by many players, not that it wasn't being bought. And consumer protections are about ensuring the consumer isn't duped, with that line of thought we wouldn't need any protections, just research everything before you buy!
@@wames5317 yeah, they stopped selling it 3 months before shutting it down..imagine paying for a game to only have it in your library for three months.
Ross's comment, which Pirate Software "totally did not delete", and I'm reposting because of course I am:
"I'll just leave some points on this:
-I'm afraid you're misunderstanding several parts of our initiative. We want as many games as possible to be left in some playable state upon shutdown, not just specifically targeted ones. The Crew was just a convenient example to take action on, it represents hundreds of games that have already been destroyed in a similar manner and hundreds more "at risk" of being destroyed. We're not looking at the advertising being the primary bad practice, but the preventable destruction of videogames themselves.
-This isn't about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it's primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.
-A key component is how the game is sold and conveyed to the player. Goods are generally sold as one time purchases and you can keep them indefinitely. Services are generally sold with a clearly stated expiration date. Most "Live service" games do neither of these. They are often sold as a one-time purchase with no statement whatsoever about the duration, so customers can't make an informed decision, it's gambling how long the game lasts. Other industries would face legal charges for operating this way. This could likely be running afoul of EU law even without the ECI, that's being tested.
-The EU has laws on EULAs that ban unfair or one-sided terms. MANY existing game EULAs likely violate those. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA. The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely.
-We're not making a distinction between preservation of multiplayer and single player and neither does the law. We fail to find reasons why a 4v4 arena game like Nosgoth should be destroyed permanently when it shuts down other than it being deliberately designed that way with no recourse for the customer.
-As for the reasons why I think this initiative could pass, that's my cynicism bleeding though. I think what we're doing is pushing a good cause that would benefit millions of people through an imperfect system where petty factors of politicians could be a large part of what determines its success or not. Democracy can be a messy process and I was acknowledging that. I'm not championing these flawed factors, but rather saying I think our odds are decent.
Finally, while your earlier comments towards me were far from civil, I don't wish you any ill will, nor do I encourage anyone to harass you. I and others still absolutely disagree with you on the necessity of saving games, but I wanted to be clear causing you trouble is not something I nor the campaign seeks at all. Personally, I think you made your stance clear, you're not going to change your mind, so people should stop bothering you about it."
This comment will become "the cat that came back". When it's removed, it will be put right back up and keep coming like an infinite boomerang.
He didn't delete ross's comment, it was deleted by youtube. Ross said it himself and so did Thor
There's a ton of misunderstanding here. You 100% should've talked to Ross before making this video instead of calling him disgusting on stream. Some lowlights:
10:03 Ross has been working on this for 5 years. He isn't doing this because it's easy, in fact it's actually quite difficult. He is doing it because he thinks it's the fair and correct thing to do (and most gamers would agree). It's one thing to disagree, but another thing to accuse someone of 'doing it just because it's easy'.
1:56 You know what private servers are don't you? You can still keep the game logic server-side and distribute server binaries or packet documentation.
2:00 No, this initiative isn't meant for SOME games, it's intentionally worded to include ALL games. Yes, we want to preserve multiplayer games too. Mistake on your part to assume otherwise. Read the website FAQ.
2:08 League can already run on LAN, your point is moot.
4:42 The Crew has a singleplayer campaign and it absolutely shouldn't need a connection. Also it's crazy to say "oh but they made new ones". So? They're different games, and I bought the first game. I should be able to play it- it's a GOOD, after all. They should patch the game to make it offline-compatible, or distribute server binaries or packet documentation. ALL live service games should be called out for selling you a product and then taking it away.
7:10 Racing games since the dawn of time have been making license deals. I can still play ones that came out 20 years ago. They don't have to keep selling The Crew, just make it playable.
10:43 There's a great thread on Linus's forums that Ross talks about in his fraud video. Basically, no, it doesn't matter what the terms say. If you're selling it as if you're selling a good, software WILL be treated as a good. It might sound crazy, but there is legal precedence.
11:37 This should be restated: it's not VAGUE. The initiative is aiming to save ALL games. It's concise language YOU don't agree with.
13:50 This notion that making live service games adopt end-of-life policies will kill them is unsubstantiated. Plus there have been live service games that patched their games after they ended support.
This has to be higher.
#pincomment
PREACH!
This comment should be pinned. A very concise counter-argument to Thor's points in this video. It's so weird, reading along with Thor I could very obviously see where the initiative was going with it's wording but Thor seems unable to comprehend it.
as per a comment on Louis Rossmann's video, [only in America can you redefine "purchase", "buy" and "own" to not mean purchasing the game] - written in the context of buying an online game as a one-time transaction to "own" the game. (roughly paraphrased, the ToS can be seen on the video)
@@Daktyl198 Unable or purposely unwilling - it's hard to tell.
If a publisher/developper wants to permanently shutdown a game, I don't see why they wouldn't release the server portion of the game for community members to host at their own expense a bit like what DICE does with older Battlefield titles.
Because they are evil and they hate you. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to do that
Mainly IP rights, giving the codes does not give the rights to distributes the game.
Now let's take an example of Company A dies and release the code, tons of players are now hosting the game on their end. Company B comes in and buys the IP rights for said game to restart the franchise. Now what ? Everyone running the game privately is now doing something illegal. How do we now manage this mess ?
@@bendarel I don't think IP means what you think it means.
Because sometimes they cannot due to contracts and other stuff related to IP and ownershiph of the title(You man not know that but developers not always are owners of IP or the game they created). Games including some licensed stuff also could not be released that way since who will pay for licensed music for example? Server owner? How do you manage that? It's only surface level problem that already crossed this out completely.
@bendarel you can do that without give the game code. You have no idea what you are talking about.
7. "He won't even talk to Ross"
Correct.(...)
~Man this is pinnacle for me... it's very sad people take the "I'm not going to talk with someone because it'll endup nowhere" this will always just feels like you don't want to talk because you can't argument, because you don't even believe in your own stance. I like Thor but this is not it.
I think it's not only that, but we've become so entrenched in our own opinions that theyve basically become us. We're so radicalized by our own views that every time we disagree with someone, we villainize and dehumanize anyone who disagrees with us. I think (and this is PURE speculation) that Thor not only doesn't want a debate, but he also is worried that a debate would not only lead nowhere, but would devolve completely into arguments and name calling.
@@kadeshrider3674 Yeah I agree, but if the debate would devolve into name calling just don't engage in the name calling, everyone will side against it anyway...
@@Cuestrupaster i think thats why thor doesnt want to have a debate. I think its okay to not want to debate on why you have an opinion. Now i do think this isnt a black and white issue. Even if we dont agree with everything Thor says he makes a major point about setting legal precedence.
tbh this changed my whole perspective of him. He is trying so hard to portray how he likes games and how he want people to create. But when it matters he showed his true collors. When it matters for gamers he stepped on the coropo side. I will never be able to trust his words again
@@bomko But did he really? He has more to his words than what you may initially see. As a developer he cant just forget about the years of time he spent being the one to be pushed to do these things and at the same time he himself IS a consumer akin to you and me. This is much more than a black and white issue.
Pulling Ross video just to NOT talk about the initiative but the arguments on how to pass it xD Really shows he's just trying his best to shut it down while going in the most roundabout way about it (because you cant really argue against it from a consumer POV. We had clients hosting their own server already many years ago. Valve makes online games playable offline. Its not a revlutionary technology)
I don’t understand why Ross has to be completely delegitimised over what is really just an early idea, and for not ironing out things which really should be done by actual legality experts. Yes, saying gamers deserve better rights and control is a universally correct and good statement, but it seems pretty poor to assume that’s the entire argument and to degrade it to “disgusting.” It’s not an insult to anyone what is being proposed especially for gamers, I feel like Thor is just either wrongfully or intentionally missing the core point and not allowing debate over it, rather choosing to make it yet another ‘us vs them’ to divide and conquer as opposed to getting shit done that benefits us all.
Lads in this comment section claims that initiative is a product of 6 years, money, and multiple EU lawers envolved. So picturing that as "early idea" which requires ironing is... kinda the point Tor making. Its not good for now, yet it already up and people are voting for it to be presented to elder politicans assuming miracle will happen and they gonna understand "core point" within and iron things out.
He is not arguing againts "core point" in it. He arguing against initiative.
@@sinner5452 its a call for action, it goes to the EU comission who will invite experts to get a grasp on this shit, then EU politicians draft an actual law, then that law gets discussed about by the memberstates until a consensus is reached, then it goes before the parliament to be voted upon, if it goes through memberstates have 2 years to draft their own version in compliance with their own laws
so yes, this entire thing is just a broad papercutout for politicians to get an idea and what to act upon, nothing more it would never come into law like it is currently stated...
@@felixmustermann790 Welp, for some reason i spent 40 minutes reading that comment section, and i'm praying experts would grasp on this shit better than average person in yt comment section, or at least came up with single understanding what its all about. Everybody and their grandma have 3 different ideas what this initiative about, what games is it about, what exactly the problem is, and so on.
Dont get me wrong, obv good things could happen after that, that initiative just do very little help with that besides existing.
This guy is NOT going to "conquer" Ross or anyone else. Being a game dev who doesn't want to let people keep their games is a really bad look.
Tbh that's what Thor does. Not to discount his experience in the industry but he has some really bad takes when it comes to it.
"It's normal for live service games." Well it shouldn't be, that's the point.
Yea, I caught that too. "It's normal for live service games". Normal does not mean its ok for it to happen. It's 'normal' for politicians to create loopholes in the law for their personal interests, it's 'normal' for the pharmaceutical industry to push millions to billions of dollars into lobbying to ensure their profits are maximized even if that means millions of consumers suffer as a result of practices they lobby for. "Normal" has no relation in dictating what should and shouldn't be.
This
It was always normal. All of the sudden one person comes and says it's not and everyone is :facepalm: oh yeah, where were our minds before that
Netflix, Hulu, Disney + + +
Yeah that was an incredible L right there lol
Alternate video title: keep killing games
What a bootlicker
The first guy to lose an argument with Gordon Freeman
Respectfully, I have to disagree with your point, especially about cases such as League of Legends. In fact, I think it's misconstruing the request - it is not that live service games must stay up forever, but that they must give players the ability to run the games on their own hardware in some form.
In the case of an example such as LoL, assuming that they wanted to shut down, it would be as simple as providing a way to host dedicated servers once they close the service. They would not need to pass on matchmaking, ranking, or anything else - simply the ability to host your own games for each other is sufficient. If the community is motivated, they can then take this forward and build their own open-source matchmaking/ranking system - my case for this would be the Forged Alliance Forever (FAF) platform, which has been doing exactly that for the Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance game. This is a clear example of how, if you simply allow players the ability to keep running a game in any way at all, they may build that themselves (if they love it and are motivated to).
I agree with being more clear and less vague, as I would in almost any situation. However, I honestly think that the wording here is clear enough that it allows companies to exit out of their live service game with the only requirement being that they provide the tools for players to archive and maintain that service on their own.
This is more or less an irrelevant sidenote, but LoL already has a LAN mode which is used in official tournaments. They could very simply release that
As another example, Space Engineers is already offering the option to run a dedicated server. Including the option of "direct connect" if all you have is the IP address. No matchmaking service necessary.
Yeah, Thor fell way off the mark here.
@@rabiatorthegreat6163 space engineers is a co op game with multiplayer added later to enhance experience. It was never only online game and started off as a primally solo space survival. If company closed its doors today they would not need to do anything as all the tools for solo play and multiplayer play are already available to players to use.
"they must give players the ability to run the games on their own hardware in some form."
Thank you, yes. This is exactly what was being asked for when the Stop Killing Games movement was just getting started. That message has gotten lost thanks to the mishandling of the person who started it, but all of us over a certain age remember that any online multiplayer game used to ship with the ability to start a LAN server.
The intention here is not "live service games shouldn't exist," and portraying the message as such is so irresponsible that I've lost a ton of respect for Thor for doing so. The intention is to STOP the practice of buying a license for a game that can be turned off, and let consumers go back to buying games. If someone is caught cheating (and remember, false positives exist) - fine! Ban the player from the official servers so that only LAN games are possible. But the product that player spent hundreds of preorder bonus special edition dollars on -- or potentially thousands of subscription dollars on -- should continue to be accessible in some fashion.
Unreal Tournament
Team Fortress 2
Quake Live
GMod
Counter Strike
These are a few examples I can think of that allow players to create and host dedicated servers without support needed from developers. This is a practice that was common in gaming 20 years ago. Why would it be a problem now?
- Europe does not have or do "common law"/precedent status like the US. Each case is viewed on its individual merits irrelevant of past judgement .
- This is an INITIATIVE, not a Law proposal. First they need the signatures, and that means the issue will be considered. If they decide to acept and consider the issue, THEN, and ONLY THEN, after discussion, usually taking many months/years, after hearing the companies, the users, the devs, etc, will a law be drafted and discussion on that will start.
- Again, THOR keeps giving examples of game X or game Y. Or how the text is too broad. This is NOT A LAW Proposal. Its an initiative to start discussions on the issue. And if/when a law is applied, which usually takes years, its not retroactive, so no, League wont be required to comply.
- Thor knows better than most, that stuff that he is claiming to be hard to do, or impossible, is not. Heck, we have people creating private servers without any support from the publisher/devs. If they can do it, so can the devs.
- Licenses or licensing is a moot point. Those things automatically change as the law changes and companies are forced to comply.
- Anything of this sort is NEVER EVER, applied retroactively. So that is a moot point. In fact, these sort of laws in the EU are always enacted with plenty of time for compliance. For example, they gave apple and the likes YEARS AND YEARS to comply with charging port/cable standards. If you are deving a game right now, you wont be affected with 99% of certainty.
- it will change the way devs work. Well, yes, hopefully, becuz right now devs, on purpose or not, are f*king consumers left and right.
- finally Consumer > everything else. The EU has many flaws but their consumer protection laws and regulation are TOP NOTCH and if they are ever skewed in any direction, its almost always in the consumers favor, so yeah.
Hopefully this will succeed, and not just in the EU. EU consumer protection tends to spread worldwide as companies are forced to comply in the EU market, they sometimes just "automatically" grant the same benfits to their other markets.
Look at GDPR. As much as you want to complain about it and the pop ups, having a legal framework that allows you to have a company delete any identifiable information they have on you is paramount for privacy.
You wrote a whole paragraph just restating what he said in the first few min of the video. Did you even watch it? After reading your essay of entitlement I would guess not.
When those discussions about making actual policy start, what do you think they're going to reference? The petition of course. But if that petition is not talking about the correct issue and then suddenly all the politicians and subcommittees are going to have to find out that all those people who signed a petition that says one thing, they really meant to attack another industry practice. I want things to actually change in the Industry and so does Thor, which is why we have to be specific NOW.
The state of the current petition is like holding up a big sign at a protest that says "WE WANT CHANGE NOW" but then saying oh yeah the politicians are going to "figure out the change idk".
Great comment. I like that you mentioned that there's always time to comply with the new laws. You get a deadline and you have months if not years to become compliant.
Send this man up, everybody acting like this would be a quick thing is out of their minds. This is the EU we're talking about, if this makes the cut for consideration we'll be looking at several years worth of committees and drafts before we get a vaguest sense of a law. By then there's a good chance the actual problem will be addressed with it and we get what we want: at least some way to keep games (and maybe other software) alive beyond when the providers shut off access digitally.
Jesus, the amount of shit i just read. Name one game with actual decent private servers that didn't happen after backend code leak.
Thor approach’s these topics with a business and monetary perspective, not a consumer perspective
Right, so he's part of the enemy in this fight for consumer rights.
Or in other words a purely self serving perspective with no real thought being given to what is actually good for wider society.
@@XMysticHerox
Says the guy supporting vague language the government will abuse to take more than you wanted. You're on the wrong side of history, chud.
@@XMysticHerox Exactly
First time I've disagreed with Thor. He's too tolerant of the bad business practices by the corpos and does not seem to care about game preservation. Also deleting Rossmans comment was not cool.
He deleted Rossman's comment? bruh
Uh oh, and here I was thinking this guy was cool. Looks like all that time at the top gave Thor a little bit of the corpo mind virus. Deleting comments? That's ultra-cringe.
@@roadkillrandy5926 Is this Thor's "Elon Musk calling the diver a pedo" moment? Because I, too, drastically changed my opinion about Thor because of this. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@irohnickAre you absolutely sure Thor deleted Rossman's comment and it wasn't RUclips doing that weirs shadowdeletion thing when their system thinks you're being a little too spicy?
@@Calvin_Coolage I really hope so, I liked Thor's takes on other stuff, but if he did delete the comment, then that's a dealbreaker, and a massive one too.