The worse part of this entire debacle is that Roach King Pirate Software is almost singlehandedly responsible for this losing all its legs and likely failing like this, and he did so entirely because he is an egotistical corpo shill who just lied out his ass the whole time and his legion of babies ate it up. And he still maintains he is a reasonable super genius and Ross is a toxic evil gamer who harasses and bullies people.
Regardless on how you feel about the politics and economic points of this movement, that guy is one of the most cancerous lumps in the industry right now and should get legions more hate than he does.
The man is so fucking dumb and bad at almost everything he does that you can say "look up only his time with X" and it'll say enough. The EVE shit, the WoW roaching, the Animal Well stuff, him literally throwing a shit fit about Steam's "abandoned early access" system, each one portrays him exact as awful as he is.
SKG website has a FAQ page that covers pretty much all questions and concerns people have brought up about the campaign.
tl;dw If your only knowledge about the campaign was from PirateSoftware's videos about it, forget everything you heard because he's a filthy liar. Ross's response to Thor:https://youtu.be/HIfRLujXtUo?t=1112
Personally I don't see them succeeding on the legal fronts, but SKG may transition into a general consumer movement to push against the practice of destroying games in general.
Not a fan of this, just like the dozen other center-left tech movements going back 3 decades. It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
Just dial back copyright to the 18th century, so leaked vintage source code and server software can be utilized without legal repercussions. Maybe provisions that end-user software published by a corporation (in treaty beholden countries) must patch out DRM if 7 years old, else relinquish copyright to specific product. But any positive entitlement to company hosted software, standardized phone cables, net neutrality, etc is swimming in a sea of hidden costs aka unforseen consequences.
The obvious hidden cost is that less companies will develop games, but that is of little concern to me. My everlasting gripe with any kind socialized government action is that the public's ability to adapt is always hampered. Power shifts from common people to big organizations and the well-connected whenever the common people are "protected".
It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
Not a solution though. The problem is games being destroyed, which includes the fact that they can steal back a product they sold you, but also that works of art are being eliminated from history. A true concern of the commons. You can say "you shouldn't have bought those games bro" all you want but gamers are terrible consumers and companies will still destroy games. It's like saying "We just needed to vote harder!"
Just dial back copyright to the 18th century, so leaked vintage source code and server software can be utilized without legal repercussions.
Now that my friend is an excellent idea. I honestly like this better than SKG's goal. Ross probably thought his idea was more reasonable since coming up with something that companies might begrudgingly accept in negotiations was a concern. If they won't accept this they will never accept reduced copyright protections. That and the fact that if corporations wrapped their game in enough bullshit DRM it may never be cracked. So my ideal would be consumers should always have the right to repair their software and redistribute those fixes without it being a copyright violation, and companies must remove all DRM if they are no longer willing to distribute the game or host online dependencies, so that consumers can actually exercise our right to repair.
Yes, people have to vote harder. That starts by restricting the franchise to some earned merit of responsibility. Likewise, communities that preserve software, through greyhattery, should gatekeep the casuals. When there are bandaid laws, there's not only presently abstract unforeseen consequences, but the casuals don't learn to stop being virtue less consumers. Ultimately the more informed remain as enablers when they aren't compelled to enact fundamentally sound change. Mandating companies provide access to their property (copies of software or DRM keys) isn't fundamentally sound. It keeps open the floodgate of public entitlement to private individuals and their possessions.
My contention with these proposals is that they're very top down and narrowly focused. My preference is for broad, extreme bottom up solutions that tackle issues seen and unseen.
Not a fan of this, just like the dozen other center-left tech movements going back 3 decades. It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
How is that possible when customers don't KNOW when there is going to be an end-of-date to the software that they don't know about?
That is one of the things SKG is asking for: that companies to give customers upfront information about end-of-date access. How is that a bad thing?
The information is out there. Customers are perfectly capable of acting on said information. The most successful digital PC games storefront provides clear disclaimers about anti-features. But the issue of a bulk of customers being entitled to their instant gratification remains. Mindless consumers are the primary preventable cause of modern societal issues, and these movements sidestep that.
It's more popular to support a petition than it is to directly tell kids and adults to stop enjoying Billie Eilish (or whoever is current gen Britney Spears) and Call of Duty; mindless consumerism is all connected.
I don't mind truth in advertising legislation. It would put only a dent in the overarching issue. The petition is much more expansive and exciting than that.
Is it? Can you point to me where live-service games have an end-of-service date? Because for as far as I have seen, i have not seen that being publicly available anywhere. Or am I missing something?
Live-service games have a readily apparent end-of-service baked in. There's no existing or practical basis for an agreed upon end-of-service date, unless it's in a contract. That's not even shoved under the rug the way single-player games and/or dlc with online DRM will eventually have issues, of which I admit the concerns have substantial validity. When I said the information is out there, I meant that customers are already provided the means to either make informed decisions, or recognize a supplier as shady.
But actually coercing companies to provide an end-of-life date for live-service games leads us to Sowell's three questions; compared to what, at what cost, and what hard evidence do you have? Enough customers are satisfied with existing models for this "elastic good" [1] for the model to continue, while others seek out more reputable companies and their live-service offerings, or forsake this section of the industry all together. This has little to do with the petition's goal of preserving media. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere? I have no problem with consumer protection laws merely informing customers that a product or service has an end-of-life.
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date. The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
(I hate the morally loaded and subjectively ambiguously interpretative nature of this term, but it's commonly used to denote human wants instead of human needs)
. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere?
Second sentence on the main website once you click on the URL:
"Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers. An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends."
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date.
How? Here's an example. I bought Riff Racer years ago. I didn't know that it had an end-of-date. The developers never said it was going to have an end-of-life. No where prior to its shut down was it indicated the game would no longer function without the developer's servers. The community had to step in with modded files to make it work. In that scenario, HOW was I supposed to reasonably identify this game would stop working and HOW was I supposed to know that this indie title was "hostile software"?
The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
You cannot disprove a negative.
I'm a consumer. I buy video games. I avoid most AAA titles, but even indie titles have abrupt end-of-life cycles that we as consumers are not privy to. The Riff Racer was just one example -- there are countless others.
As I asked before, HOW are customers supposed to know some product is "hostile software" without any indication that there is an end-of-life planned, like in the Riff Racer example?
"with no stated expiration date" I still don't see where a EOL date is mandated. Again, I have no trouble with updated truth-in-advertising laws that require disclosures of drm and online dependencies. This petition was critiqued by more than just GrifterPirateSoftware for not just simplyfing, but oversimplifying and conflating distinct phenomenon to the point of practical impotence.
Riff Racer is a failure both on Steam's end, and on the community for not identifying badly designed online dependencies and blasting the devs for it. If deficient disclaimers are common enough on Steam, then Valve's feet need to be held to the fire until they stop being as piss-poor as other app stores. We don't need US federal government or globohomo EU for this.
Where's the negative? I'm capable of only purchasing from GOG, downloading from abandonware sites, staying tuned in to enthusiast communities that care about this stuff, etc. I'm not gonna be 100% successful, nor would legislation be 100% successful.
Customers are supposed to identify hostile software by granting importance to experts that research and publicize said issues. That and only buying from storefronts that offer refunds or credit if a seller isn't being forthcoming. As I've said plenty of times in the past, "customer is always right" (as interpreted by consumers) should have never replaced caveat emptor in the capacity it has.
The only reason not to agree with this is that the eurocrats in the EU commission have the final say in how the law based on the initiative will be written, given how well written is every EU law related to anything remotely tech. Could very well be so vague that it's useless, or force publishers to provide more support than the Ross originally intended(like if the underlying DRM stops supporting the original OSes mentioned on the requirements like many 2000s steam games became unplayable on XP, Vista and 7 due to Steam not supporting those OSes anymore; sure you can crack them or play them on newer hardware but online DRM can also be interpreted as "phone home" despite not being operated by the game developer/publisher).
Ross even says as much, that the EU commision has the final word on how the law would turn out before being sent to the EU parliament for the rubber stamp.
I haven't read the specific demands, but that sounds like a bridge too far. Single player games should have that rule, but there are plenty of multiplayer games where the server is necessarily playing an important role and for the vast majority of your customers the opportunity to keep playing if you buy a new computer to host your MMO isn't a meaningful benefit.
The worse part of this entire debacle is that Roach King Pirate Software is almost singlehandedly responsible for this losing all its legs and likely failing like this, and he did so entirely because he is an egotistical corpo shill who just lied out his ass the whole time and his legion of babies ate it up. And he still maintains he is a reasonable super genius and Ross is a toxic evil gamer who harasses and bullies people.
Regardless on how you feel about the politics and economic points of this movement, that guy is one of the most cancerous lumps in the industry right now and should get legions more hate than he does.
Every thing you need to know about Pirate Software can be seen in his retarded drama in EVE Online. His only skill there was whining at the devs, because he couldn't pvp.
He is a BPD narcisist.
The man is so fucking dumb and bad at almost everything he does that you can say "look up only his time with X" and it'll say enough. The EVE shit, the WoW roaching, the Animal Well stuff, him literally throwing a shit fit about Steam's "abandoned early access" system, each one portrays him exact as awful as he is.
Have some links:
Direct link to petition for citizens of EU nations
Link to petition for UK citizens (this is a separate a new proposal being brought to parliament)
SKG website has a FAQ page that covers pretty much all questions and concerns people have brought up about the campaign.
tl;dw If your only knowledge about the campaign was from PirateSoftware's videos about it, forget everything you heard because he's a filthy liar. Ross's response to Thor: https://youtu.be/HIfRLujXtUo?t=1112
Personally I don't see them succeeding on the legal fronts, but SKG may transition into a general consumer movement to push against the practice of destroying games in general.
Not a fan of this, just like the dozen other center-left tech movements going back 3 decades. It's on customers to not buy hostile software in the first place.
Just dial back copyright to the 18th century, so leaked vintage source code and server software can be utilized without legal repercussions. Maybe provisions that end-user software published by a corporation (in treaty beholden countries) must patch out DRM if 7 years old, else relinquish copyright to specific product. But any positive entitlement to company hosted software, standardized phone cables, net neutrality, etc is swimming in a sea of hidden costs aka unforseen consequences.
The obvious hidden cost is that less companies will develop games, but that is of little concern to me. My everlasting gripe with any kind socialized government action is that the public's ability to adapt is always hampered. Power shifts from common people to big organizations and the well-connected whenever the common people are "protected".
Not a solution though. The problem is games being destroyed, which includes the fact that they can steal back a product they sold you, but also that works of art are being eliminated from history. A true concern of the commons. You can say "you shouldn't have bought those games bro" all you want but gamers are terrible consumers and companies will still destroy games. It's like saying "We just needed to vote harder!"
Now that my friend is an excellent idea. I honestly like this better than SKG's goal. Ross probably thought his idea was more reasonable since coming up with something that companies might begrudgingly accept in negotiations was a concern. If they won't accept this they will never accept reduced copyright protections. That and the fact that if corporations wrapped their game in enough bullshit DRM it may never be cracked. So my ideal would be consumers should always have the right to repair their software and redistribute those fixes without it being a copyright violation, and companies must remove all DRM if they are no longer willing to distribute the game or host online dependencies, so that consumers can actually exercise our right to repair.
Yes, people have to vote harder. That starts by restricting the franchise to some earned merit of responsibility. Likewise, communities that preserve software, through greyhattery, should gatekeep the casuals. When there are bandaid laws, there's not only presently abstract unforeseen consequences, but the casuals don't learn to stop being virtue less consumers. Ultimately the more informed remain as enablers when they aren't compelled to enact fundamentally sound change. Mandating companies provide access to their property (copies of software or DRM keys) isn't fundamentally sound. It keeps open the floodgate of public entitlement to private individuals and their possessions.
My contention with these proposals is that they're very top down and narrowly focused. My preference is for broad, extreme bottom up solutions that tackle issues seen and unseen.
How is that possible when customers don't KNOW when there is going to be an end-of-date to the software that they don't know about?
That is one of the things SKG is asking for: that companies to give customers upfront information about end-of-date access. How is that a bad thing?
The information is out there. Customers are perfectly capable of acting on said information. The most successful digital PC games storefront provides clear disclaimers about anti-features. But the issue of a bulk of customers being entitled to their instant gratification remains. Mindless consumers are the primary preventable cause of modern societal issues, and these movements sidestep that.
It's more popular to support a petition than it is to directly tell kids and adults to stop enjoying Billie Eilish (or whoever is current gen Britney Spears) and Call of Duty; mindless consumerism is all connected.
I don't mind truth in advertising legislation. It would put only a dent in the overarching issue. The petition is much more expansive and exciting than that.
Is it? Can you point to me where live-service games have an end-of-service date? Because for as far as I have seen, i have not seen that being publicly available anywhere. Or am I missing something?
Live-service games have a readily apparent end-of-service baked in. There's no existing or practical basis for an agreed upon end-of-service date, unless it's in a contract. That's not even shoved under the rug the way single-player games and/or dlc with online DRM will eventually have issues, of which I admit the concerns have substantial validity. When I said the information is out there, I meant that customers are already provided the means to either make informed decisions, or recognize a supplier as shady.
But actually coercing companies to provide an end-of-life date for live-service games leads us to Sowell's three questions; compared to what, at what cost, and what hard evidence do you have? Enough customers are satisfied with existing models for this "elastic good" [1] for the model to continue, while others seek out more reputable companies and their live-service offerings, or forsake this section of the industry all together. This has little to do with the petition's goal of preserving media. In fact, where is EOL date mentioned in the sparse petition, faq, or elsewhere? I have no problem with consumer protection laws merely informing customers that a product or service has an end-of-life.
To address the original question, customers are reasonably capable of identifying and avoiding hostile software without being provided an EOL date. The burden of proof is on you with this very specific claim, that the public is incapable of avoiding hostile software if an EOL date isn't provided.
(I hate the morally loaded and subjectively ambiguously interpretative nature of this term, but it's commonly used to denote human wants instead of human needs)
Second sentence on the main website once you click on the URL:
"Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers. An increasing number of video games are sold effectively as goods - with no stated expiration date - but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends."
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
How? Here's an example. I bought Riff Racer years ago. I didn't know that it had an end-of-date. The developers never said it was going to have an end-of-life. No where prior to its shut down was it indicated the game would no longer function without the developer's servers. The community had to step in with modded files to make it work. In that scenario, HOW was I supposed to reasonably identify this game would stop working and HOW was I supposed to know that this indie title was "hostile software"?
You cannot disprove a negative.
I'm a consumer. I buy video games. I avoid most AAA titles, but even indie titles have abrupt end-of-life cycles that we as consumers are not privy to. The Riff Racer was just one example -- there are countless others.
As I asked before, HOW are customers supposed to know some product is "hostile software" without any indication that there is an end-of-life planned, like in the Riff Racer example?
"with no stated expiration date" I still don't see where a EOL date is mandated. Again, I have no trouble with updated truth-in-advertising laws that require disclosures of drm and online dependencies. This petition was critiqued by more than just GrifterPirateSoftware for not just simplyfing, but oversimplifying and conflating distinct phenomenon to the point of practical impotence.
Riff Racer is a failure both on Steam's end, and on the community for not identifying badly designed online dependencies and blasting the devs for it. If deficient disclaimers are common enough on Steam, then Valve's feet need to be held to the fire until they stop being as piss-poor as other app stores. We don't need US federal government or globohomo EU for this.
Where's the negative? I'm capable of only purchasing from GOG, downloading from abandonware sites, staying tuned in to enthusiast communities that care about this stuff, etc. I'm not gonna be 100% successful, nor would legislation be 100% successful.
Customers are supposed to identify hostile software by granting importance to experts that research and publicize said issues. That and only buying from storefronts that offer refunds or credit if a seller isn't being forthcoming. As I've said plenty of times in the past, "customer is always right" (as interpreted by consumers) should have never replaced caveat emptor in the capacity it has.
The only reason not to agree with this is that the eurocrats in the EU commission have the final say in how the law based on the initiative will be written, given how well written is every EU law related to anything remotely tech. Could very well be so vague that it's useless, or force publishers to provide more support than the Ross originally intended(like if the underlying DRM stops supporting the original OSes mentioned on the requirements like many 2000s steam games became unplayable on XP, Vista and 7 due to Steam not supporting those OSes anymore; sure you can crack them or play them on newer hardware but online DRM can also be interpreted as "phone home" despite not being operated by the game developer/publisher).
Ross even says as much, that the EU commision has the final word on how the law would turn out before being sent to the EU parliament for the rubber stamp.
Not a fan of Epic.
But good luck with it all!
I haven't read the specific demands, but that sounds like a bridge too far. Single player games should have that rule, but there are plenty of multiplayer games where the server is necessarily playing an important role and for the vast majority of your customers the opportunity to keep playing if you buy a new computer to host your MMO isn't a meaningful benefit.
Then go and read the demands. He made an entire explanation video.