Why isn't he fighting to keep Nintendo's servers online
Why does he only care about obscure shitty online games no one played
Nintendo owns their entire tech stack, Ubisoft simply kills games. It's much easier to go after The Crew right now than 3DS servers. Establishing a legal precedent to NOT KILL GAMES is the main goal.
Pretty much, yeah. France is the lynchpin here moreso than any other country in the world. If FRANCE doesn't care about games getting destroyed, then no one ever will. >Ross telling us about people around Europe having completely differing or even NO idea on how to handle this situation
Shit's wild. You'd think it wouldn't take more than an hour of hard thinking to figure this out.
His legal argument doesn't work on subscription games or truly free games.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I'm arguing in favor of the anon that asked for Nintendo servers.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You ask for too much. Ross is only going after single purchase games that are 100% rendered inoperable after support has ended. Single issue. He has to choose battles that he can win.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Ross is only going after single purchase games
wrong
1 month ago
Anonymous
>wants to make every microtransaction accessible forever
Yeah good luck with that one Ross
1 month ago
Anonymous
>trying to help the video game industry from killing itself >not introducing laws to kill it faster
I don't give a shit about some industry that nickel and dimes costumers while letting workers crunch until they have to leave from being overworked
1 month ago
Anonymous
If there are microtransactions that let you buy digital items the argument is stable. So if nothing else this might kill microtransactions in games. Even just for that it's worth it.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He's got like a video where he admits in the first four sentences that what he wants is a lawsuit and not to play the crew. What was that, a month or two ago? This guy is gonna get raped by some french lawyers.
He's not aiming to launch a lawsuit so I don't see how that'll happen. He just wants existing legislation to be used to create precedent for video games, at least in the EU.
>Your honor. The prosecution only wants theft illegal for the sake of others, not because he disliked to have his own things stolen, as is proven by this quote where he states "This wouldn't just be good for me, but also for anyone else who dislikes theft". I rest my case
Holy misconstruction of the facts, Batman!
He would be happy if they made the Crew playable, because he would still get to play it and it would set a precedent that GaaS don't necessarily need to be destroyed when support ends. He admits that the likelihood of that is very low though and can accept the Crew dying so that games in the future can survive.
He is fighting to make every singleplayer online only game have an offline mode after the publisher kills the game dumbass, that includes Nintendie games.
He want's you to be able to play the games you want to be able to play, anon. The reason it's The Crew because it's French, which if it can be used to set a precedent, hopefully helps with American and Japanese games as well (if the publishers want to sell in France)
He is trying to set a legal precedent one way or the other.
If he wins then to release you game globally you will need a End of Life Plan.
If he loses then at least everyone will have it written in Ink that they don't have the right and can better make informed decisions in the future.
They’ll add a label to these games at best, moron. Also I genuinely don’t care about the preservation of modern slop for what it’s worth so label away.
>NOOOO STOP THIS! I WANT UBISOFT TO TAKE AWAY THE GAME I BOUGHT A PHYSICAL COPY OF AT THE STORE! >IF I WANT TO PLAY IT AGAIN I'LL JUST BUY 2, AND THEN 3 WHEN THEY KILL 2 >YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, ITS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO RELEASE A PATCH THAT LETS YOU PLAY THE SINGLE PLAYER GAME OFFLINE
emphasis on "could", it all depends on how the game was developed from the start.
How hard something is to do in coding is based on how common that stuff is and how early into the project we know about it, so the whole thing is build with it in mind.
Every developer will tell you it's usually much worse to add multiplayer to a finished game unsing existing assets than making a game from start knowing it needs a multiplayer mode.
They're free to develop however they want tbh, as long as they advertise it as an always online game you knew exactly what you were getting into when you bought it
Don't come back late and cry about not buying your ideal version of the game with an offline mode
They should say what their expiration date is.
If you buy a game and it shuts down 2 weeks later that is obviously a scam.
If you buy a game that says "this game shuts down April 21 2024" and it just down in 2 weeks, you got what you paid for.
>as long as they advertise it as an always online game you knew exactly what you were getting into when you bought it
yes he wants games to have solid expiration dates, why is that so difficult to understand?
>yes he wants games to have solid expiration dates
Ross doesn't actually want that, he just thinks it's some kind of gotcha like morons aren't willfully buying death row games anyway
Even he bought The Crew knowing it was going to die remember
Is he saying literally every online game should be playable after the publisher stops supporting it, including games that would be impossible to run on a single computer like MMOs?
there are lots of mmos with unofficial/pirated servers. I understand not wanting them while your game is alive, but if you plan on killing it, there's no reason to release tools to let players make their own servers.
Yep, as well as any game with microtransactions which he seems to not realise covers the entire freemium industry. So not just MMOs, he's now seeking to regulate mobage
The fact Ross is spearheading this is why I have no faith it will work. He's one of the laziest internet personalities next to Spoony.
If he doesn't go out of his way to both release videos frequently and appear on other channels, this will never work. He is currently NOT doing that. It's practically already over and needing to wait 2 weeks for the petitions to even open is no excuse for not trying to get the largest amount of people onboard before it's even open to the public.
His lazy bullshit will get this tanked. I just know it.
>The fact Ross is spearheading this is why I have no faith it will work. He's one of the laziest internet personalities next to Spoony.
I mean, his first video on the subject was literally "someone else do this for me" and now we're here so who knows how it's going to play out.
>He's one of the laziest internet personalities next to Spoony.
Ross said on record that he works 50 hours per week. THE MOVIE has a legitimate chance of releasing compared to the spoony movie (lol).
No matter who you are, see what you can do to help at: www.stopkillinggames.com
>preservation argument:
Most civilized societies see the importance in the preservation of culture and history.
>main legal argument:
Get law enforcers to enforce already established consumer law. single purchase games are consumer goods in the EU and Australia. consumer goods can not be designed to fail (programmed obsolescence). A seller is obligated to release reasonable repair instructions and resources so that the customer or a third party can repair an inoperable product.
Single purchase games are consumer goods: https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/
If you argue any of the following points that Ross rebutted four years ago in his original video, you are arguing in bad faith and possibly a shill:
>Games as a service is legal because you agree to the terms stated in the End User License Agreement
?t=2903
(This argument isn't true in the US where consumers lost digital rights in the 90s)
>Buying a game entitles you to the client software, you are not entitled to the server software
?t=3027
>What you are proposing would require businesses to support their games forever. That’s unreasonable.
?t=3127
>If games as a service have to be treated as goods it will hurt creativity of developers and restrain them.
?t=3161
>If the law was enforced on games as a service, it would negatively affect a lot of companies that would have to go back and change their games, and they may not be able to do that.
?t=3264
>Making a server work on a customer’s system is a lot of work; developers can’t be expected to do that.
cont. >Requiring companies to give players a chance to play the game is overreach and an infringement on business rights.
?t=3442
>Your just being an idealist. Things break down or go bad all the time, games are no different.
?t=3479
>You keep mentioning the need for law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary. Companies just need to be convinced preserving games is in their interests and consumers need to make conscientious buying decisions.
?t=3742
>You are pushing to enforce laws on games as goods, but won’t that lead to companies declaring everything as a service with a subscription fee and getting around it that way?
?t=3902
>I don’t care if some games aren’t preserved, because I only play other games.
?t=4035
>If companies release information about their servers, this means other games they’re hosting with the same software could be hacked.
?t=4120
Recent rebuttals:
>Steam count is low
?t=164
>Active player count low
?t=218
>Piracy will save us
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU?t=246
>This is why I buy physical, not digital
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU?t=267
>Online games die
https://youtu.be/DAD5iMe0Xj4?t=2237
No matter who you are, see what you can do to help at: www.stopkillinggames.com
No matter who you are, see what you can do to help at: www.stopkillinggames.com
>preservation argument:
Most civilized societies see the importance in the preservation of culture and history.
>main legal argument:
Get law enforcers to enforce already established consumer law. single purchase games are consumer goods in the EU and Australia. consumer goods can not be designed to fail (programmed obsolescence). A seller is obligated to release reasonable repair instructions and resources so that the customer or a third party can repair an inoperable product.
Single purchase games are consumer goods: https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/
If you argue any of the following points that Ross rebutted four years ago in his original video, you are arguing in bad faith and possibly a shill:
>Games as a service is legal because you agree to the terms stated in the End User License Agreement
?t=2903
(This argument isn't true in the US where consumers lost digital rights in the 90s)
>Buying a game entitles you to the client software, you are not entitled to the server software
?t=3027
>What you are proposing would require businesses to support their games forever. That’s unreasonable.
?t=3127
>If games as a service have to be treated as goods it will hurt creativity of developers and restrain them.
?t=3161
>If the law was enforced on games as a service, it would negatively affect a lot of companies that would have to go back and change their games, and they may not be able to do that.
?t=3264
>Making a server work on a customer’s system is a lot of work; developers can’t be expected to do that.
>>If companies release information about their servers, this means other games they’re hosting with the same software could be hacked. >Well this one guy I asked say it probably won't be an issue but even if he's wrong then tough shit.
Yeah, this is where it's going to fall apart just because of code reuse. "Too bad" isn't enough when proprietary code is involved, all it would take is one turbo autist using the server code for Scrimblo Bimblo's Always Online Adventure to set up a private server for a game currently being supported for them to try and reverse the decision.
That's only one solution though. the bare minimum would be for a company to release the breadcrumbs for a chance that an emulated server could be made.
cont. >Requiring companies to give players a chance to play the game is overreach and an infringement on business rights.
?t=3442
>Your just being an idealist. Things break down or go bad all the time, games are no different.
?t=3479
>You keep mentioning the need for law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary. Companies just need to be convinced preserving games is in their interests and consumers need to make conscientious buying decisions.
?t=3742
>You are pushing to enforce laws on games as goods, but won’t that lead to companies declaring everything as a service with a subscription fee and getting around it that way?
?t=3902
>I don’t care if some games aren’t preserved, because I only play other games.
?t=4035
>If companies release information about their servers, this means other games they’re hosting with the same software could be hacked.
?t=4120
Recent rebuttals:
>Steam count is low
?t=164
>Active player count low
?t=218
>Piracy will save us
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU?t=246
>This is why I buy physical, not digital
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU?t=267
>Online games die
https://youtu.be/DAD5iMe0Xj4?t=2237
No matter who you are, see what you can do to help at: www.stopkillinggames.com
Is that the actual reason? A contract that isn't shown to you until after purchase? Does that go for other products or just software, or could any seller tsteal any product back immediately after selling by saying "it's in the eula I didn't show you"?
It really is that bad for Americans. A lawyer used an example a EULA saying the company can shoot your dog and how if you took it to court, you would be at a disadvantage.
?t=1096
So all sellers, aren't being more outwardly exploitative about it yet, because they want people to stay asleep/get used to it, and not immediately flee the country, or what? Because that really does mean, that if you make the mistake of buying anything in the U.S, you're exactly as fricked as the the seller has intensive to frick you. I can't think of any law that ever fricked all of it's countries inhabitant like that.
It really is that bad for Americans. A lawyer used an example a EULA saying the company can shoot your dog and how if you took it to court, you would be at a disadvantage.
That's not the reason. It's because the regulatory bureaus in the US are so corrupt that it's destroying the quality of life rapidly for literally every citizen.
Game developer here
You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
At most you'll be eligble for a refund if you buy an online game and the servers don't work
Online games require support. They need servers. You will never be able to force game companies to release their server software to the public if they want to keep it private
They can be forced because they are breaking consumer goods law.
>main legal argument:
Get law enforcers to enforce already established consumer law. single purchase games are consumer goods in the EU and Australia. consumer goods can not be designed to fail (programmed obsolescence). A seller is obligated to release reasonable repair instructions and resources so that the customer or a third party can repair an inoperable product.
Single purchase games are consumer goods: https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/
>Requiring companies to give players a chance to play the game is overreach and an infringement on business rights.
>they are breaking consumer goods law.
No, not really, "designed to fail" is very hard to prove. Most shit you own is designed to fail, consumer electronics are designed with parts that expire after a few years instead of lasting for decades like they could. But you can't prove that they're intentionally designed to fail, so it's fine. Just like you can't prove a game is intentionally designed to fail
and releasing the fricking offline patch would fix this issue permanently and no one would ever complain about it again
[...]
if we win this lawsuit they do owe us a rework of the game
>and releasing the fricking offline patch would fix this issue permanently and no one would ever complain about it again
Yes but you can't force game developers to do that, so they won't
>Yes but you can't force game developers to do that, so they won't
that's what the lawsuit is for :^)
1 month ago
Anonymous
As I already explained, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, you can't prove games are designed to fail
Even the most uneccessary always online feature in a game can be justified as DRM, so it's legal
1 month ago
Anonymous
you should send your lawyer resume to ubisoft then, they're gonna need to defend themselves for this
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you can't force game developers to do that
This is why Ubisoft is getting called to court. So they are forced by the French government and the EU to fix their shit or to give everyone refunds. Also once the EU gets a hold of this they will force all publishers to either fix their games and give out refunds.
You can take someone to court for whatever you want, doesn't mean you have a case
Live service shit is legally justifable as DRM
1 month ago
Anonymous
he's looking at the consumer protection laws in a bunch of different countries, how can you know for sure that he doesn't have a case in any of them? you're probably an american that is used to getting fricked in the ass by companies so you think everywhere else is like this
1 month ago
Anonymous
>how can you know for sure that he doesn't have a case in any of them
This sounds like some desperate cope, maybe he's got a case in some country somewhere, pretty unlikely though. Like I said, consumer goods are designed to fail all the fricking time, yet all these companies are still in business
DRM cannot forbid a user that hasn't broken the ToS from accessing the product.
All that would mean is that you would not be allowed to sell a game that didn't work, not that you'd be forced to release a patch that made the game playable without the live service feature
1 month ago
Anonymous
so what? are you supposed to just accept that democracy doesn't work and never fight for your rights? just let companies frick you in the ass and not complaining because there's nothing you can do?
1 month ago
Anonymous
there is literally no one being fricked over by this other than braindead racing slop lovers
1 month ago
Anonymous
Are you really so moronic that you don't understand the concept of "an example"
1 month ago
Anonymous
Democracy DOES work
If you don't like live service games, don't fricking buy them
If enough people don't like live service games and don't buy them, then they'll stop making them because there's no money in it
This campaign is the opposite of democracy
I don't buy ubislop games, but a bunch of people do because they're not videogame autists like me and don't know or don't care enough about them to complain.
you should stop cancer cells at an early stage before they spread everywhere else, I don't want my favorite game to be dead forever because it's the norm to not let players run things locally anymore
1 month ago
Anonymous
Democracy DOES work
If you don't like live service games, don't fricking buy them
If enough people don't like live service games and don't buy them, then they'll stop making them because there's no money in it
This campaign is the opposite of democracy
1 month ago
Anonymous
>consumer goods are designed to fail all the fricking time
There is a difference between "programmed obsolescence" where a product can be forced to fail at the seller's discretion which is an illegal practice, and "planned obsolescence" where parts used in the design have a high chance of failing, which is unfortunately a legal practice in the US(other parts of the world may be different). The fact that Ubisoft could designate a set date where the product could no longer function is a clear example of programmed obsolescence and is one of the main points that these petitions will try to argue.
?t=1466
1 month ago
Anonymous
Fricking HP
1 month ago
Anonymous
It would be very hard for you to find a provable case of programmed obselence for a video game that couldn't be legally explained by other means
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Crew is a mostly single player game where you are forced to join a multiplayer lobby to play it. None of the in game assets are server side. There is an offline mode buried into the code.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Legally jusitifable as DRM
1 month ago
Anonymous
Well if they drop support, it is reasonable to hold them to consumer rights law and ask them to fix the situation.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Depends
If it's a significant period of time after the game stopped being on sale, that's probably unlikely, companies are never going to be forced to keep servers up forever, it's unreasonable
The most that will happen is maybe you'll pass a law on how long live service games need to be functional
1 month ago
Anonymous
>If it's a significant period of time after the game stopped being on sale, that's probably unlikely, companies are never going to be forced to keep servers up forever, it's unreasonable
It IS unreasonable to keep servers up forever. The point of this is that games shouldn't be made with the requirement of those servers always being online. Make it work offline, make access to 3rd party dedicated servers like tf2, mount and blade, etc, provide the tools to self host like minecraft, or private servers like MMOs.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The point of this is that games shouldn't be made with the requirement of those servers always being online
You will never pass laws to tell people how games "should" be made. People are free to pursue whatever business model they want so long as it's not deceptive or exploitative, that's one of the foundations of the free market. Businesses will be free to make shitty live service video games, so long as you get what you pay for this will always be legal
1 month ago
Anonymous
You can however discourage unethical practices indirectly. If live service games were forced to include expiration dates on their boxes, non-live service competitors would seize on lack of central service dependence as a selling point.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>If live service games were forced to include expiration dates on their boxes
Why do you think this is some sort of big hit to live service games? Products already have 2 year warranty written on the box
1 month ago
Anonymous
Cigarette companies fought against warning labels “because everyone already knows they cause cancer.”
1 month ago
Anonymous
>People are free to pursue whatever business model they want so long as it's not deceptive or exploitative
Is selling a game and then shutting down its servers, preventing anybody from ever playing that game again, not deceptive?
1 month ago
Anonymous
It could be, but usually this happens because they game didn't sell and nobody was playing it, so that's not deceptive
1 month ago
Anonymous
I don't think you understand the idea of consumer rights laws.
it quite literally IS the government's prerogative to enforce certain standards upon companies on the behalf of citizen-consumers.
just as you cannot sign away your freedom and become a slave, you cannot sign away your consumer rights, no matter what the eula says.
this simply hasn't been examined yet. the second a judge (within the eu) looks at this it'll get sorted out.
then all a company has to do is release the server software after they shutdown their own servers so their paying customers can continue running their games on their own.
either that or state the exact time when their games would shutdown from the second they start "leasing" them, which is likely to lose them a good deal of customers and ultimately not be worth it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
That's not going to happen, as it would require the publishers to state prominently on the game's box and digital store pages EXACTLY how long service is going to be active for. No company is going to want to make that promise up front, especially if it's uncertain how popular a game is going to be. Asking them to patch in an offline mode is both the preferable solution for customers and not particularly demanding for the publisher either.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Asking them to patch in an offline mode is both the preferable solution
Not really, hosting servers is cheap, especially for live service single player games where there's barely any data going through them
1 month ago
Anonymous
>All that would mean is that you would not be allowed to sell a game that didn't work, not that you'd be forced to release a patch that made the game playable without the live service feature
Well that's the wholee thing about it. Company calls it "live service" game, but under the current (lack) of regulation laws specially in the EU, that doesn't fly. As in, if you're selling a one time buy game, you are selling a product, therefore you cannot end it's functionality on the user end once you desire, specially if the thing only connects to your servers to be playable, and all the files are stored in your PC or the disk. Either sell an actual service that is completly hosted on your servers so you have the right to end service or provide a fully functional product even beyond your end.
Do note that this isn't my argument, this is what the EU law says regarding products. They grey area is that these laws have not been updated for digital era and don't contemplate the possibility of a product switching his medium like this. For everything else, it's either buy (full ownership) or rent (complete transparency on time/price). Games (and other software) exists in this limbo where they are full products in your physical storage but they have the "benefits" of a service game.
This whole thing is trying to force a ruling to be written in here.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Technically the client does still work, it's just useless because the servers are gone
It might be possible to create a law here where you have to keep the servers up for a specific period of time or offer a refund
1 month ago
Anonymous
DRM cannot forbid a user that hasn't broken the ToS from accessing the product.
1 month ago
Anonymous
TOS doesn't apply to products in the first place.
Why do you think Nintendo bans Switches from the online service when the consumer modifies it, but don't they "brick" the console? Because it's the only thing it can do.
The owner of a console can do whatever they want with it, including modifying it, and Nintendo can't do anything about it. They "ban" consoles from online services because TOS applies to services, but they can't "block" a device from working, otherwise they'll be conditioning your use of your own property to their liking, which is illegal almost anywhere in the world.
Games are the same, whether digital or physical. The fact that you don't follow a TOS can't stop you from running your own game.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>justified as DRM
And a game you are no longer going to sell or support needs permanent DRM because...?
>you can't force game developers to do that
This is why Ubisoft is getting called to court. So they are forced by the French government and the EU to fix their shit or to give everyone refunds. Also once the EU gets a hold of this they will force all publishers to either fix their games and give out refunds.
There is a difference between "programmed obsolescence" where a product can be forced to fail at the seller's discretion which is an illegal practice, and "planned obsolescence" where parts used in the design have a high chance of failing, which is unfortunately a legal practice in the US(other parts of the world may be different). The fact that Ubisoft could designate a set date where the product could no longer function is a clear example of programmed obsolescence and is one of the main points that these petitions will try to argue.
1 month ago
Anonymous
There's many ways to justify taking down the servers for a game. You could say the game was doing terribly in sales so we decided to end it and that would be a perfectly legal excuse for ending your live service for a game
1 month ago
Anonymous
Sure, but it's not an excuse for not letting someone else run them at their cost.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You don't need an excuse for that. You are not obligated to give someone something they didn't pay for. You paid for the game client, not the server. Maybe the game client stops working, that just means you are no longer allowed to sell the client, and maybe you have to give out refunds. Not that you're required to give out your game server
1 month ago
Anonymous
Please consult
>Buying a game entitles you to the client software, you are not entitled to the server software
?t=3027
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you're entitled to a working product
Yes, and if you don't get a working product, you're entitled to a refund, not the server software
1 month ago
Anonymous
well we don't get either currently so
1 month ago
Anonymous
Then give a refund
1 month ago
Anonymous
The publishers are not giving refunds, that's the whole fricking point
1 month ago
Anonymous
They are legally required to do so, yes, that's how the law works already
1 month ago
Anonymous
well do they?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Steam gives out refunds for games that don't work as intended all the time
1 month ago
Anonymous
And have people been able to get refunds on The Crew?
1 month ago
Anonymous
What happened with The Crew?
1 month ago
Anonymous
No refunds have been given as of the game shut down date 01/04/2024.
1 month ago
Anonymous
If you went to FRICKING GAMESTOP and bought a bricked physical copy of The Crew, you'd be entitled to a refund, yes
But it'd be on the retailer, not ubishart
1 month ago
Anonymous
The best I can offer is 50 cents of in-store credit, sir.
1 month ago
Anonymous
FRICK YEAH
WHAT ARE YOU GUYS BUYING FOR YOUR 50 CREDITS??
1 month ago
Anonymous
two copies of starfield please
1 month ago
Anonymous
So refund everybody the moment you take down a GaaS game because they're entitled to a refund
1 month ago
Anonymous
Ross always states that companies should have to do one of these options when the central servers shut down: >offer everyone a refund >patch the game to work offline >release server software >release enough info for a reasonable programmer to make the patch himself
1 month ago
Anonymous
They have to do this as-is. You aren't allowed to sell people broken products, you have to fix it or offer a refund. That's how the law works already. But you don't have to keep game servers active indefinitely, there is a timeframe for this after the game stops being sold
1 month ago
Anonymous
>They have to do this as-is. You aren't allowed to sell people broken products, you have to fix it or offer a refund.
okay what's your point? it seems like you agree 100% with what ross is trying to get governments to enforce.
ross isn't trying to get companies to keep servers up forever but merely to make it possible for customers to make their own servers if the company shuts its servers down.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>merely to make it possible for customers to make their own servers
That won't happen. If they are required by law to give a refund, keep the servers up or release the server to the public, they will choose to keep the servers up most of the time
1 month ago
Anonymous
>if given the choice, companies will chose to keep wasting money and resources to keep their servers running instead of letting players make their own
lmao get fricked then
1 month ago
Anonymous
Game servers cost fricking nothing to run, that's preferable for most companies
Cigarette companies fought against warning labels “because everyone already knows they cause cancer.”
Shitty comparsion, this is just like a warranty
1 month ago
Anonymous
epic games shut down the unreal servers because of that, they weren't even hosting the game servers, just the browser for finding dedicated servers.
also, it sucks that they did it but you can still play unreal online if you look up a server somewhere else.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah I'm sure it's more realistic for Ubisoft to issue millions of refunds than release a game that functions 10 years down the line
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you're entitled to a refund
so tell your french paymasters to refund full 70$ to every owner of The Crew because thats what their games are worth according to them.
>Online games require support. They need servers.
Only, online-only games, (are all developers hit in the head with a hammer when hired, or do they just hire people who know nothing about games?) and even then, not official support. >You'll never be able to lock a guy in a room for braking the law
We'll see.
>you just have to
No you don't have to. You're under no obligation to do that. The only issue is you selling a product to a customer that doesn't work as advertised for a reasonable period of time after the sale
for data the reasonable period is up until the customer breaks the vessel it's housed on without backing it up. Vandalism and theft doesn't reasonable make reasonable period, just because the seller is the one doing it.
You can make any game "online only" by shifting components to a server even when they don't need to be, and there will never be a law against that
You will also never be required to keep the servers up for as long as data physically lasts, that's completely moronic. If they make a law for that it'll probably be a year or so after sales cease
>you just have to
No you don't have to. You're under no obligation to do that. The only issue is you selling a product to a customer that doesn't work as advertised for a reasonable period of time after the sale
Are you literally too moronic to comprehend what is even the point of the lawsuit? The entire point is to set legal precedent so it BECOMES a legal obligation you fricking monkey. By "game developer here" did you just mean that you're one of the thousands of outsourced code monkeys, because holy shit you're fricking stupid.
I'm sure Sony probably had a similar mindset back when they tried to sue Connectix, only to set the legal precedent that emulators have been holding as a shield to protect themselves for over two decades now.
>build a car you can't change the wheels on >"Ugh, you want to be able to *change* wheels? That's no good, it's a no go bro. You don't understand how cars are made, it just can't be done"
This is how everyone who uses the "you don't understand how game development works" excuse sounds, instead of making excuses you should be making your software properly to begin with. Making an online game with LAN/private server support is absolutely not some kind of herculean task if you plan for it, you've just settled for being cucked by companies
No rework needed if you build it right to begin with, moron.
Game developer here. There is NEVER any reason to tie a game’s functionality to a central server. When Team Fortress 2’s central item servers are down I can still play the game on local host without them. Even an MMO could and frankly should be set up to allow a player to run around alone in the game world without anyone else in it.
>You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
that's not the issue
the issue is to remove the need to connect to the servers on the player's client to play the game AFTER the developers/publishers decide to close the servers down
OR
if the game requires a central server to run then the developer/publisher should release the server hosting tools (not even for free mind you) to the public so people can host their own unofficial servers AFTER they decide to kill their own servers
Sounds plausible. Everyone knows devs are the ones handling legal stuff, and the legal departement only exists so company lawyers have a place to snort coke off of hooker asses.
Game Modder here
All the companies have to do is release the server hosting software for online play or release an offline patch that bypasses the need for server verification.
This can take anywhere from a day to a week to accomplish.
>You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
We know, which is why we're asking for the server source code to do it ourselves.
server source code != the entire games source code (though in an ideal world that would also be the case.) A server hosting program for Half Life isn't Half Life itself.
You will never be able to force companies to give you the server code, or even the compiled server executable
All that will happen if anything is you will be guaranteed a certain amount of service from a live service game
Excuse me? Where did I say it was impossible? It's definitely possible, it's very easy to do. They just won't do it. And the government will never force them to do it either, because that's not how the free market works
I was gonna be funny and say "you can force them with violence hehe let's kill the executives amirite?", but this is the gaming community that ain't shit, cuz there's no videogames when you go to prison for 2nd degree murder.
I guess it's better than nothing but wouldn't it be easier on the companies end to just give the repository of their server programs to users when a game reaches it's end of life cycle? I think most people realise that a company can't support a server forever but I'd like the means to do so myself with my resources.
>wouldn't it be easier on the companies end to just give the repository of their server programs to users when a game reaches it's end of life cycle?
Yes and no
Game servers are cheap to run
It's also easy to hand out source code
But game companies don't want to hand out source code for many reasons, so they're probably going to pick the first option
I wish companies had an easy means to just give us the source code but I guess that's getting into stallman GNU territory. From what I heard Tin Sweeney would have been open to giving out the Unreal 1.0 source code that UT99 and Deus Ex ran on but licensing shit from Brink and other programs is what's preventing him from doing it. Now I'm not sure how much server source code is that entangled with the rest of a games source code but I guess it's enough of a minefield that companies don't want to bother.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I wish companies had an easy means to just give us the source code
They do, it's fricking easy
They just won't because they don't want to
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah easy from one companies pov but lots of Game Engines aren't coded from scratch. A lot of them typically have other modules or codecs licensed from other companies to use in their games. An easy example would be games that had EAX support in the audio. Stuff like that makes releasing a games source code easier said than done I'd imagine. All I'd take is for one company to say no because they own whatever audio or video codec your engine is using. Part of why we have Doom/Quakes source code compared to other games is that those two games were nearly all coded by Carmack himself.
1 month ago
Anonymous
If you are using licensed libraries you can still release the source code that you wrote, just don't release the licensed libraries along with it
1 month ago
Anonymous
Might be easy for audio or video codecs but what about code that's embedded as a part of the engine itself like Havok physics in Source? You'd have to get a coder to cut all of that out just to release it publically, and even if it's easy for a programmer to do, a company might not be willing to even do that. I just hope companies aren't using external code in their server programs or this movement might be fricked.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Code is divided into modules, it's easy just to not include the modules that you cant distribute, I mean your code won't work but you're still technically giving out the source
>Here's you ability to host private servers! >Oooooh too bad about that, seems like you need commercial libraries for it to function. >We technically fulfilled our end of the bargain though, frick you.
exactly
1 month ago
Anonymous
Might be easy for audio or video codecs but what about code that's embedded as a part of the engine itself like Havok physics in Source? You'd have to get a coder to cut all of that out just to release it publically, and even if it's easy for a programmer to do, a company might not be willing to even do that. I just hope companies aren't using external code in their server programs or this movement might be fricked.
If you are using licensed libraries you can still release the source code that you wrote, just don't release the licensed libraries along with it
Technical arguments is a trap. The burden of making the product the customer paid for playable is on the developer.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Sure but these technical arguments are what the companies are going to be pullimg out of their ass in courts. It's better to discuss it now as to how to counteract it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
you can repeat my argument
it's 100% valid
it's the dev's job to make the product functional
1 month ago
Anonymous
I don't disagree with you anon but you know that companies are going to fight tooth and nail against this by any means necessary. And bringing up 3rd party libraries will be vaild in the eyes of any court I would imagine. So if that's the case then what should be done so that customers can get their hands on server code to keep the game alive? Should codec programmers just give away their source code for free?
1 month ago
Anonymous
shouldn't have used those libraries then
not my problem
1 month ago
Anonymous
But that doesn't help those who want to play the games they already killed. I'm luckily not in that camp and just want to kill the model, or anyone who applies it before it touches a game I would have cared for. But that's a bit egotistical in focus. I want the same for the ones with different tastes than me as well.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>hey frickers, UE6 needs audio libraries from scratch, get to it.
That's not going to happen, we don't live in the era of one man machine coding chads anymore, nor is any company going to want to waste resources like that. At this point the mission might be beyond just games and having to go after the entire software industry.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Here's you ability to host private servers! >Oooooh too bad about that, seems like you need commercial libraries for it to function. >We technically fulfilled our end of the bargain though, frick you.
1 month ago
Anonymous
That wouldn't be too bad. People could just get the libraries themselves or better yet, code one from scratch. But that's if the company is willing to scrub the code.
1 month ago
Anonymous
honestly a better outcome than what we have now. Win.
I guess it's better than nothing but wouldn't it be easier on the companies end to just give the repository of their server programs to users when a game reaches it's end of life cycle? I think most people realise that a company can't support a server forever but I'd like the means to do so myself with my resources.
You will never be able to force companies to give refunds to digital products.
oh wait.
Modern devs don't even make their own server software. They use the Unity or Unreal multiplayer api. They couldn't patch in offline services if they wanted, because they never even had anyone on staff who is capable. Nobody wants their shitty source code. We just want working games that don't expire
>You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
Another game developer here, read what this movement is trying to do, which is not asking for companies to keep the servers on forever.
Makes you look less emberassing to lurk before you post here.
Some people are asking for that, those people are delusional
Some people have more reasonable expectations
Live service games will not go away, micro transactions will not go away
Nobody will ever be forced to make servers public
It's quite possible that there will be regulation around providing live services at some point
>build a car you can't change the wheels on >"Ugh, you want to be able to *change* wheels? That's no good, it's a no go bro. You don't understand how cars are made, it just can't be done"
This is how everyone who uses the "you don't understand how game development works" excuse sounds, instead of making excuses you should be making your software properly to begin with. Making an online game with LAN/private server support is absolutely not some kind of herculean task if you plan for it, you've just settled for being cucked by companies
>you don't udnerstand, that's not how things work! >It is, and if it wasn't, why aren't you supporting the change for ebtter? >Oh I'd rather have it the other way but I won't do anything towards that change
I wouldn't surprised if everyone's online features are so full of prebaked 3rd party solutions that modern söydevs genuinely do not know how to do anything else than gaas.
Any e-celeb who talks about game design is a huge fricking homosexual. Look at the Egoraptor OoT video, Gmanlives Sigil video. All these morons are just simpletons who just bang their head against the wall half the time and call it bad or if there is any deviation from their nostalgia norm they screech. Watching gaming analysis videos are the biggest wastes of your time, more so than posting on Ganker. Also Ross has a moron screeching voice and I'm sure all of his fans have mold.
Game dungeon is usually more about taking the worldbuilding seriously, and then wondering if the devs ever actually had a playtester run through the entire game
but the stopkillinggames.com stuff isn't about "game design" at all, in the same way planting a bomb inside a statue isn't about sculpting at all
He's posting that because he's a shill and doesn't want to talking about companies killing games.
and
>you're entitled to a working product
Yes, and if you don't get a working product, you're entitled to a refund, not the server software
is a shill too, these posts are intentionally obtuse to avoid productive discussion.
Game dungeon is usually more about taking the worldbuilding seriously, and then wondering if the devs ever actually had a playtester run through the entire game
but the stopkillinggames.com stuff isn't about "game design" at all, in the same way planting a bomb inside a statue isn't about sculpting at all
>Ross has a moron screeching voice
I'll admit that he presents himself as clinically autistic, especially in his GUI video where he screams "WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT" into thin air several times. It doesn't seem silly when you're a middleschooler, but when you're past the age of 18, 20 at most, you can really see how immature this is.
+ This is like them suing you for trying to repair the car (that the ninjas have broken). This is literally right to repair for vidya
Democracy DOES work
If you don't like live service games, don't fricking buy them
If enough people don't like live service games and don't buy them, then they'll stop making them because there's no money in it
This campaign is the opposite of democracy
>people using their democratic rights is the opposite of democracy
This is braindead wrong.
Here's an actual non-moronic metaphor:
>Buy a car >Toyota mechanics show up at your house 14 years later and deliberately disable the engine >They pull out a contract and say "even though you didn't sign this or know about before you bought the car, it legally binds you to let us do this" >This is good and normal to morons like you
you know what's more pathetic than shills who post misinfo and try to gaslight?
anons who aren't even actually being paid to do it and instead do it just to be contrarian against everything
kys OP
It would be really really really easy for publishers to put explicit expiration dates (subject to extension) on their games. >playable until 2026! >[game is still profitable in 2025] >extended until 2027! wow you get more game for free!! >[and so on until they decide to stop extending it]
So if this gains any traction then publishers will probably do that, making their games literally rented instead of bought. Normies absolutely will pay regardless because they don't care, so it wouldn't even hurt the bottom line that much. The only reason they don't do it now is that if a game really fricking bombs then they don't want to be obligated to keep it live even until the end of the current year. But I think they would rather do this then release community server tools etc., because there's something Ross is missing.
They actively want their games to die so you buy the next game. Everyone still playing The Crew up until whenever they killed it was someone probably not playing the sequels.
Imagine releasing a really good game on a one-time payment model. Like really damn good. Destined to have an active community for years. That's a lot of time people won't be spending on newer games.
Publishers hate you for playing the old games that still work. That's why they pay people to come to Ganker and say "lol r u poor??" to anyone not consuming latest slop.
>because there's something Ross is missing. >They actively want their games to die so you buy the next game.
Bro, nobody is missing this. This is not some arcane fricking knowledge you need 10 layers of tinfoil for. This has been a thing with sports games since forever. Same shit with cowadoody games. It only ramped up in the last 10-15 years where it became the norm for a game franchise to have a release every year or if things are dire every other year. Ofc they want to force consumers off their old title and onto the new title. Its either that, or the always online live service scheme. Pick your poison.
What incentive is there as a game developer to update a game 10 years later with a offline mode or p2p server support when you can just make a new game.
All the money they will pay in fines if they don't is typically the incentive in every other industry but not this.
And it's because of morons like you that think companies and brands are friends and religions.
The “is unreasonable to force the game to be updated to remove kill switches or expect developers to keep a remote kill switch server online forever” is an intentional misdirection by shills to obfuscate the fact that the game should never have been designed to include a kill switch in the first place. The thing about “server costs” is that servers were MORE expensive in the past and consequently EVERY game was built WITHOUT central server dependence because no publisher or developer was willing to constantly burn money to keep a central server online.
>the game should never have been designed to include a kill switch in the first place
You're arguing against central server features entirely at this point, i.e. asking the government to come in and regulate game design itself
I don't think you belong in West , China is more your speed
1 month ago
Anonymous
>China is more your speed
Ironically enough when the regulations aren't enforced is how you end up with buildings falling and streets caving in and elevators multilating people randomly.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Ah yeah the country where it's legal to put fry foods in sewage and sell plastic chips as rice, truly the bastion of consumer protection laws.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yes, the laws aren't made for the common good, they're made for the whims of the people in power, that's the point
You start passing laws just because you don't personally like something you're doing the same thing
1 month ago
Anonymous
>and therefore you should just let them decide, and not try to impact it to the favor of you or general fairness or good
1 month ago
Anonymous
Do you buy bread? If so, you probably like the fact that the government passed laws that prevent the use of gravel in flour
Have you ever refunded a game on steam? You can thank the government for being able to do that
Lack of government regulation on things is where you get stuff like indians using their fricking toenail to cut meat up and sell it to you
1 month ago
Anonymous
Imagine comparing games with a shitty payment model to eating something inedible
You're fricking moronic
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Buy bread >It's inedible >Buy game >It's unplayable
1 month ago
Anonymous
Food is required to live. If you eat inedible food, your personal health and safety is in danger
What that poster was complaiing about was not a game that didn't work. It was a game that worked, but was online only for no reason. If you don't like a game, don't fricking buy it
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Crew was playable when people bought it, ubishit stopped selling it once they pulled the plug
So in this analogy you bought edible bread and left it to grow mould, and are now kicking up a fuss at the bakery like they sold you mouldy bread
1 month ago
Anonymous
moron analogy >Someone shutting something down is the same thing as mould
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Your just being an idealist. Things break down or go bad all the time, games are no different.
?t=3479
1 month ago
Anonymous
all this guys arguments are dumb and easily debunkable
1 month ago
Anonymous
Well lets start with the arguments that easily refute his rebuttals then, rather than an something that he already covered four years ago.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Games aren't abstract concepts
Games can stop working on certain hardware and operating systems, games can also be part of networks and the servers can go down
Games can stop working
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Everything breaks >Vandalism should be legal
man, you're so smart
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Vandalism
please try harder
1 month ago
Anonymous
No, that was clearly enough.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Games can stop working on certain hardware and operating systems
Something outside of the devs/publishers control. >games can also be part of networks and the servers can go down
Something 100% within the devs/publishers control.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Something outside of the devs/publishers control.
Nope, games can be patched and updated to conitnue working indefinitely if the devs want to, just like keeping the servers up
1 month ago
Anonymous
yeah but ross isn't advocating for that
he doesn't want support forever, just an end of life plan
worst case scenario you can emulate older hardware
1 month ago
Anonymous
What is he advocating for? Game preservation? You will never get the law to require companies to deliver you everything you need to keep the game going forever. It just won't happen. The most you will get is something equivalent to a warranty, "this game will work for X years after sale guaranteed"
1 month ago
Anonymous
solid end of life plan, like hard dates on when service will end
1 month ago
Anonymous
>hard dates on when service will end
makes no sense seeing it's impossible to predict. It will be X amount of time after sale, like a warranty
1 month ago
Anonymous
Then provide server files, then the date that support ends is irrelevant.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Companies will never be forced to give away their code. It'll be keep the servers up for X period of time, offer a refund or release the server to the public. And they'll choose to keep the servers up for X period of time
>You don't know ahead of time when you're going to shut down the servers
there you go again assume incompetence when its malice > it's bad for business
and stealing games from customers is bad for the customers
>assume incompetence when its malice
No company releases a game that's deblierately shit and designed not to be successful
1 month ago
Anonymous
>No company releases a game that's deblierately shit and designed not to be successful
completely unrelated statement.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>release live service game >it’s not making money >as per the label on the box the publisher has to keep the lights on for at least a 6 months to a year before shutting it off >if it can’t and they file for bankruptcy then they should release the dev tools so the customers can keep it online themselves
It’s not hard, it’s all about the morals of the seller.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yes that's what I'm suggesting. It'll be 6 months to a year after purchase. It won't be an absolute fixed date in time
1 month ago
Anonymous
You're wrong several times over, but even that would be better than what we have now and the model would have a harder time surviving if they had to state that they'll kill the game after a decided time.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You're wrong several times over
Not seeing any arguments
1 month ago
Anonymous
Read Thread. You'll notice your exact moronic isn't original, and already has been answered.
>hard dates on when service will end
makes no sense seeing it's impossible to predict. It will be X amount of time after sale, like a warranty
have you seen European cigarette boxes? You don't think they'd be forced to put some really clear text about what happens when support is ended next to text stating when they can.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You don't think they'd be forced to put some really clear text about what happens when support is ended next to text stating when they can.
Why do you think this is an issue? You buy things and they say "2 year warranty" on them all the time. You think this is bad for sales?
1 month ago
Anonymous
a warranty isn't a warning, its an additional perk on top of already establish consumer rights.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Try reading it again, you didn't quite get it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Games can stop working on certain hardware and operating systems
Emulators or virtual machine can fix this issue. Don't even need publishers for this > games can also be part of networks and the servers
Most single player games shouldn't need always online as proven with one of the simcity clones saying all the calculation was going on in the cloud, but pirates shown that it can be run locally without any issue, so they had access to the game, when nobody else did.
Diablo 3 has the same excuse, but then console ports don't need internet.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Emulators or virtual machine can fix this issue
Nah, emulators and VMs have performance issues, they can only run old games
1 month ago
Anonymous
>they can only run old games
You should just give up. And if you're paid, they should fire you.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Emulators reduce performance by an order of magnitude. Emulators can't play 10 year old games at this point, they cant even play 20 year old games for the most part
1 month ago
Anonymous
then ubisoft should have given a hard date when they would steal the game from you
1 month ago
Anonymous
Bread has an expiration date, if you can provide proof it went bad before that date you can expect a refund from a store. I have done this in the past
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I don't think you belong in West ,
ESL detected, opinion rejected.
>no goy its really important for us to brick our games to make them unplayable because GAME DESIGN
its really important for me to behead you for my entertainment too, why are you letting the government come in the way of my fun?
>dude allegedly put months into this thing from all angles around the world >his only answer for USA is "I'm sorry, there's nothing, we have no rights"
Grim
I literally thought that's what he'd want us to do.
he's even in the comments being positive, despite the reactors moronation and jumping the gun.
If anything, People probably should try to bring it to the biggest players, likely to care (pewdipie, maybe?)
He said in an other video that if his goals get accomplished but someone else got the credit for starting the movement he wouldn't care, he isn't in this for the recognition he just wants them to stop killing games. The word really should be spread as far as possible, that's what he would want.
One day you will answer to God for your lies. You will have to explain why you broke his commandments for mere videogame shilling. I hope you are prepared.
Why are there so many people misinterpreting his campaign or flat out being disingenuous?
At not point has he or anyone stated that "devs have to keep supporting a game forever".
unless it was a troll, some people admitted to being hired by ubisoft to shill their games here, it's not unlikely to think that they would be getting paid for this too
>unless it was a troll, some people admitted to being hired by ubisoft to shill their games here
Yeah seems legit
Hey you seen this dancing cat by the way?
But where, except the internet, can you use these strats of acting moronic to wear the other party out (which are exactly what you'd make a bot do, if you want conversation to die out)?
They just repeat "Whatever. You just want *blatant lie*." over and over til the other person gives up? And they need practice for that?
He said in an other video that if his goals get accomplished but someone else got the credit for starting the movement he wouldn't care, he isn't in this for the recognition he just wants them to stop killing games. The word really should be spread as far as possible, that's what he would want.
Has there been any notable push to get someone bigger name to acknowledge it? I guess it'd probably be easier, now that there's more of a tangible thing to show and support than there was earlier. Like what big (un-sponsored) streamer wouldn't support it.
Is this really what we're going to do now? Ask the government to attack corporations willy-nilly to protect people from purchases that they made themselves? This goes beyond unfair, it's extremely dangerous to our democracy.
>Open up a restaurant >It's extremely succesful and everyone loves it >Eventually grow old and tired, can't work anymore so plan on closing it >A single moron comes up to me as I'm closing for the last time and says "I am owed your recipe so I can eat here forever, give it or I'm suing you."
>Open up all-you-can-eat restaurant >Don't close restaurant >Throw paying customers out whenever >Make it illegal for anyone to cook food at home >Face laws for trying to run model in non-moronic country >Get ass-raped to death in prison
>he wants the servers stay online indefinetly. So the devs got no choice but to stop making online games
Good. The servers were shitty most of the time.
He made a list in 2019, but the list isn't comprehensive, and the list is ever growing. The list will be growing a lot more now because its been about ten years since there was a big push of "GaaS" games released and companies think they can get away with pulling the plug now( like with the crew).
>Or does this include gacha/mobileshit?
Technically it does, but since Japan, Korea and China have much different laws, it was neve tried with those. Ubisoft is french so it's a good line of approach.
>all those gays on /r/gamedev who say this is impossible or smugly say how this is a bad idea because what about indie projects that for some reason require servers and cannot let you host them by yourself or play them offline
You don't know ahead of time when you're going to shut down the servers. You don't know how well a game is gonna sell and how long it will be popular for. Making companies decide ahead of time is nonsensical, it's bad for business
No, he's a professional youtube whiner, he doesn't know anything about game development.
Doesn't mean he's wrong. However, for the simple reason that his movement is filled with "video games are art and must be preserved!" people, I am against it.
>ubisoft, mon fils, it is time to choose >flip the boolean that enables the offline mode >fight a long legal and political battle, tooth and nail, and hire underpaid shills to post on mongolian basket weaving forums
This is the funniest part. >ok guys we have two options simply not develop single player games with connections to online servers or should we spend money hiring shills and hope that the french government doesn't have an issue with our practices
Like is the benefit of online servers on single player games really that big?
They must have done a cost benefit analysis that showed they would get more money from people migrating from the Crew to the Crew 2 than paying for shills and hoping the numbers wouldn't be there for the petitions.
a long legal and political battle, tooth and nail, and hire underpaid shills to post on mongolian basket weaving forums >Hon hon, monsieur regulatory committee, releasing our server code would put our customers in danger, reveal trade secrets, and potentially allow the piracy of our current games. Packet documentation could allow bad actors to inject malicious packets to our current in-operation servers and to other players. Ve are doing zis for customer safety.
Easy as that.
>>If companies release information about their servers, this means other games they’re hosting with the same software could be hacked. >Well this one guy I asked say it probably won't be an issue but even if he's wrong then tough shit.
Yeah, this is where it's going to fall apart just because of code reuse. "Too bad" isn't enough when proprietary code is involved, all it would take is one turbo autist using the server code for Scrimblo Bimblo's Always Online Adventure to set up a private server for a game currently being supported for them to try and reverse the decision.
>You don't know ahead of time when you're going to shut down the servers
there you go again assume incompetence when its malice > it's bad for business
and stealing games from customers is bad for the customers
1. The campaign is successful and sets off a domino effect of EVENTUALLY making greed-focused casino-subscription design too risky to attempt. EA and Activision will produce a guaranteed monkey paw effect so this isn't as great as it sounds if they are a part of the equation.
2. Nothing works and morons that like Always Online games become an even bigger subject of mockery that only an absolute moron would defend.
The purpose of a company is to make money. Releasing an unsuccessful game doesn't make money, it costs money. Game companies try to avoid this at any cost
Man, Ubisoft must be spooked by the moldman. Every single thread gets either deleted by the jannies or is crawling with endless shills and doomposters using the same arguments that were all debunked and keep getting debunked in every thread. As such, I implore my fellow lurkers to support Ross so the shills kill themselves in despair at failing their corporate overlords.
last thread the shill angle was "cs community servers don't exist because it's impossible. the devs can't offer that capability in perpetuity" but in less words
Nah, I'm just beingna contrarian shitposter because you guys seem to be oh so serious about it and I find it hilarious that you actually post serious replies
If you're posting in favor of the companies you should have a nice day.
I don't care if it's ironic. I don't care if you're baiting. I don't care if you're getting paid for it. I don't care if you're a doomposter.
You need to suck a shotgun, jump off a building, kick the stool, slit your wrists, whatever your preferred method is; as long as you're no longer polluting the atmosphere with your CO2 anymore.
I bought The Culling, which also EOS'd without allowing community server support. Anybody who has played more than 50 pc games has likely experienced this.
Google says it's free to play
If you bought they game and they ended the service while you were still playing, that's legitimately bad
If it's free-to-play, well, you get what you paid for
1 month ago
Anonymous
it only went f2p in a last ditch effort to get users despite their dogshit balance patches that everybody except reddit begged them to revert. most users paid.
It's been happening too much in recent years. Paragon was around for like two years then it died. Then it was brought back by Netmarble and died again after a few years. It's getting to be a problem now that you have no guarantee a game will last more than a year or two. >don't buy them
not an argument from a consumer rights standpoint. If a company wants to do business they have to give some written guarantees otherwise they're no better than some scammer on telegram
Yes, I am. I refuse to be an irony-poisoned moron, I like video games and I want them to be good. Ross' petitions are trying to help video games be better so they have my full support. Even if it doesn't result in anything but a big middle finger from the justice system, it was still worth the effort.
if you think all matters of fairness reduce to death or no punishment at all, then you deserve for everybody to do everything they can against you which doesn't warrant death. stealing from people (which is what you are doing when you charge someone money for a product and then intentionally disable it) doesn't warrant death in this case, but it obviously should be restricted by law.
>stealing from people (which is what you are doing when you charge someone money for a product and then intentionally disable it)
Not exactly what happened
They made a live service game, with the intention that people could play it, and they did buy it and play it, but they shut it down after a few years because it wasn't making enough money or whatever
There should be laws restricting you from doing this and giving people a certain amount of time to play, but it's not fraud, it's not even unethical if you're company is going out of business but I'm pretty sure it's unethical in Ubisoft's case because they can afford to keep it going
>buy phone >Company "stops supporting it" and releases malicious update that shuts your phone down and makes it unusable >NOOOO MY PHONE >buy game >company "stops supporting it" and releases malicious update that shuts your game down and renders it unusable >why are you so upset about a game huh???
I'm not a shill poster, but to this day I cant see anything wrong with a modder selling a paid mod if he so wishes. Its like that Jesus consent meme. Mod seller is happy, mod buyer is happy, some random guy on Ganker isn't happy.
>Literally an industry standard less than 20 years ago was the ability to host your own servers >Now suddenly is a lost art and impossible for modern devs
Maybe they're just stupid
ironically, private servers had greater control over who you played against, since the owner or a friend of his was probably in the server a few hours a day and would ipban cheaters, sending them down the street. official servers accumulated blatant cheaters
The issue with him choosing The Crew to do this is that, as Ross says, they literally have a fricking switch for this game in particular that they could use to make it playable.
The ideal scenario is that they have to go to court to do this, but Ubisoft could get ahead of the game and take the wind of the movement by making it offline possible without legal legislation on the books forcing them to do it.
Also unrelated but anyone who says >vote with your wallet >muh govt regulation please let corpos rape me with government backing instead >I don't play online only games, TRUST ME I DON'T >muh too hard it's impossible even though industry standard
WITHOUT getting paid by Ubisoft to have these opinions is a toolshed.
You can actually see it in the files, and there's been reports of people playing it on Xbox 360 who have actually managed to play the game but are harassed by pop ups regarding not being online.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/3879346999810591752/
>there's been reports of people playing it on Xbox 360 who have actually managed to play the game
Quick look around israelitetube shows zero evidence of this when it would take nothing to record
So those reports are literally "dude trust me"
This is looking like morons seeing mentions of an offline mode in the files and assuming it's completely playable, when it doesn't actually exist in anything close to that state
he's a writer, he has no technical knowledge
he doesn't address ross' arguments 1 by 1, he just mumbles for 10 minutes with the occasional fallacy
I lost respect for chet, his channel is terrible, he's not a good communicator
Your appeal to authority doesn't work if the guy in the video doesn't know any more than Ross.
The guy in the video knows way more about the topic than Ross
When you work in the game industry in a position where you make decisions, this is a topic you understand
Appealing to people who understand the topic due to years of actual work experience is not a fallacy
1 month ago
Anonymous
You bring up his position but not his arguments (because they're poor)
1 month ago
Anonymous
I haven't watched them yet, I'll do that and get back to you
All of Ross's arguments so far have been pretty poor and based in feeling about what "should" happen and not facts and reality and consequences
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I haven't watched them yet, I'll do that and get back to you
1 month ago
Anonymous
>i've been writing stories for years, that means i know everything about coding a game
You are not even trying.
>The guy in the video knows way more about the topic than Ross
not according to the video. but I guess you'd rather we all pretend his arguments weren't moronic
sounds like his main argument is: >You keep mentioning the need for law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary. Companies just need to be convinced preserving games is in their interests and consumers need to make conscientious buying decisions.
Yeah and good luck doing that. If gaming companies don't want to sell us a GOOD then they can simply say they're selling a SUBSCRIPTION or make their game playable offline or with a server hosting software.
>then they can simply say they're selling a SUBSCRIPTION
in that case they will be legally required to be clear on exactly how long your subscription is good for, which would absolutely kill most games
>or make their game playable offline or with a server hosting software.
yes this is exactly what people are asking for
it is nearly always more difficult for a person to act with impartiality and treat people fairly than it is for them to lie, cheat, and steal. preserving the game is quite obviously not in their interests, because they can sell the same person what is effectively the same game again once the first one has been disabled.
>stealing from people (which is what you are doing when you charge someone money for a product and then intentionally disable it)
Not exactly what happened
They made a live service game, with the intention that people could play it, and they did buy it and play it, but they shut it down after a few years because it wasn't making enough money or whatever
There should be laws restricting you from doing this and giving people a certain amount of time to play, but it's not fraud, it's not even unethical if you're company is going out of business but I'm pretty sure it's unethical in Ubisoft's case because they can afford to keep it going
i don't buy ubisoft games, but i have bought games that have reached EOS while people still played them. this is an industry issue
Former Valve writer, wrote Portal 1 and 2, Half Life 2 Episodes, Left 4 Dead 1 and 2, and TF2. Was also one of the big pushers for Valve to get into VR.
>Valve
You mean the company that's a pioneer of online DRM, the killer of physical copies on PC and the inventor of lootboxes?
Dang, that's a strong pedigree.
>that's a pioneer of online DRM, the killer of physical copies on PC
This is why I laughed at out loud when Ross says he likes owning things, like things he can hold in his hand
Ross c**t you've got a steam account and are starting a case over always online ubislop that you willingly bought, you are personally funding the death of this industry
To be fair, these are unironically semantics. The only thing that matters is can you or can you not play the game? Even if I have to crack it, what does it matter as long as it works?
Really shitty video. I thought this guy was smart. His suggested strategy is essentially to just try and ask nicely. Begging corpos to stop fricking over people has literally never worked. It never will either, publicly traded corporations are self serving and evil by design.
Trying to convince them that it's in their interest isn't much different. The truth is that in many cases, it's not in their interest. Like with all planned obsolescence, the scheme is to force you to make another purchase by breaking what you already got.
>Trying to convince them that it's in their interest isn't much different
Well yeah he doesn't suggest that either, he doesn't really offer any solutions to Ross's "problem"
>You keep mentioning the need for law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary. Companies just need to be convinced preserving games is in their interests and consumers need to make conscientious buying decisions.
Ubisoft will win by doing absolutely nothing.
Ubisoft is hand in hand with his government which supports all videogames made in france with investments and wants to avoid relocations.
Get fricked and don't forget to pre-order The Crew 3 when it comes out.
>relocations
If it passes in any country they're going to be forced into doing it for every country, including France, so there would be no point in relocating. Just like how Australia forced Steam to streamline refunds and now everyone has refunds (as opposed to everyone pulling out of Australia)
>If it passes in any country they're going to be forced into doing it for every country
That's what Ross believes but he's a fricking idiot
Riddle me this, Belgium banned lootboxes right? Did the EU as a whole then ban lootboxes?
>how is it possible that you can sell something in one country but cant sell it in another???
Look dude even companies are forced to release offline modes and player-hosted servers for Australia alone, the people there are just going to give the software to Europe anyway
Remember that these users are not posting a genuine point, they are trying to make the board uninteresting for the rest o fus. Nobody who was interested in a discussion would say something like "pre order The Crew 3, losers!", that's clearly a provocation. And it's not a troll either, because there's no attempt at humor, nobody writes a message like this and laughs at the "reactions" afterwards, these guys are activists/bots with a very determined agenda.
>The smoking gun is the fact that you literally play prologue of this game in offline mode, without being connected to others in freedrive, instead you see bots freeroaming around you like TDU2. Other than freedrive, the game isn't even online, it's either fully offline as is or peer to peer to connect you and your crew members. You can press Continue in start screen, have the game load your save data from cloud, then you can disconnect your internet and you can freely play freedrive or even story missions for a while with no issue, until the game does an artificial connectivity check, then kicks you out to start screen. Offline mode shouldn't even be thought of as a feature, the game is already I'd say >80% offline under the hood as is.
I worked in this AAA shitshow for nearly half a decade. There is no "knowing anything about game development" needed here. It's as plain as day.
Developers are glad to be done with content complete, because they are sick of working on the game usually
Higher-ups only give a shit on how much bloat they can put in to get money on the quick, they are also all trying to use AI as a crutch now, so if you see AI generated assets, don't be surprised
Only people who even care about preserving this slop is some of the people who play it. There is no incentive for the devs to spend a moment on having their game hold any kind of presence, when they are already busy churning out another sequel with reused 80% of the assets by the B-team.
The game AAA industry is properly fricked, it operates on the Klaus Schwab rules of ownership, and anyone buying their quarter-optimized bullshit today is a punchline.
Theres idiots who are basicly allergic to change, anything you want to add or take away is a personal attack on them as they screech in confusion at the bad man trying to do something to their fun games.
And of course theres people just pretending they misunderstand the iniative and call people moronic for it.
There might be actual corporate shills in the mix as well.
Owning should ALWAYS be better than renting. Renting is easier, but that's not normal. It's been normalized to the point where new generations will be conditioned into believing they aren't allowed to own things.
More than you.
stopkillinggames.com
FPBP /thread
Nintendo owns their entire tech stack, Ubisoft simply kills games. It's much easier to go after The Crew right now than 3DS servers. Establishing a legal precedent to NOT KILL GAMES is the main goal.
Ubisoft was the right move in many ways, them being French is the biggest one since France does not frick around with consumer rights.
Pretty much, yeah. France is the lynchpin here moreso than any other country in the world. If FRANCE doesn't care about games getting destroyed, then no one ever will.
>Ross telling us about people around Europe having completely differing or even NO idea on how to handle this situation
Shit's wild. You'd think it wouldn't take more than an hour of hard thinking to figure this out.
more than the AAA devs destroying their own games, that's for sure
Why isn't he fighting to keep Nintendo's servers online
Why does he only care about obscure shitty online games no one played
Why do you get to decide?
You can still play every Nintendo game even if the servers go offline, that's not his point.
Mario 35?
Mario 35 didn't cost anything
That wasn't the criteria in the chain. It was "every Nintendo game".
Also, it cost the NSO sub. Nothing is free.
His legal argument doesn't work on subscription games or truly free games.
I'm arguing in favor of the anon that asked for Nintendo servers.
You ask for too much. Ross is only going after single purchase games that are 100% rendered inoperable after support has ended. Single issue. He has to choose battles that he can win.
>Ross is only going after single purchase games
wrong
>wants to make every microtransaction accessible forever
Yeah good luck with that one Ross
>trying to help the video game industry from killing itself
>not introducing laws to kill it faster
I don't give a shit about some industry that nickel and dimes costumers while letting workers crunch until they have to leave from being overworked
If there are microtransactions that let you buy digital items the argument is stable. So if nothing else this might kill microtransactions in games. Even just for that it's worth it.
>this might kill microtransactions in games
lmao
He doesn't care about The Crew specifically he's only using it as an opportunity to address the larger issue.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. He's got like a video where he admits in the first four sentences that what he wants is a lawsuit and not to play the crew. What was that, a month or two ago? This guy is gonna get raped by some french lawyers.
He's not aiming to launch a lawsuit so I don't see how that'll happen. He just wants existing legislation to be used to create precedent for video games, at least in the EU.
But he also does want to play the crew. He made a whole video about that.
Well I'm sure all the lawyers will understand that.
>Your honor. The prosecution only wants theft illegal for the sake of others, not because he disliked to have his own things stolen, as is proven by this quote where he states "This wouldn't just be good for me, but also for anyone else who dislikes theft". I rest my case
naysayers like you say the dumbest shit
Holy misconstruction of the facts, Batman!
He would be happy if they made the Crew playable, because he would still get to play it and it would set a precedent that GaaS don't necessarily need to be destroyed when support ends. He admits that the likelihood of that is very low though and can accept the Crew dying so that games in the future can survive.
He's got a video where he says he wants a lawsuit in the first four sentences, mr. construe.
He is fighting to make every singleplayer online only game have an offline mode after the publisher kills the game dumbass, that includes Nintendie games.
He want's you to be able to play the games you want to be able to play, anon. The reason it's The Crew because it's French, which if it can be used to set a precedent, hopefully helps with American and Japanese games as well (if the publishers want to sell in France)
He is trying to set a legal precedent one way or the other.
If he wins then to release you game globally you will need a End of Life Plan.
If he loses then at least everyone will have it written in Ink that they don't have the right and can better make informed decisions in the future.
They’ll add a label to these games at best, moron. Also I genuinely don’t care about the preservation of modern slop for what it’s worth so label away.
Because he is a Nintendo psyop to try and sabotage their competition.
SAAR, SAAR, ANDARSTAND, SAAR! VIDEAGEAM CAN NOT BE MADE NOT TO BE OF ONLINE, SAAR! SERVERS REDEEM PURCHASE, SAAR!
>NOOOO STOP THIS! I WANT UBISOFT TO TAKE AWAY THE GAME I BOUGHT A PHYSICAL COPY OF AT THE STORE!
>IF I WANT TO PLAY IT AGAIN I'LL JUST BUY 2, AND THEN 3 WHEN THEY KILL 2
>YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, ITS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO RELEASE A PATCH THAT LETS YOU PLAY THE SINGLE PLAYER GAME OFFLINE
STOP KILLING GAMES
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iH7k0IZ5PYE (for Ganker's 30 second attention span)
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
>I've talked to experts who say devs could release unencrypted client software in as little as an HOUR!
doubt [x]
Encryption is very standardized everywhere. There are like 3 algorithms everyone uses and they're all public, all it takes to decrypt data is one key.
emphasis on "could", it all depends on how the game was developed from the start.
How hard something is to do in coding is based on how common that stuff is and how early into the project we know about it, so the whole thing is build with it in mind.
Every developer will tell you it's usually much worse to add multiplayer to a finished game unsing existing assets than making a game from start knowing it needs a multiplayer mode.
Don't make it online only if you can't afford/are too incompetent to support it
They're free to develop however they want tbh, as long as they advertise it as an always online game you knew exactly what you were getting into when you bought it
Don't come back late and cry about not buying your ideal version of the game with an offline mode
I bought the game, my copy should work indefinitely.
They should say what their expiration date is.
If you buy a game and it shuts down 2 weeks later that is obviously a scam.
If you buy a game that says "this game shuts down April 21 2024" and it just down in 2 weeks, you got what you paid for.
>as long as they advertise it as an always online game you knew exactly what you were getting into when you bought it
yes he wants games to have solid expiration dates, why is that so difficult to understand?
>yes he wants games to have solid expiration dates
Ross doesn't actually want that, he just thinks it's some kind of gotcha like morons aren't willfully buying death row games anyway
Even he bought The Crew knowing it was going to die remember
Consoomers gonna consoom
>if you can't offer a better alternative you can't complain
No. Do it again, but better. Simple as
Is he saying literally every online game should be playable after the publisher stops supporting it, including games that would be impossible to run on a single computer like MMOs?
there are lots of mmos with unofficial/pirated servers. I understand not wanting them while your game is alive, but if you plan on killing it, there's no reason to release tools to let players make their own servers.
Yep, as well as any game with microtransactions which he seems to not realise covers the entire freemium industry. So not just MMOs, he's now seeking to regulate mobage
Most mobile games already can be played offline. The store is the only thing requiring online.
Tell that to all the gachaBlack folk pouring one out for their dead waifu games
Star Wars Galaxies. support ended 2011. Playable today because the server files were leaked.
SHUT UP
Yes. It is not difficult to provide the means for a privately run server.
In the case of World Of Warcraft, this would guarantee it is playable FOREVER WITHOUT NEEDING BLIZZARD
Ross in 2014:
>I HAVE TO MAKE THE MOVIE
Ross in 2024:
>I HAVE TO SAVE THE GAMES
The fact Ross is spearheading this is why I have no faith it will work. He's one of the laziest internet personalities next to Spoony.
If he doesn't go out of his way to both release videos frequently and appear on other channels, this will never work. He is currently NOT doing that. It's practically already over and needing to wait 2 weeks for the petitions to even open is no excuse for not trying to get the largest amount of people onboard before it's even open to the public.
His lazy bullshit will get this tanked. I just know it.
>He is currently NOT doing that.
He literally is, multiple channels I'm subscribed to have already started shilling the petition.
stop killing games has already made it into youtube suggestions
>The fact Ross is spearheading this is why I have no faith it will work. He's one of the laziest internet personalities next to Spoony.
I mean, his first video on the subject was literally "someone else do this for me" and now we're here so who knows how it's going to play out.
>He's one of the laziest internet personalities next to Spoony.
Ross said on record that he works 50 hours per week. THE MOVIE has a legitimate chance of releasing compared to the spoony movie (lol).
does he need to?
No matter who you are, see what you can do to help at: www.stopkillinggames.com
>preservation argument:
Most civilized societies see the importance in the preservation of culture and history.
>main legal argument:
Get law enforcers to enforce already established consumer law. single purchase games are consumer goods in the EU and Australia. consumer goods can not be designed to fail (programmed obsolescence). A seller is obligated to release reasonable repair instructions and resources so that the customer or a third party can repair an inoperable product.
Single purchase games are consumer goods: https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/
If you argue any of the following points that Ross rebutted four years ago in his original video, you are arguing in bad faith and possibly a shill:
>Games as a service is legal because you agree to the terms stated in the End User License Agreement
?t=2903
(This argument isn't true in the US where consumers lost digital rights in the 90s)
>Buying a game entitles you to the client software, you are not entitled to the server software
?t=3027
>What you are proposing would require businesses to support their games forever. That’s unreasonable.
?t=3127
>If games as a service have to be treated as goods it will hurt creativity of developers and restrain them.
?t=3161
>If the law was enforced on games as a service, it would negatively affect a lot of companies that would have to go back and change their games, and they may not be able to do that.
?t=3264
>Making a server work on a customer’s system is a lot of work; developers can’t be expected to do that.
?t=3369
cont.
>Requiring companies to give players a chance to play the game is overreach and an infringement on business rights.
?t=3442
>Your just being an idealist. Things break down or go bad all the time, games are no different.
?t=3479
>You keep mentioning the need for law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary. Companies just need to be convinced preserving games is in their interests and consumers need to make conscientious buying decisions.
?t=3742
>You are pushing to enforce laws on games as goods, but won’t that lead to companies declaring everything as a service with a subscription fee and getting around it that way?
?t=3902
>I don’t care if some games aren’t preserved, because I only play other games.
?t=4035
>If companies release information about their servers, this means other games they’re hosting with the same software could be hacked.
?t=4120
Recent rebuttals:
>Steam count is low
?t=164
>Active player count low
?t=218
>Piracy will save us
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU?t=246
>This is why I buy physical, not digital
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU?t=267
>Online games die
https://youtu.be/DAD5iMe0Xj4?t=2237
No matter who you are, see what you can do to help at: www.stopkillinggames.com
>>If companies release information about their servers, this means other games they’re hosting with the same software could be hacked.
>Well this one guy I asked say it probably won't be an issue but even if he's wrong then tough shit.
Yeah, this is where it's going to fall apart just because of code reuse. "Too bad" isn't enough when proprietary code is involved, all it would take is one turbo autist using the server code for Scrimblo Bimblo's Always Online Adventure to set up a private server for a game currently being supported for them to try and reverse the decision.
That's only one solution though. the bare minimum would be for a company to release the breadcrumbs for a chance that an emulated server could be made.
he understands more about basic customer rights than the average Amerigolem
Which is why he admitted that this wouldn't work in burgerland where eulas are contracts
Is that the actual reason? A contract that isn't shown to you until after purchase? Does that go for other products or just software, or could any seller tsteal any product back immediately after selling by saying "it's in the eula I didn't show you"?
Yes. There was an actual court case that set the precedent.
So all sellers, aren't being more outwardly exploitative about it yet, because they want people to stay asleep/get used to it, and not immediately flee the country, or what? Because that really does mean, that if you make the mistake of buying anything in the U.S, you're exactly as fricked as the the seller has intensive to frick you. I can't think of any law that ever fricked all of it's countries inhabitant like that.
*incentive
It really is that bad for Americans. A lawyer used an example a EULA saying the company can shoot your dog and how if you took it to court, you would be at a disadvantage.
?t=1096
That's not the reason. It's because the regulatory bureaus in the US are so corrupt that it's destroying the quality of life rapidly for literally every citizen.
you can't blame americans for not understanding something they do not have
We should sue the vidya industry for feeding shit games
Thank you for your service.
god bless you krautbro
Kill all games
Game developer here
You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
At most you'll be eligble for a refund if you buy an online game and the servers don't work
not my problem
>What you are proposing would require businesses to support their games forever. That’s unreasonable.
?t=3127
Online games require support. They need servers. You will never be able to force game companies to release their server software to the public if they want to keep it private
They can be forced because they are breaking consumer goods law.
>main legal argument:
Get law enforcers to enforce already established consumer law. single purchase games are consumer goods in the EU and Australia. consumer goods can not be designed to fail (programmed obsolescence). A seller is obligated to release reasonable repair instructions and resources so that the customer or a third party can repair an inoperable product.
Single purchase games are consumer goods: https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/
>Requiring companies to give players a chance to play the game is overreach and an infringement on business rights.
?t=3442
>they are breaking consumer goods law.
No, not really, "designed to fail" is very hard to prove. Most shit you own is designed to fail, consumer electronics are designed with parts that expire after a few years instead of lasting for decades like they could. But you can't prove that they're intentionally designed to fail, so it's fine. Just like you can't prove a game is intentionally designed to fail
>and releasing the fricking offline patch would fix this issue permanently and no one would ever complain about it again
Yes but you can't force game developers to do that, so they won't
>Yes but you can't force game developers to do that, so they won't
that's what the lawsuit is for :^)
As I already explained, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, you can't prove games are designed to fail
Even the most uneccessary always online feature in a game can be justified as DRM, so it's legal
you should send your lawyer resume to ubisoft then, they're gonna need to defend themselves for this
You can take someone to court for whatever you want, doesn't mean you have a case
Live service shit is legally justifable as DRM
he's looking at the consumer protection laws in a bunch of different countries, how can you know for sure that he doesn't have a case in any of them? you're probably an american that is used to getting fricked in the ass by companies so you think everywhere else is like this
>how can you know for sure that he doesn't have a case in any of them
This sounds like some desperate cope, maybe he's got a case in some country somewhere, pretty unlikely though. Like I said, consumer goods are designed to fail all the fricking time, yet all these companies are still in business
All that would mean is that you would not be allowed to sell a game that didn't work, not that you'd be forced to release a patch that made the game playable without the live service feature
so what? are you supposed to just accept that democracy doesn't work and never fight for your rights? just let companies frick you in the ass and not complaining because there's nothing you can do?
there is literally no one being fricked over by this other than braindead racing slop lovers
Are you really so moronic that you don't understand the concept of "an example"
I don't buy ubislop games, but a bunch of people do because they're not videogame autists like me and don't know or don't care enough about them to complain.
you should stop cancer cells at an early stage before they spread everywhere else, I don't want my favorite game to be dead forever because it's the norm to not let players run things locally anymore
Democracy DOES work
If you don't like live service games, don't fricking buy them
If enough people don't like live service games and don't buy them, then they'll stop making them because there's no money in it
This campaign is the opposite of democracy
>consumer goods are designed to fail all the fricking time
?t=1466
Fricking HP
It would be very hard for you to find a provable case of programmed obselence for a video game that couldn't be legally explained by other means
The Crew is a mostly single player game where you are forced to join a multiplayer lobby to play it. None of the in game assets are server side. There is an offline mode buried into the code.
Legally jusitifable as DRM
Well if they drop support, it is reasonable to hold them to consumer rights law and ask them to fix the situation.
Depends
If it's a significant period of time after the game stopped being on sale, that's probably unlikely, companies are never going to be forced to keep servers up forever, it's unreasonable
The most that will happen is maybe you'll pass a law on how long live service games need to be functional
>If it's a significant period of time after the game stopped being on sale, that's probably unlikely, companies are never going to be forced to keep servers up forever, it's unreasonable
It IS unreasonable to keep servers up forever. The point of this is that games shouldn't be made with the requirement of those servers always being online. Make it work offline, make access to 3rd party dedicated servers like tf2, mount and blade, etc, provide the tools to self host like minecraft, or private servers like MMOs.
>The point of this is that games shouldn't be made with the requirement of those servers always being online
You will never pass laws to tell people how games "should" be made. People are free to pursue whatever business model they want so long as it's not deceptive or exploitative, that's one of the foundations of the free market. Businesses will be free to make shitty live service video games, so long as you get what you pay for this will always be legal
You can however discourage unethical practices indirectly. If live service games were forced to include expiration dates on their boxes, non-live service competitors would seize on lack of central service dependence as a selling point.
>If live service games were forced to include expiration dates on their boxes
Why do you think this is some sort of big hit to live service games? Products already have 2 year warranty written on the box
Cigarette companies fought against warning labels “because everyone already knows they cause cancer.”
>People are free to pursue whatever business model they want so long as it's not deceptive or exploitative
Is selling a game and then shutting down its servers, preventing anybody from ever playing that game again, not deceptive?
It could be, but usually this happens because they game didn't sell and nobody was playing it, so that's not deceptive
I don't think you understand the idea of consumer rights laws.
it quite literally IS the government's prerogative to enforce certain standards upon companies on the behalf of citizen-consumers.
just as you cannot sign away your freedom and become a slave, you cannot sign away your consumer rights, no matter what the eula says.
this simply hasn't been examined yet. the second a judge (within the eu) looks at this it'll get sorted out.
then all a company has to do is release the server software after they shutdown their own servers so their paying customers can continue running their games on their own.
either that or state the exact time when their games would shutdown from the second they start "leasing" them, which is likely to lose them a good deal of customers and ultimately not be worth it.
That's not going to happen, as it would require the publishers to state prominently on the game's box and digital store pages EXACTLY how long service is going to be active for. No company is going to want to make that promise up front, especially if it's uncertain how popular a game is going to be. Asking them to patch in an offline mode is both the preferable solution for customers and not particularly demanding for the publisher either.
>Asking them to patch in an offline mode is both the preferable solution
Not really, hosting servers is cheap, especially for live service single player games where there's barely any data going through them
>All that would mean is that you would not be allowed to sell a game that didn't work, not that you'd be forced to release a patch that made the game playable without the live service feature
Well that's the wholee thing about it. Company calls it "live service" game, but under the current (lack) of regulation laws specially in the EU, that doesn't fly. As in, if you're selling a one time buy game, you are selling a product, therefore you cannot end it's functionality on the user end once you desire, specially if the thing only connects to your servers to be playable, and all the files are stored in your PC or the disk. Either sell an actual service that is completly hosted on your servers so you have the right to end service or provide a fully functional product even beyond your end.
Do note that this isn't my argument, this is what the EU law says regarding products. They grey area is that these laws have not been updated for digital era and don't contemplate the possibility of a product switching his medium like this. For everything else, it's either buy (full ownership) or rent (complete transparency on time/price). Games (and other software) exists in this limbo where they are full products in your physical storage but they have the "benefits" of a service game.
This whole thing is trying to force a ruling to be written in here.
Technically the client does still work, it's just useless because the servers are gone
It might be possible to create a law here where you have to keep the servers up for a specific period of time or offer a refund
DRM cannot forbid a user that hasn't broken the ToS from accessing the product.
TOS doesn't apply to products in the first place.
Why do you think Nintendo bans Switches from the online service when the consumer modifies it, but don't they "brick" the console? Because it's the only thing it can do.
The owner of a console can do whatever they want with it, including modifying it, and Nintendo can't do anything about it. They "ban" consoles from online services because TOS applies to services, but they can't "block" a device from working, otherwise they'll be conditioning your use of your own property to their liking, which is illegal almost anywhere in the world.
Games are the same, whether digital or physical. The fact that you don't follow a TOS can't stop you from running your own game.
>justified as DRM
And a game you are no longer going to sell or support needs permanent DRM because...?
>you can't force game developers to do that
This is why Ubisoft is getting called to court. So they are forced by the French government and the EU to fix their shit or to give everyone refunds. Also once the EU gets a hold of this they will force all publishers to either fix their games and give out refunds.
least optimistic rossbro
There is a difference between "programmed obsolescence" where a product can be forced to fail at the seller's discretion which is an illegal practice, and "planned obsolescence" where parts used in the design have a high chance of failing, which is unfortunately a legal practice in the US(other parts of the world may be different). The fact that Ubisoft could designate a set date where the product could no longer function is a clear example of programmed obsolescence and is one of the main points that these petitions will try to argue.
There's many ways to justify taking down the servers for a game. You could say the game was doing terribly in sales so we decided to end it and that would be a perfectly legal excuse for ending your live service for a game
Sure, but it's not an excuse for not letting someone else run them at their cost.
You don't need an excuse for that. You are not obligated to give someone something they didn't pay for. You paid for the game client, not the server. Maybe the game client stops working, that just means you are no longer allowed to sell the client, and maybe you have to give out refunds. Not that you're required to give out your game server
Please consult
>you're entitled to a working product
Yes, and if you don't get a working product, you're entitled to a refund, not the server software
well we don't get either currently so
Then give a refund
The publishers are not giving refunds, that's the whole fricking point
They are legally required to do so, yes, that's how the law works already
well do they?
Steam gives out refunds for games that don't work as intended all the time
And have people been able to get refunds on The Crew?
What happened with The Crew?
No refunds have been given as of the game shut down date 01/04/2024.
If you went to FRICKING GAMESTOP and bought a bricked physical copy of The Crew, you'd be entitled to a refund, yes
But it'd be on the retailer, not ubishart
The best I can offer is 50 cents of in-store credit, sir.
FRICK YEAH
WHAT ARE YOU GUYS BUYING FOR YOUR 50 CREDITS??
two copies of starfield please
So refund everybody the moment you take down a GaaS game because they're entitled to a refund
Ross always states that companies should have to do one of these options when the central servers shut down:
>offer everyone a refund
>patch the game to work offline
>release server software
>release enough info for a reasonable programmer to make the patch himself
They have to do this as-is. You aren't allowed to sell people broken products, you have to fix it or offer a refund. That's how the law works already. But you don't have to keep game servers active indefinitely, there is a timeframe for this after the game stops being sold
>They have to do this as-is. You aren't allowed to sell people broken products, you have to fix it or offer a refund.
okay what's your point? it seems like you agree 100% with what ross is trying to get governments to enforce.
ross isn't trying to get companies to keep servers up forever but merely to make it possible for customers to make their own servers if the company shuts its servers down.
>merely to make it possible for customers to make their own servers
That won't happen. If they are required by law to give a refund, keep the servers up or release the server to the public, they will choose to keep the servers up most of the time
>if given the choice, companies will chose to keep wasting money and resources to keep their servers running instead of letting players make their own
lmao get fricked then
Game servers cost fricking nothing to run, that's preferable for most companies
Shitty comparsion, this is just like a warranty
epic games shut down the unreal servers because of that, they weren't even hosting the game servers, just the browser for finding dedicated servers.
also, it sucks that they did it but you can still play unreal online if you look up a server somewhere else.
Yeah I'm sure it's more realistic for Ubisoft to issue millions of refunds than release a game that functions 10 years down the line
>you're entitled to a refund
so tell your french paymasters to refund full 70$ to every owner of The Crew because thats what their games are worth according to them.
>Online games require support. They need servers.
Only, online-only games, (are all developers hit in the head with a hammer when hired, or do they just hire people who know nothing about games?) and even then, not official support.
>You'll never be able to lock a guy in a room for braking the law
We'll see.
for data the reasonable period is up until the customer breaks the vessel it's housed on without backing it up. Vandalism and theft doesn't reasonable make reasonable period, just because the seller is the one doing it.
You can make any game "online only" by shifting components to a server even when they don't need to be, and there will never be a law against that
You will also never be required to keep the servers up for as long as data physically lasts, that's completely moronic. If they make a law for that it'll probably be a year or so after sales cease
>What you are proposing would require businesses to support their games forever. That’s unreasonable.
?t=3127
>At most you'll be eligble for a refund if you buy an online game and the servers don't work
That's a retailer issue and already the case I'm sure
Black person you just have to release a server emulator or an offline patch how can you be a game developer with that room temperature IQ
>you just have to
No you don't have to. You're under no obligation to do that. The only issue is you selling a product to a customer that doesn't work as advertised for a reasonable period of time after the sale
and releasing the fricking offline patch would fix this issue permanently and no one would ever complain about it again
if we win this lawsuit they do owe us a rework of the game
Are you literally too moronic to comprehend what is even the point of the lawsuit? The entire point is to set legal precedent so it BECOMES a legal obligation you fricking monkey. By "game developer here" did you just mean that you're one of the thousands of outsourced code monkeys, because holy shit you're fricking stupid.
And it won't become a legal obligation
I'm sure Sony probably had a similar mindset back when they tried to sue Connectix, only to set the legal precedent that emulators have been holding as a shield to protect themselves for over two decades now.
You didn't buy a game with public server tools and offline, you bought an always online mode
The developers don't owe you a rework of the game
>Buying a game entitles you to the client software, you are not entitled to the server software
?t=3027
No rework needed if you build it right to begin with, moron.
Reminder that ubisoft hires shitskins to shill for their games on this website
Good morning sir
I wish black death on all mothers of the shills in this thread.
>native 'guerillas'
Are they implying that we're all indians?
>we're
Whoops. Did you intend to admit that, "Michael"?
Game developer here. There is NEVER any reason to tie a game’s functionality to a central server. When Team Fortress 2’s central item servers are down I can still play the game on local host without them. Even an MMO could and frankly should be set up to allow a player to run around alone in the game world without anyone else in it.
>There is NEVER any reason to tie a game’s functionality to a central server
DRM
>Even an MMO could and frankly should be set up to allow a player to run around alone in the game world without anyone else in it.
I want that
>You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
that's not the issue
the issue is to remove the need to connect to the servers on the player's client to play the game AFTER the developers/publishers decide to close the servers down
OR
if the game requires a central server to run then the developer/publisher should release the server hosting tools (not even for free mind you) to the public so people can host their own unofficial servers AFTER they decide to kill their own servers
>At most you'll be eligble for a refund
cough up the money then
As a game developer that’s not my problem but the publisher’s.
Sounds plausible. Everyone knows devs are the ones handling legal stuff, and the legal departement only exists so company lawyers have a place to snort coke off of hooker asses.
Maybe the company lawyers are the ones making the games
Game Modder here
All the companies have to do is release the server hosting software for online play or release an offline patch that bypasses the need for server verification.
This can take anywhere from a day to a week to accomplish.
>You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
We know, which is why we're asking for the server source code to do it ourselves.
Another one for the "nobody's demanding source code!" pile
server source code != the entire games source code (though in an ideal world that would also be the case.) A server hosting program for Half Life isn't Half Life itself.
you don't just need to learn to read text, you need to learn to read your own mind
You will never be able to force companies to give you the server code, or even the compiled server executable
All that will happen if anything is you will be guaranteed a certain amount of service from a live service game
there are companies that already meet the requirements you are saying are impossible to meet. kill your mutt self
Excuse me? Where did I say it was impossible? It's definitely possible, it's very easy to do. They just won't do it. And the government will never force them to do it either, because that's not how the free market works
I was gonna be funny and say "you can force them with violence hehe let's kill the executives amirite?", but this is the gaming community that ain't shit, cuz there's no videogames when you go to prison for 2nd degree murder.
I guess it's better than nothing but wouldn't it be easier on the companies end to just give the repository of their server programs to users when a game reaches it's end of life cycle? I think most people realise that a company can't support a server forever but I'd like the means to do so myself with my resources.
>wouldn't it be easier on the companies end to just give the repository of their server programs to users when a game reaches it's end of life cycle?
Yes and no
Game servers are cheap to run
It's also easy to hand out source code
But game companies don't want to hand out source code for many reasons, so they're probably going to pick the first option
I wish companies had an easy means to just give us the source code but I guess that's getting into stallman GNU territory. From what I heard Tin Sweeney would have been open to giving out the Unreal 1.0 source code that UT99 and Deus Ex ran on but licensing shit from Brink and other programs is what's preventing him from doing it. Now I'm not sure how much server source code is that entangled with the rest of a games source code but I guess it's enough of a minefield that companies don't want to bother.
>I wish companies had an easy means to just give us the source code
They do, it's fricking easy
They just won't because they don't want to
Yeah easy from one companies pov but lots of Game Engines aren't coded from scratch. A lot of them typically have other modules or codecs licensed from other companies to use in their games. An easy example would be games that had EAX support in the audio. Stuff like that makes releasing a games source code easier said than done I'd imagine. All I'd take is for one company to say no because they own whatever audio or video codec your engine is using. Part of why we have Doom/Quakes source code compared to other games is that those two games were nearly all coded by Carmack himself.
If you are using licensed libraries you can still release the source code that you wrote, just don't release the licensed libraries along with it
Might be easy for audio or video codecs but what about code that's embedded as a part of the engine itself like Havok physics in Source? You'd have to get a coder to cut all of that out just to release it publically, and even if it's easy for a programmer to do, a company might not be willing to even do that. I just hope companies aren't using external code in their server programs or this movement might be fricked.
Code is divided into modules, it's easy just to not include the modules that you cant distribute, I mean your code won't work but you're still technically giving out the source
exactly
Technical arguments is a trap. The burden of making the product the customer paid for playable is on the developer.
Sure but these technical arguments are what the companies are going to be pullimg out of their ass in courts. It's better to discuss it now as to how to counteract it.
you can repeat my argument
it's 100% valid
it's the dev's job to make the product functional
I don't disagree with you anon but you know that companies are going to fight tooth and nail against this by any means necessary. And bringing up 3rd party libraries will be vaild in the eyes of any court I would imagine. So if that's the case then what should be done so that customers can get their hands on server code to keep the game alive? Should codec programmers just give away their source code for free?
shouldn't have used those libraries then
not my problem
But that doesn't help those who want to play the games they already killed. I'm luckily not in that camp and just want to kill the model, or anyone who applies it before it touches a game I would have cared for. But that's a bit egotistical in focus. I want the same for the ones with different tastes than me as well.
>hey frickers, UE6 needs audio libraries from scratch, get to it.
That's not going to happen, we don't live in the era of one man machine coding chads anymore, nor is any company going to want to waste resources like that. At this point the mission might be beyond just games and having to go after the entire software industry.
>Here's you ability to host private servers!
>Oooooh too bad about that, seems like you need commercial libraries for it to function.
>We technically fulfilled our end of the bargain though, frick you.
That wouldn't be too bad. People could just get the libraries themselves or better yet, code one from scratch. But that's if the company is willing to scrub the code.
honestly a better outcome than what we have now. Win.
You will never be able to force companies to give refunds to digital products.
oh wait.
Modern devs don't even make their own server software. They use the Unity or Unreal multiplayer api. They couldn't patch in offline services if they wanted, because they never even had anyone on staff who is capable. Nobody wants their shitty source code. We just want working games that don't expire
>You will never be able to force game companies to keep the game servers up at all times
Another game developer here, read what this movement is trying to do, which is not asking for companies to keep the servers on forever.
Makes you look less emberassing to lurk before you post here.
>less emberassing
Some people are asking for that, those people are delusional
Some people have more reasonable expectations
Live service games will not go away, micro transactions will not go away
Nobody will ever be forced to make servers public
It's quite possible that there will be regulation around providing live services at some point
everybody knows what fun is
everybody knows that when you pay for something is supposed to be yours
A game dev/pub going through closure/bankruptcy is not going to make their games priority.
Mechanical engineer here
It is completely impossible to design a wrench without it being constantly online
why does he look like that
polish
The same subhumans screeching about this also shilled for nintendo btw
Doesn't matter whether he does or not. He's a customer and knows what customers want.
>build a car you can't change the wheels on
>"Ugh, you want to be able to *change* wheels? That's no good, it's a no go bro. You don't understand how cars are made, it just can't be done"
This is how everyone who uses the "you don't understand how game development works" excuse sounds, instead of making excuses you should be making your software properly to begin with. Making an online game with LAN/private server support is absolutely not some kind of herculean task if you plan for it, you've just settled for being cucked by companies
>you don't udnerstand, that's not how things work!
>It is, and if it wasn't, why aren't you supporting the change for ebtter?
>Oh I'd rather have it the other way but I won't do anything towards that change
He should just go bald, this is embarrassing.
What's more embarrassing is that he made a choice to have a hairline like that. He chose this, it wasn't brought upon him.
he's had the same hairline for like 15 years
it has finished receding.
keep in mind that he's like 45
the divine geometry of his head drives deamons away
his body is a temple shaped by the mold
I wouldn't surprised if everyone's online features are so full of prebaked 3rd party solutions that modern söydevs genuinely do not know how to do anything else than gaas.
Just gunna chime into this thread and say anyone who is against Ross is a paid shill or a bot. Do not reply to them.
>Just gunna chime into this thread and say anyone who is against Ross is one of his paid shills or bots
ftfy
Don't forget about morons, they are the majority.
NO FRICK YOU
PROVE THEM WRONG ALL THE WAY TO COURT YOU SPINELESS Black person
DO NOT LET THEM LIE WITHOUT RETALIATION
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM
It's the same lies every thread. Makes more sense to just set up a response bot to handle them
Any e-celeb who talks about game design is a huge fricking homosexual. Look at the Egoraptor OoT video, Gmanlives Sigil video. All these morons are just simpletons who just bang their head against the wall half the time and call it bad or if there is any deviation from their nostalgia norm they screech. Watching gaming analysis videos are the biggest wastes of your time, more so than posting on Ganker. Also Ross has a moron screeching voice and I'm sure all of his fans have mold.
this thread is not about game design so I don't know why you're posting this, also bringing two bad examples to prove why everyone is bad is a fallacy
He's posting that because he's a shill and doesn't want to talking about companies killing games.
and
is a shill too, these posts are intentionally obtuse to avoid productive discussion.
Game dungeon is usually more about taking the worldbuilding seriously, and then wondering if the devs ever actually had a playtester run through the entire game
but the stopkillinggames.com stuff isn't about "game design" at all, in the same way planting a bomb inside a statue isn't about sculpting at all
>Ross has a moron screeching voice
I'll admit that he presents himself as clinically autistic, especially in his GUI video where he screams "WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT" into thin air several times. It doesn't seem silly when you're a middleschooler, but when you're past the age of 18, 20 at most, you can really see how immature this is.
I'll always respect what Ross does but I'll never watch his videos because they will always feel Channel Awesome lite to me
I hope Dark Ross shows up in the next Game Dungeon and they review Dark Seed together.
>buy car
>40 years later the car breaks
>WTF YOU OWE ME A FREE REWORK OF THE CAR!!!
>Buy car
>40 years later the Volkswagen ninjas break your engine because the car is discontinued
>This is correct and right
+ This is like them suing you for trying to repair the car (that the ninjas have broken). This is literally right to repair for vidya
>people using their democratic rights is the opposite of democracy
This is braindead wrong.
Here's an actual non-moronic metaphor:
>Buy a car
>Toyota mechanics show up at your house 14 years later and deliberately disable the engine
>They pull out a contract and say "even though you didn't sign this or know about before you bought the car, it legally binds you to let us do this"
>This is good and normal to morons like you
Who tf wants to fiddle with an archaic server browser? I just want to hit "play" and, you know, play the damn game.
you know what's more pathetic than shills who post misinfo and try to gaslight?
anons who aren't even actually being paid to do it and instead do it just to be contrarian against everything
kys OP
It would be really really really easy for publishers to put explicit expiration dates (subject to extension) on their games.
>playable until 2026!
>[game is still profitable in 2025]
>extended until 2027! wow you get more game for free!!
>[and so on until they decide to stop extending it]
So if this gains any traction then publishers will probably do that, making their games literally rented instead of bought. Normies absolutely will pay regardless because they don't care, so it wouldn't even hurt the bottom line that much. The only reason they don't do it now is that if a game really fricking bombs then they don't want to be obligated to keep it live even until the end of the current year. But I think they would rather do this then release community server tools etc., because there's something Ross is missing.
They actively want their games to die so you buy the next game. Everyone still playing The Crew up until whenever they killed it was someone probably not playing the sequels.
Imagine releasing a really good game on a one-time payment model. Like really damn good. Destined to have an active community for years. That's a lot of time people won't be spending on newer games.
Publishers hate you for playing the old games that still work. That's why they pay people to come to Ganker and say "lol r u poor??" to anyone not consuming latest slop.
>because there's something Ross is missing.
>They actively want their games to die so you buy the next game.
Bro, nobody is missing this. This is not some arcane fricking knowledge you need 10 layers of tinfoil for. This has been a thing with sports games since forever. Same shit with cowadoody games. It only ramped up in the last 10-15 years where it became the norm for a game franchise to have a release every year or if things are dire every other year. Ofc they want to force consumers off their old title and onto the new title. Its either that, or the always online live service scheme. Pick your poison.
What incentive is there as a game developer to update a game 10 years later with a offline mode or p2p server support when you can just make a new game.
Incentive should be "you took people's money so it's your damn fricking job to do it, or else you get fined"
That's the point.
Legal sanctions are an incentive.
Ideally ones that suspect their business license in that country and freeze all assets the c-suite owns until it's made right.
>why should game developers spend a minute fixing their shit inatead of stealing my money while fricking me in the ass?
>offline patches and servers tools only take a minute now
The moldbrain is spreading
All the money they will pay in fines if they don't is typically the incentive in every other industry but not this.
And it's because of morons like you that think companies and brands are friends and religions.
The “is unreasonable to force the game to be updated to remove kill switches or expect developers to keep a remote kill switch server online forever” is an intentional misdirection by shills to obfuscate the fact that the game should never have been designed to include a kill switch in the first place. The thing about “server costs” is that servers were MORE expensive in the past and consequently EVERY game was built WITHOUT central server dependence because no publisher or developer was willing to constantly burn money to keep a central server online.
>the game should never have been designed to include a kill switch in the first place
You're arguing against central server features entirely at this point, i.e. asking the government to come in and regulate game design itself
>asking the government to come in and regulate game design itself
but enough about lootboxes
Yes, a singleplayer game relying on central servers is terrible design and you should have a nice day if you think otherwise.
>The government should force people to do things I like
Correct.
I don't think you belong in West , China is more your speed
>China is more your speed
Ironically enough when the regulations aren't enforced is how you end up with buildings falling and streets caving in and elevators multilating people randomly.
Ah yeah the country where it's legal to put fry foods in sewage and sell plastic chips as rice, truly the bastion of consumer protection laws.
Yes, the laws aren't made for the common good, they're made for the whims of the people in power, that's the point
You start passing laws just because you don't personally like something you're doing the same thing
>and therefore you should just let them decide, and not try to impact it to the favor of you or general fairness or good
Do you buy bread? If so, you probably like the fact that the government passed laws that prevent the use of gravel in flour
Have you ever refunded a game on steam? You can thank the government for being able to do that
Lack of government regulation on things is where you get stuff like indians using their fricking toenail to cut meat up and sell it to you
Imagine comparing games with a shitty payment model to eating something inedible
You're fricking moronic
>Buy bread
>It's inedible
>Buy game
>It's unplayable
Food is required to live. If you eat inedible food, your personal health and safety is in danger
What that poster was complaiing about was not a game that didn't work. It was a game that worked, but was online only for no reason. If you don't like a game, don't fricking buy it
The Crew was playable when people bought it, ubishit stopped selling it once they pulled the plug
So in this analogy you bought edible bread and left it to grow mould, and are now kicking up a fuss at the bakery like they sold you mouldy bread
moron analogy
>Someone shutting something down is the same thing as mould
>Your just being an idealist. Things break down or go bad all the time, games are no different.
?t=3479
all this guys arguments are dumb and easily debunkable
Well lets start with the arguments that easily refute his rebuttals then, rather than an something that he already covered four years ago.
Games aren't abstract concepts
Games can stop working on certain hardware and operating systems, games can also be part of networks and the servers can go down
Games can stop working
>Everything breaks
>Vandalism should be legal
man, you're so smart
>Vandalism
please try harder
No, that was clearly enough.
>Games can stop working on certain hardware and operating systems
Something outside of the devs/publishers control.
>games can also be part of networks and the servers can go down
Something 100% within the devs/publishers control.
>Something outside of the devs/publishers control.
Nope, games can be patched and updated to conitnue working indefinitely if the devs want to, just like keeping the servers up
yeah but ross isn't advocating for that
he doesn't want support forever, just an end of life plan
worst case scenario you can emulate older hardware
What is he advocating for? Game preservation? You will never get the law to require companies to deliver you everything you need to keep the game going forever. It just won't happen. The most you will get is something equivalent to a warranty, "this game will work for X years after sale guaranteed"
solid end of life plan, like hard dates on when service will end
>hard dates on when service will end
makes no sense seeing it's impossible to predict. It will be X amount of time after sale, like a warranty
Then provide server files, then the date that support ends is irrelevant.
Companies will never be forced to give away their code. It'll be keep the servers up for X period of time, offer a refund or release the server to the public. And they'll choose to keep the servers up for X period of time
>assume incompetence when its malice
No company releases a game that's deblierately shit and designed not to be successful
>No company releases a game that's deblierately shit and designed not to be successful
completely unrelated statement.
>release live service game
>it’s not making money
>as per the label on the box the publisher has to keep the lights on for at least a 6 months to a year before shutting it off
>if it can’t and they file for bankruptcy then they should release the dev tools so the customers can keep it online themselves
It’s not hard, it’s all about the morals of the seller.
Yes that's what I'm suggesting. It'll be 6 months to a year after purchase. It won't be an absolute fixed date in time
You're wrong several times over, but even that would be better than what we have now and the model would have a harder time surviving if they had to state that they'll kill the game after a decided time.
>You're wrong several times over
Not seeing any arguments
Read Thread. You'll notice your exact moronic isn't original, and already has been answered.
have you seen European cigarette boxes? You don't think they'd be forced to put some really clear text about what happens when support is ended next to text stating when they can.
>You don't think they'd be forced to put some really clear text about what happens when support is ended next to text stating when they can.
Why do you think this is an issue? You buy things and they say "2 year warranty" on them all the time. You think this is bad for sales?
a warranty isn't a warning, its an additional perk on top of already establish consumer rights.
Try reading it again, you didn't quite get it.
>Games can stop working on certain hardware and operating systems
Emulators or virtual machine can fix this issue. Don't even need publishers for this
> games can also be part of networks and the servers
Most single player games shouldn't need always online as proven with one of the simcity clones saying all the calculation was going on in the cloud, but pirates shown that it can be run locally without any issue, so they had access to the game, when nobody else did.
Diablo 3 has the same excuse, but then console ports don't need internet.
>Emulators or virtual machine can fix this issue
Nah, emulators and VMs have performance issues, they can only run old games
>they can only run old games
You should just give up. And if you're paid, they should fire you.
Emulators reduce performance by an order of magnitude. Emulators can't play 10 year old games at this point, they cant even play 20 year old games for the most part
then ubisoft should have given a hard date when they would steal the game from you
Bread has an expiration date, if you can provide proof it went bad before that date you can expect a refund from a store. I have done this in the past
>I don't think you belong in West ,
ESL detected, opinion rejected.
Yes
Correct, that is its only valid reason to exist.
The government is there to force people to stop doing things you don't like, big difference
It's called a law. Welcome to the first world.
The governenment should stop corporations from fricking people over
Yes, glad we agree.
The government already regulates game design with respect to loot boxes.
Also not putting in a kill switch is a technical design issue, not a game design issue.
>no goy its really important for us to brick our games to make them unplayable because GAME DESIGN
its really important for me to behead you for my entertainment too, why are you letting the government come in the way of my fun?
>dude allegedly put months into this thing from all angles around the world
>his only answer for USA is "I'm sorry, there's nothing, we have no rights"
Grim
Well don't forget that Steam only got refunds because of an Australian ruling.
land of the free
To be fair, he's an amateur.
Do you know anything about not sucking israeli wiener?
>b-but what about this other bad thing that also happened?
Lmao, like clockwork. Always the same tactics.
>turns out radical feminism was based all along
It keeps happening.
In an alternate universe where all trannies vanished, she would be the final boss.
It's a strange situation indeed.
>every mp online, always online game is shit
Why should I give a frick
Right because we've never seen always online single player games before
That never ever happens
>mfw asmongold reaction video has twice the views of the actual video
>mfw I have no face
this isn't ad-revenue drama
ross just wants more eyes on this
yeah I know
I hate reaction content too, but in this specific case I don't think ross would mind
Ross would probably actively encourage it, more eyes is just what he wants.
I literally thought that's what he'd want us to do.
he's even in the comments being positive, despite the reactors moronation and jumping the gun.
If anything, People probably should try to bring it to the biggest players, likely to care (pewdipie, maybe?)
He said in an other video that if his goals get accomplished but someone else got the credit for starting the movement he wouldn't care, he isn't in this for the recognition he just wants them to stop killing games. The word really should be spread as far as possible, that's what he would want.
Do you?
Stop photoshopping his face to look weird.
One day you will answer to God for your lies. You will have to explain why you broke his commandments for mere videogame shilling. I hope you are prepared.
>Stop photoshopping his face to look weird
anon... I...
Why are there so many people misinterpreting his campaign or flat out being disingenuous?
At not point has he or anyone stated that "devs have to keep supporting a game forever".
>Why are there so many people misinterpreting his campaign or flat out being disingenuous?
contrarianism + actual paid marketers
unless it was a troll, some people admitted to being hired by ubisoft to shill their games here, it's not unlikely to think that they would be getting paid for this too
>unless it was a troll, some people admitted to being hired by ubisoft to shill their games here
Yeah seems legit
Hey you seen this dancing cat by the way?
wtf is that real?
Ubisoft pays me 8 rupees per post to say that.
Debatoors come on the internet to play devil's advocate to practice their arguing skills. Not even shitting you
But where, except the internet, can you use these strats of acting moronic to wear the other party out (which are exactly what you'd make a bot do, if you want conversation to die out)?
Not so sure about that. A few guys I know irl talk like they have reddit running in their brains
They just repeat "Whatever. You just want *blatant lie*." over and over til the other person gives up? And they need practice for that?
Has there been any notable push to get someone bigger name to acknowledge it? I guess it'd probably be easier, now that there's more of a tangible thing to show and support than there was earlier. Like what big (un-sponsored) streamer wouldn't support it.
Not sure, should be far easier now. Just need to find influencers that don't give a shit about losing Ubisoft gibs.
Waiting on the EU-wide petition as only that one applies to me I guess
Is this really what we're going to do now? Ask the government to attack corporations willy-nilly to protect people from purchases that they made themselves? This goes beyond unfair, it's extremely dangerous to our democracy.
>people turn to government en masse to protect them
>government votes and does so
ok so what is democracy then
Can anyone actually do anything on the website? The petition isn't up in canada.
If you own The Crew you can contact the DGCCRF wherever you are.
?si=A3NeQ0YgubjIyFqe&t=166
It is entirely possible for devs to make their "always online" games playable offline if they want to discontinue service.
This was an inevitable issue that is starting to heat up now that all of the online only games from 2010s are shutting down one by one
Video games, stupid homosexual, VIDEO GAMES.
It is, moronic troon israelite
This is literally about trying to stop video games from becoming unplayable.
>>>>/nv/
>404 Not Found
where's the board you keep talking about, schizo? cuz I don't see no /nv/ board
>me watching the EU tear Ubisoft a new butthole
>Open up a restaurant
>It's extremely succesful and everyone loves it
>Eventually grow old and tired, can't work anymore so plan on closing it
>A single moron comes up to me as I'm closing for the last time and says "I am owed your recipe so I can eat here forever, give it or I'm suing you."
American
>restaurant analogy
This doesn't scan anon as you don't buy a perpetual license to the restaurant.
>Open up all-you-can-eat restaurant
>Don't close restaurant
>Throw paying customers out whenever
>Make it illegal for anyone to cook food at home
>Face laws for trying to run model in non-moronic country
>Get ass-raped to death in prison
>I can't play this game forever
>The West has fallen, Hitler please save us
>frog
>dogshit post
Every time.
>he wants the servers stay online indefinetly. So the devs got no choice but to stop making online games
Good. The servers were shitty most of the time.
It's simple, either companies n devs bend the knee or frick off from the industry
Do you?
What other game has become literally impossible to play? Or does this include gacha/mobileshit?
He made a list in 2019, but the list isn't comprehensive, and the list is ever growing. The list will be growing a lot more now because its been about ten years since there was a big push of "GaaS" games released and companies think they can get away with pulling the plug now( like with the crew).
>might and magic showdown killed after 6 months
That's kind of impressive. How bad could it possibly be.
>Or does this include gacha/mobileshit?
Technically it does, but since Japan, Korea and China have much different laws, it was neve tried with those. Ubisoft is french so it's a good line of approach.
>Singleplayer but with no 24/7 net connection? AIIIEEE IM GOING MAD
Can he stop being so ugly and moldy
>all those gays on /r/gamedev who say this is impossible or smugly say how this is a bad idea because what about indie projects that for some reason require servers and cannot let you host them by yourself or play them offline
>makes no sense when end of life is a conscious decision
bet you can't picture an apple too
You don't know ahead of time when you're going to shut down the servers. You don't know how well a game is gonna sell and how long it will be popular for. Making companies decide ahead of time is nonsensical, it's bad for business
>OUR GAMES NEED TO BE BEHIND A RENTAL SERVICE, YOU CAN'T KEEP AN OFFLINE COPY OF THEM BECAUSE... YOU JUST CAN'T!
Same energy behind these GAAS traps.
No, he's a professional youtube whiner, he doesn't know anything about game development.
Doesn't mean he's wrong. However, for the simple reason that his movement is filled with "video games are art and must be preserved!" people, I am against it.
>ubisoft, mon fils, it is time to choose
>flip the boolean that enables the offline mode
>fight a long legal and political battle, tooth and nail, and hire underpaid shills to post on mongolian basket weaving forums
This is the funniest part.
>ok guys we have two options simply not develop single player games with connections to online servers or should we spend money hiring shills and hope that the french government doesn't have an issue with our practices
Like is the benefit of online servers on single player games really that big?
They must have done a cost benefit analysis that showed they would get more money from people migrating from the Crew to the Crew 2 than paying for shills and hoping the numbers wouldn't be there for the petitions.
a long legal and political battle, tooth and nail, and hire underpaid shills to post on mongolian basket weaving forums
>Hon hon, monsieur regulatory committee, releasing our server code would put our customers in danger, reveal trade secrets, and potentially allow the piracy of our current games. Packet documentation could allow bad actors to inject malicious packets to our current in-operation servers and to other players. Ve are doing zis for customer safety.
Easy as that.
>If companies release information about their servers, this means other games they’re hosting with the same software could be hacked.
?t=4120
oh, man! imagine having everything you come up with preemptively rebutted. I might've start fearing I actually was bot.
>Bigger players tried to frick with EU and got BTFOd
>Let's try anyway lol
>You don't know ahead of time when you're going to shut down the servers
there you go again assume incompetence when its malice
> it's bad for business
and stealing games from customers is bad for the customers
>M-More work to maintain the standard set all the way in the 80s? You're literally holocausting me
Maybe change the hobby/career
There's two outcomes. I am fine with both.
1. The campaign is successful and sets off a domino effect of EVENTUALLY making greed-focused casino-subscription design too risky to attempt. EA and Activision will produce a guaranteed monkey paw effect so this isn't as great as it sounds if they are a part of the equation.
2. Nothing works and morons that like Always Online games become an even bigger subject of mockery that only an absolute moron would defend.
It's definitely going to be 2
And 2 leads to 1.
>No company releases a game that's deblierately shit and designed not to be successful
The purpose of a company is to make money. Releasing an unsuccessful game doesn't make money, it costs money. Game companies try to avoid this at any cost
>NOOOO MY SINGLE PLAYER GAME HAS TO CONNECT TO AND DIE AT THE WHIM OF A SERVER
That sounds great, actually, games should never last forever and them dying should be a relief for everyone involved
You're confusing games with yourself
Man, Ubisoft must be spooked by the moldman. Every single thread gets either deleted by the jannies or is crawling with endless shills and doomposters using the same arguments that were all debunked and keep getting debunked in every thread. As such, I implore my fellow lurkers to support Ross so the shills kill themselves in despair at failing their corporate overlords.
last thread the shill angle was "cs community servers don't exist because it's impossible. the devs can't offer that capability in perpetuity" but in less words
They made the mistake of doing EA/Activision tactics while being a french company.
Nah, I'm just beingna contrarian shitposter because you guys seem to be oh so serious about it and I find it hilarious that you actually post serious replies
If you're posting in favor of the companies you should have a nice day.
I don't care if it's ironic. I don't care if you're baiting. I don't care if you're getting paid for it. I don't care if you're a doomposter.
You need to suck a shotgun, jump off a building, kick the stool, slit your wrists, whatever your preferred method is; as long as you're no longer polluting the atmosphere with your CO2 anymore.
You're awfully upset over video games
People have every right to be upset. Their money is being stolen in planned obsolescence schemes.
>Their money is being stolen
Nobody here brought The Crew
If you don't like shitty live service games, don't buy them
It's so fricking easy
I bought The Culling, which also EOS'd without allowing community server support. Anybody who has played more than 50 pc games has likely experienced this.
Did it EOS while you were still playing it?
it EOS'd when i was playing it on a weekly basis
Did you pay for it?
yeah
Google says it's free to play
If you bought they game and they ended the service while you were still playing, that's legitimately bad
If it's free-to-play, well, you get what you paid for
it only went f2p in a last ditch effort to get users despite their dogshit balance patches that everybody except reddit begged them to revert. most users paid.
In that case I agree with you then
yes
It's been happening too much in recent years. Paragon was around for like two years then it died. Then it was brought back by Netmarble and died again after a few years. It's getting to be a problem now that you have no guarantee a game will last more than a year or two.
>don't buy them
not an argument from a consumer rights standpoint. If a company wants to do business they have to give some written guarantees otherwise they're no better than some scammer on telegram
I think a year or two is a reasonable time period to keep a dead multiplayer game up just to ensure players get their moneys worth
Yes, I am. I refuse to be an irony-poisoned moron, I like video games and I want them to be good. Ross' petitions are trying to help video games be better so they have my full support. Even if it doesn't result in anything but a big middle finger from the justice system, it was still worth the effort.
>irony-poisoned
Where's the irony?
The quality of games doesn't have much to do with the payment model
Refer to my first post. Don't know which one you are and I don't care. Pick a method.
He won't be when you have a nice day.
You have no reason not to do it, by the way.
>appeal to triviality
You're free to leave
if you think people should be killed over video games, you're a fricking manchild
if you think all matters of fairness reduce to death or no punishment at all, then you deserve for everybody to do everything they can against you which doesn't warrant death. stealing from people (which is what you are doing when you charge someone money for a product and then intentionally disable it) doesn't warrant death in this case, but it obviously should be restricted by law.
>stealing from people (which is what you are doing when you charge someone money for a product and then intentionally disable it)
Not exactly what happened
They made a live service game, with the intention that people could play it, and they did buy it and play it, but they shut it down after a few years because it wasn't making enough money or whatever
There should be laws restricting you from doing this and giving people a certain amount of time to play, but it's not fraud, it's not even unethical if you're company is going out of business but I'm pretty sure it's unethical in Ubisoft's case because they can afford to keep it going
You're awfully upset over the lives of parasites
>jewtube grifter says thing bad (it's been bad forever)
>suddenly THING BAD, MUST STOP THING
why are zoomers like this
holy moron. don't spend this (you) in one place.
moron
destroy zoomers
mfw mom takes me to The Cheesecake Factory
>jewtube grifter says thing bad (it's been bad forever)
>suddenly THING GOOD, MUST DEFEND THING
Why are israelites, pretending to be human, like this?
>buy phone
>Company "stops supporting it" and releases malicious update that shuts your phone down and makes it unusable
>NOOOO MY PHONE
>buy game
>company "stops supporting it" and releases malicious update that shuts your game down and renders it unusable
>why are you so upset about a game huh???
I haven't seen such transparent shilling/shitposting since the Valve paid mods incident
>Valve paid mods incident
what?
One time in like 2015, Valve (and Bethesda) tried to introduce mods you had to pay to use to Skyrim's Steam Workshop
There were homosexuals genuinely supporting it and the position was so gay even the shitposters couldn't think a way to pretend to be that moronic
oh yeah I remember
I thought you meant mods as jannies
I'm not a shill poster, but to this day I cant see anything wrong with a modder selling a paid mod if he so wishes. Its like that Jesus consent meme. Mod seller is happy, mod buyer is happy, some random guy on Ganker isn't happy.
>blatant e-celeb gay threads
>ai sloppa threads
barely a quarter of the threads up at any time are actually about video games. This place blows
learn2read
>does he know anything about game development?
Do modern game devs?
>Literally an industry standard less than 20 years ago was the ability to host your own servers
>Now suddenly is a lost art and impossible for modern devs
Maybe they're just stupid
rampant cheating was an industry standard 20 years ago too
and it still is. your point?
Cheating is much worse now than it was then. Having community servers made it easier to deal with cheaters on a case by case basis.
ironically, private servers had greater control over who you played against, since the owner or a friend of his was probably in the server a few hours a day and would ipban cheaters, sending them down the street. official servers accumulated blatant cheaters
>suddenly is a lost art and impossible for modern devs
Of course it's not. It's harder to host your own central servers than to let the players do it
Meanwhile, what was actually happening in 2004
That's a console game.
The Crew was sold for consoles
Was sold on the PC too.
So are you going to have legislators rule on pc ports specifically or do you expect them to push for console server tools too?
They should release console server tools. I don't play console but can't you already host your own local minecraft server on xbox?
The issue with him choosing The Crew to do this is that, as Ross says, they literally have a fricking switch for this game in particular that they could use to make it playable.
The ideal scenario is that they have to go to court to do this, but Ubisoft could get ahead of the game and take the wind of the movement by making it offline possible without legal legislation on the books forcing them to do it.
Also unrelated but anyone who says
>vote with your wallet
>muh govt regulation please let corpos rape me with government backing instead
>I don't play online only games, TRUST ME I DON'T
>muh too hard it's impossible even though industry standard
WITHOUT getting paid by Ubisoft to have these opinions is a toolshed.
>they literally have a fricking switch for this game in particular that they could use to make it playable
Source: Moldman's ass
You can actually see it in the files, and there's been reports of people playing it on Xbox 360 who have actually managed to play the game but are harassed by pop ups regarding not being online.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/3879346999810591752/
>there's been reports of people playing it on Xbox 360 who have actually managed to play the game
Quick look around israelitetube shows zero evidence of this when it would take nothing to record
So those reports are literally "dude trust me"
This is looking like morons seeing mentions of an offline mode in the files and assuming it's completely playable, when it doesn't actually exist in anything close to that state
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/2099297979441479245/D969D084D7FDC07E27A061A729DDB1AB36410753/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false
Also if you never had an Xbox live account, you could play the game offline for a certain period.
all of Ross's "arguments" have already been refuted by an actual game developer
he's a writer, he has no technical knowledge
he doesn't address ross' arguments 1 by 1, he just mumbles for 10 minutes with the occasional fallacy
I lost respect for chet, his channel is terrible, he's not a good communicator
>he has no technical knowledge
unlike Ross right
There's nothing technical about this topic, it's a legal topic
>There's nothing technical about this topic, it's a legal topic
Why are you trusting a game dev on the topic instead of a lawyer then?
The guy in the video knows way more about the topic than Ross
When you work in the game industry in a position where you make decisions, this is a topic you understand
Nice appeal to authority
Appealing to people who understand the topic due to years of actual work experience is not a fallacy
You bring up his position but not his arguments (because they're poor)
I haven't watched them yet, I'll do that and get back to you
All of Ross's arguments so far have been pretty poor and based in feeling about what "should" happen and not facts and reality and consequences
>I haven't watched them yet, I'll do that and get back to you
>i've been writing stories for years, that means i know everything about coding a game
You are not even trying.
He's not talking about programming
>The guy in the video knows way more about the topic than Ross
No he doesn't.
>The guy in the video knows way more about the topic than Ross
not according to the video. but I guess you'd rather we all pretend his arguments weren't moronic
Your appeal to authority doesn't work if the guy in the video doesn't know any more than Ross.
sounds like his main argument is:
>You keep mentioning the need for law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary. Companies just need to be convinced preserving games is in their interests and consumers need to make conscientious buying decisions.
?t=3742
Yeah and good luck doing that. If gaming companies don't want to sell us a GOOD then they can simply say they're selling a SUBSCRIPTION or make their game playable offline or with a server hosting software.
>then they can simply say they're selling a SUBSCRIPTION
in that case they will be legally required to be clear on exactly how long your subscription is good for, which would absolutely kill most games
>or make their game playable offline or with a server hosting software.
yes this is exactly what people are asking for
it is nearly always more difficult for a person to act with impartiality and treat people fairly than it is for them to lie, cheat, and steal. preserving the game is quite obviously not in their interests, because they can sell the same person what is effectively the same game again once the first one has been disabled.
i don't buy ubisoft games, but i have bought games that have reached EOS while people still played them. this is an industry issue
"do you want to preserve your game, or do you want people to play it" is a false dilemma
he really is moronic, isn't he?
>by an actual game developer
Who?
Former Valve writer, wrote Portal 1 and 2, Half Life 2 Episodes, Left 4 Dead 1 and 2, and TF2. Was also one of the big pushers for Valve to get into VR.
>Valve
You mean the company that's a pioneer of online DRM, the killer of physical copies on PC and the inventor of lootboxes?
Dang, that's a strong pedigree.
>that's a pioneer of online DRM, the killer of physical copies on PC
This is why I laughed at out loud when Ross says he likes owning things, like things he can hold in his hand
Ross c**t you've got a steam account and are starting a case over always online ubislop that you willingly bought, you are personally funding the death of this industry
At least when steam dies I can just use my Goldberg emulator to run 99% of my steam library, unlike this game which has no server emulator.
To be fair, these are unironically semantics. The only thing that matters is can you or can you not play the game? Even if I have to crack it, what does it matter as long as it works?
guess he makes up for it by advocating for stricter laws corporations have to abide by. or are we gonna pretend vote with your wallet works
>You gave Ubisoft money, better give up on ever changing things ever
So when I'm a writer for a visual novel, am I suddenly a game developer?
>VNs
>games
Really shitty video. I thought this guy was smart. His suggested strategy is essentially to just try and ask nicely. Begging corpos to stop fricking over people has literally never worked. It never will either, publicly traded corporations are self serving and evil by design.
>His suggested strategy is essentially to just try and ask nicely.
He was being sarcastic
Trying to convince them that it's in their interest isn't much different. The truth is that in many cases, it's not in their interest. Like with all planned obsolescence, the scheme is to force you to make another purchase by breaking what you already got.
>Trying to convince them that it's in their interest isn't much different
Well yeah he doesn't suggest that either, he doesn't really offer any solutions to Ross's "problem"
My favorite was "instead of trying to preserve the game, just get together and PLAY the game if you like it"
Holy shit that guy's moronic and or dishonest
>all of Ross's "arguments" have already been refuted by an actual game developer
- lied the israelite
nope. sorry.
ross is wrong and uniformed
~~*~~*~~*(faliszek*~~*~~*~~))
>I'll explain later
Post the explanation
It's simple don't buy online only games. Daddy government should not have to step in due to your poor decision making.
why do corporations get to lobby governments but not private individuals
the issue is that they are not advertising it as a product with a fixed end of life date
>You keep mentioning the need for law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary. Companies just need to be convinced preserving games is in their interests and consumers need to make conscientious buying decisions.
?t=3742
Daddy government should only help shit corporations, like it already is. Not people!!!!
probably more than a kotaku journalist but thats not saying a lot
Does he need to?
Ubisoft will win by doing absolutely nothing.
Ubisoft is hand in hand with his government which supports all videogames made in france with investments and wants to avoid relocations.
Get fricked and don't forget to pre-order The Crew 3 when it comes out.
>relocations
that's not how EU regulations work
you know nothing about game development and laws so keep it quiet
>relocations
If it passes in any country they're going to be forced into doing it for every country, including France, so there would be no point in relocating. Just like how Australia forced Steam to streamline refunds and now everyone has refunds (as opposed to everyone pulling out of Australia)
Not at all. Csgo cases have the xray system in france only.
>If it passes in any country they're going to be forced into doing it for every country
That's what Ross believes but he's a fricking idiot
Riddle me this, Belgium banned lootboxes right? Did the EU as a whole then ban lootboxes?
>how is it possible that you can sell something in one country but cant sell it in another???
Look dude even companies are forced to release offline modes and player-hosted servers for Australia alone, the people there are just going to give the software to Europe anyway
Remember that these users are not posting a genuine point, they are trying to make the board uninteresting for the rest o fus. Nobody who was interested in a discussion would say something like "pre order The Crew 3, losers!", that's clearly a provocation. And it's not a troll either, because there's no attempt at humor, nobody writes a message like this and laughs at the "reactions" afterwards, these guys are activists/bots with a very determined agenda.
Frick off with your inceleb
Does it matter?
>The smoking gun is the fact that you literally play prologue of this game in offline mode, without being connected to others in freedrive, instead you see bots freeroaming around you like TDU2. Other than freedrive, the game isn't even online, it's either fully offline as is or peer to peer to connect you and your crew members. You can press Continue in start screen, have the game load your save data from cloud, then you can disconnect your internet and you can freely play freedrive or even story missions for a while with no issue, until the game does an artificial connectivity check, then kicks you out to start screen. Offline mode shouldn't even be thought of as a feature, the game is already I'd say >80% offline under the hood as is.
What the frick
I worked in this AAA shitshow for nearly half a decade. There is no "knowing anything about game development" needed here. It's as plain as day.
Developers are glad to be done with content complete, because they are sick of working on the game usually
Higher-ups only give a shit on how much bloat they can put in to get money on the quick, they are also all trying to use AI as a crutch now, so if you see AI generated assets, don't be surprised
Only people who even care about preserving this slop is some of the people who play it. There is no incentive for the devs to spend a moment on having their game hold any kind of presence, when they are already busy churning out another sequel with reused 80% of the assets by the B-team.
The game AAA industry is properly fricked, it operates on the Klaus Schwab rules of ownership, and anyone buying their quarter-optimized bullshit today is a punchline.
>EU hasn't even begun to do anything yet
>shill are already seething and coping like mad
Babe wake up, new grift just dropped
Honestly didn't expect this much backlash. Ross must've really struck a nerve.
Theres idiots who are basicly allergic to change, anything you want to add or take away is a personal attack on them as they screech in confusion at the bad man trying to do something to their fun games.
And of course theres people just pretending they misunderstand the iniative and call people moronic for it.
There might be actual corporate shills in the mix as well.
Of course there are legit shills but you need to play devil's advocate in situations like these, he isn't picking a soft target here.
How did we get to the point that Ganker is filled with people actually calling for this future?
you started posting dumb
When people realized that renting stuff is better than owning it
Only because they were put in a position where owning things is simply outside of their financial means. Guess whose fault THAT is.
Not Ubisoft’s that’s for sure
Owning should ALWAYS be better than renting. Renting is easier, but that's not normal. It's been normalized to the point where new generations will be conditioned into believing they aren't allowed to own things.
>people
Ross Scott is not your enemy.
If you like videogames, then you have no reason to be against him or his cause.
I fricking hate video games
Most honest Ganker anon.
if you want to run a Game X server, buy the rights to do so. give the rights owner a call. everyone likes money.
>abloobloo they should gibe me dats for free
when did boohoo become abloobloo?
- lied the israelite
>You want to keep playing a game you bought? Just pay more money to buy the entire IP
Wow, what an easy solution.