Sony
Response to harsh criticism of “Stop Killing Games” from
Response to harsh criticism of “Stop Killing Games” from Thor of @PirateSoftware
#Response #harsh #criticism #Stop #Killing #Games
“Louis Rossmann”
👉 Merchandise:
🔵 Cheesy mugs & t-shirts:
👉 Rossmann chat:
👉 Recording equipment used upstairs:
🔵 HDMI capture:…
source
To see the full content, share this page by clicking one of the buttons below |
I just watched @piratesoftware video and clearly you didn't watch it or if you did you missed the whole point. He is saying the same as you: change the concept of "buying an online game" and rather use an appropriate term where you don't own it.
And no, you can't own online games. Their architecture and monetization schemes are so complex that they can't be easily put as open source or adandonware.
Owning a thing is a different topic than using a service, which in this case online games belong to.
It wont kill games.
Itll kill live service subhuman model, which is awesome.
5:30 its even legal principle, law does not work retroactively. It should never do.
Better still, a law should be passed that if a games company removes a game for whatever reason, then they must refund the purchase price to the consumer.
Just something to think about, a TON of Valve games are online games, all of them support Valve official servers and span basically every type of game from FPS to MOBA, you do not need to play on a valve server to play the game, you can run your own server just fine so even when valve kills support you will still be able to play the game.
Im simplifying it a bit but for like 99% of games that are online, this server program already exists and can be privately hosted, its how private server for games can exist at all for MMOs, one of the game types that REQUIRE online servers and doesn't release their servers to players, yet we can still play them without the official game servers. The last bit of games are just coded really badly.
I don't think the license agreement argument has any real value – or at least it shouldn't have.
Taking Louis' hypothetical of a racing game that has, for example, a 5 year license with Ferrari for their logo and saif license expires. Yes, that would then of course prevent them from SELLING their game. If they did they would make profit based in part off of the logo/brand value of a car company they do not have the rights to (anymore), this is absolutely correct. But what this SHOULDN'T prevent is people playing their already existing copies of the game.
If a toy manufacturer were to manufacture toy cars with a temporary license, yes, they would have to shut down production/change the paint-scheme afterwards – but that wouldn't make it illegal for some child to play with one of the already manufactured toy cars!
It seems there are two issues here: proper disclosure of what is being offered, which all three seem to be in agreement, and preservation of games, which only Thor seems to be against; he seems to think it would put undue burden on game developers because of licensing, extra development and/or cost, but the point is that it will force licensors to either allow that or go without business and developers to stop coupling their designs to things that make them perishable ultimately lowering further development and cost by increasing reuse and testability, and at no point did anyone say or imply that developers are going to have to keep paying server costs even after no one is online.
Thor was shitting on other guy also.
Thor fucked over my boyfriend and a few friends when Thor became popular.
It's always been this way. When I got my first Nintendo in 1987, I spent 4 days reading through the 20 page EULA agreement that came with the system. I was only 4 so my parents had to help me understand all the legal terms, but I did it and signed the agreement.
After 2 years, Super Mario Bros. stopped working because the overalls Mario wears are licensed from a garment manufacturer in Brazil. I was fine with this. As a 6 year old I understood that games should break after a set period of time because of elaborate and unnecessary labyrinthine contractual agreements between various corporate and government entities.
The idea that games should be fun is entitled and unrealistic. Running the world should be fun. Owning the patents and copyrights to everything on Earth should be fun. Anyone who says otherwise should stop complaining and become a captain of industry.
Disclosure is practically nonexistent. Then there's you:) Thank you, Louis.
"You vill own nossing und be happy"
But what I don't get is why would he be against private servers being immune to cease and desist after the end of service? Which is a functional playable state
Monster hunter frontier is the Japan only mmo that went out of service. We now have private servers and Capcom is okay with it, we can play that part of the history of the monster hunter franchise which would've just disappeared
I don't even want publishers to do more, I want publishers to do *less*. As in, I want publishers to back off and let fans build their own servers if they want with no publisher action required. It lets publishers keep their official line of "the game's shut down" while people who want to go back to a classic can download a mod.
Except every time the EFF wants a narrow DMCA exemption allowing this for only discontinued games, companies like Activision-Blizzard act like the sky is falling and block it so they can better manipulate the market.
While I do respect the attempt at toning down the "randomly shitting on" PirateSoftware, unfortunately most of these people are more likely to be educated in their opinion than not. The more you look into him the more you realize hes a talentless, void of conviction grifter moron. Good for him hes found success in gaming entertainment but don't let this guys comments affect yours, or anyones discourse on legislation.
There is a difference between free to play and fully paid as well. cutting a free to play game does not lose the customer money.
They are putting everything under a subscription to fight piracy and to increase their profits margin . I think it's expected and normal . It's positive because some games are more affordable and can be played by everybody with a subscription to gamepass / apple arcade or similar services . The new Game Streaming technology is really amazing if it will get perfected over the year s,you will not need to buy a ultra expensive pc, that you need to update each 3-5 years top to be able to play your favorite AAA game. but yeh , for single player games , they should always give the option to own a copy of the game legally . I think societies try to protect themselves and get more money it's expected … it's like asking to a shop to lower their prices when they can get Sold-Out the same with 10 times higher prices . It's the market like that … we can't do much about it .
1:48 did Louis buy yt premium?
From watching Thor's video, It feels like he's mainly interpretting this as desiring that either multiplayer games have their servers maintained indefinitely, Or be modified so that they are able to work as single-player games, Which I would agree in most (Albeit not all) cases seems fairly impractical (Although I should say, I have essentially no game dev knowledge, so I may be wrong about what it is practical or not), However I interpreted Ross's original video, And the campaign as a whole, As instead wanting for developers to make it possible for players to set up their own private servers, Not necessarily easy, Frankly I don't think they should need to hand players all the infrastructure on a silver platter or whatever, Just make it theoretically possible, And how the server is then set up can be left to individual players who want to do this. However, in the comments of Thor's video, he goes more in-depth about this, Bringing up a criticism of the idea, namely that if the private servers can be monetised, That would allow malicious actors who have the infrastructure to try and end official service for the game, so that they may set up their own private servers, thus allowing them to make money off of it (Even without that I'd agree that it seems wrong to profit off of a game they had no hand in developing, Although there is definitely some nuance here, I feel it would be reasonable, for example, for third party server hosts to desire some amount of money so that they can afford to keep the server running, And what if for example the server was only accessible to members of some sort of club, and the club has a membership fee, which helps pay to host the server, would this qualify as monetising the server itself?), However if the servers are not allowed to be monetised, it would be challenging to enforce that. Now, personally, I think that challenge in enforcing non-monetisation would likely be worthwhile, and frankly I don't quite understand what he means with "If it's the government I feel like we're making an insane amount of red tape.", This may be a serious concern but if it is, I simply don't know what it is.
One thing about licensing brands and logos I will never understand is why they have to pay the companies to include their logos?!
You want a Ferrari in your game? – PAY US! – Erm, no? Because it is literally ADVERTIZING for your brand!
HP is Ferrari's main sponsor in Formula 1. Is Ferrari paying HP to be allowed to have their logo on their F1 cars? Or is HP paying Ferrari so they will put the HP logo on their cars?
So why are game-making companies paying Ferrari to have their cars and logo, and not the other way round?!
EA has done this to many older games, and they are still SELLING said games which DO NOT WORK, they don't even start. Yes, C&C older games like RA2 and RA3 are still up for sale on their website, and when you purchase and download those games through the EA App, they outright do not work. RA3 attempts to connect to an EA server that is no longer available, and it just crashes because it could not connect. The community had to develop an unofficial patch to make the game functional again for single-player and LAN-based multiplayer (through GameRanger and other similar apps).
Lmao, at first I thought the “stop killing games” phrase meant putting a halt to death game media such as Danganronpa or Your Turn to Die
Thor doesn't understand the process and argues in bad faith.
He just comes across as a dev afraid of regulation for his industry and unconcerned for the rights of consumers.
So if i am an indie developer who made online game but eos it cuz no one bought it (lul) I must leak all my third party libraries for server side which prohibit it by license?
Or I must remake my game (i already dont have money for it for example) just to be not punished even more?
Sounds like indie segment will be doomed
13:50 if the game's are developed in a malicious manner, this is most likely only a good thing and the damage it did to the developer or publisher is because they were doing something that they ethically shouldn't have to begin with. likewise for the server host.
We need Asmongold to host you, Ross, and Thor on his stream. Let's get you all together to have a real, real conversation.
To be fair, if you buy a Ubisoft game it's on you.
The way I understood the bill is that us consumers are never meant to have the source code of everything. We just need a product, a compiled/baked/etc product, that works forever (because we own it).
I will probably buy a ps2 now
Aaaaaand this does not even get into the whole problem caused by DRM that requires an online server check for licensing before the game will run. Sure… some companies patch the game to no longer need DRM when they turn off the DRM servers, but not all, and if you miss the patch window you may be locked out forever.
Also,
I don't think you and Thor are going to be thinking very much apart in values, maybe methods, but not values. You have the same intolerance for marketing and lobbying bullshit and acute intelligence and clear thinking.
While I understand the point about those server binaries potentially not being usable due to storage and infrastructure differences, I still think it's way better that we at least have something to revive a game from its end-of-life. This could shave YEARS of work from someone reviving their favorite dead MMO. Take Wildstar or Planetside for instance, those games have been long shut down and it has taken a small number of fan devs multiple years to reverse-engineer the server system, and they're STILL not even half-way done with them for several more years. This would at least do like 99 percent of the work for them and make it significantly easier to jumpstart.
So correct me if I missed something about this video that I missed and please provide a timestamp where its discussed, but people aren't even asking for the ability to open source games to run servers or an exe, but to just let people do it in whatever means even if it means the people have to learn how to do it themselves with nothing provided.
But the one thing and this is where I ask for the timestamps if I missed it is, to at minimum provide an in-game function where people can host their own server on their IP. I think of games like GMod, L4D2, TF2 yes a lot of Valve/source games because Valve is tried and true example of consumer friendly products barring recent stuff, that these games just allow you to host a server in the game itself and that server is hosted on your own IP, that even if these games that are heavily multiplayer focused still provide options to play the game offline, not acknowledging these games have mechanics like bots to allow these games to still be playable alone. I can point to Halo Infinite, a modern live service game that already includes these types of features so the game will still be playable after official support is dropped.
Also yes people do not care about whether or not this is hard to do, they do not care about ToS or Licenses, they purchased the game and will not and do not care if shifting the industry to adapt hurts developers or companies because logically and very reasonably they deserve to have the right to keep in possession what they bought, even if it was as bare as they can't play with other people they should still have a right to load up their game and launch into a match alone. Not to mention the fact this practice just blatantly sucks for any consumer. There's no excuse for this kind of industry to exist even if its written clear as day this game will only live for a limited time and then possession is taken away from you, it should be from the start the game is no longer officially supported but consumers who still want to support the game as a community may choose to just like how it used to be. In fact it was the opposite the consumers had to provide the service while the game existed, the developers didn't ever provide their own servers or barely/rarely did.
And I do think the very idea that giving people the bare basic function (I call it bare basic because this used to exist all the time on the oldest multiplayer games and if this existed back then when hardware and software was worse than now, then trying to say its hard to do now is an excuse) to host their own server is greatly exaggerated. I am not a programmer but I would have to assume if the code for servers already exists then how is it going to damage the game to reroute that function to give that to the players locally or to create a new function to do that as the service is ending. Regardless if its hard to do or not, its part of their job as a developer when making/supporting a game so I don't feel empathy on the idea of making the developers who already get paid and assigned to tasks in their job to do that. (I'm not going to delve into semantics about whether the employee is being treated right or whatever this should be obvious)
While Louis gives PirateSoftware the benefit of the doubt he was talking in good faith, I do not. PirateSoftware went on to insult Ross (accursed farms Ross), and openly says he has no interest in talking about the topic with said person just because he finds it from a subjective personal standpoint "disingenuous". How is that good faith discussion? He puts himself into a position to speak against something but then won't converse with the person who proposed it to reach a middle ground or understanding between each other or maybe if he found the initiative disingenuous help guide the movement to lead into what it should from his view? Even after acknowledging what an initiative is and how rigorous the process is that the conversation for politicians would be well versed deep into it he still holds that idea towards Ross.
Thank you Louis for going so far try to fought off on this issue of game digital ownership.
If every digital game keep being taken away from player despite them purchase legally, that is just a heinous design tbh. That is unfair to people who purchase it.