Upon reflection, more thoughts about Stop Killing Games

Patreon: / joshstrifehayes
Twitch: / joshstrifehayes
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / joshstrifehayes
Reddit: / joshstrifehayes
Tiktok / joshstrifehayes
JoshStrifeHayes Main KZbin Channel:
/ joshstrifehayes
JoshStrifePlays (2nd KZbin)
/ @joshstrifeplays
JoshStrifeReplays (Full Twitch VODs)
/ @joshstrifereplays
Official Josh Strife Hayes Clip channel
Editing, Thumbnails and Management by Visa
#shorts #JoshStrifeHayes #twitch #clips

[@12SickOne34]

Take the time or take the piss. And I'm always short on time.

[@TanToRza]

This is brilliant. Thank you, I’m stealing this.

[@LexYeen]

​@@TanToRzaIdeas can't be stolen, only redistributed.

[@whatsthisidonteven]

I can't spend that kind of money, but I'd like Gianni Matragrano to voice this.

[@12SickOne34]

@@TanToRza Sure. It's free real estate.

[@Delaterius]

No time. No bubblegum. All piss and kicks.

[@Melsharpe95]

Josh on Twitch - "Biggus Dickus!!" Josh on KZbin - "Let's examine this from the heuristic ludonarrative angle."

[@vsolyomi]

Chat: Incontinentia Buttox!

[@divinitygaming8673]

That's egregious! (I don't know what it means but I surely sound cool saying it 😎)

[@roxaskinghearts]

people pay anywhere from 20-40 million in servers to run these games from setup to security management on the top end

[@roxaskinghearts]

20g is what the casual who pays for it thru normal means

[@roxaskinghearts]

fyi the dunce who paid for that was rockstar

[@CompiledGabriel]

No josh, you don't sound smart because of the script. You sound smart because you are british. A british accent gives you an automatic +25 on "I have a take" checks

[@ZeroTheHunter]

British should be a perk in Fallout that increases your speech and barter by 15 and add new sassy dialogue to roast people in the most mannerful way.

[@bairdrew]

I promise that I could be talking about the philosophy of identity and even if I was spitting fire you'd think I was thick as pigshit cos of my accent - I sound like a farmer from a 19th century romance novel set in rural Lancashire

[@TheBeefPudding]

That actually would be really entertaining ​@@ZeroTheHunter

[@gilian2587]

Do you think that would still apply if the British accent in question is cockney?

[@santocomet]

Won't that buff only work against others don't have the same buff?

[@Pumciusz]

The joke about Concord is so accurate, that the video is brand new and already has more likes than that game players.

[@DirtCheapFU]

Honestly I thought Concord was irony jab at Overwatch. Unironically, no. It wasnt. Egg on my face.

[@三点疑問符]

Depending on the time of day this was recorded, that very well could have been 10% of Concord's online players.

[@ThePolarpop]

​@@三点疑問符bro wouldnt it be like 30% am I thinking of the wrong game

[@rickybuhl3176]

Mate, this comment will have more likes than the game gets players..

[@Amberion]

@@ThePolarpop In the 6 hour span between your reply and his, you both very well might be correct!

[@Animaniac-vd5st]

The devs of Camelot Unchained pledged during Kickstarter to release the server code if they ever want to stop running the game. That would be great...if the game would ever be finished.

[@NeonFraction]

“20 people raided that would be the entire player base” that burn

[@BloodyArchangelus]

Josh looks like a tarnished, but behaves like a Lord. Grace upon you.

[@djnorth2020]

Vest of Dapper Gentlemanly +5

[@snowstorm9310]

Games as a service includes MMO's by definition, but not in spirit. The fact that I can say "Games as a Service" and the first thing you think of is Suicide Squad, or Anthem, or Fucking Marvel's Avengers, and isn't Runescape, or World of Warcraft should tell you everything about the common parlance in which the phrase is being used.

[@danang5]

yeah a good game as a service usually never advertise themself,or claim to be one

[@EstartkVonhime]

The issue is, they still are.

[@SaltSpirits]

Nah, I definitely think of Runescape, just not old school necessarily, RS3 has absolutely succumbed to every bad part of the GaaS model.

[@derrickcrowe3888]

Totally agree. But the implications of SKG wouldn't only apply along the lines of common parlance. So even if MMOs aren't usually part of the conversation of live service games, they are in this context.

[@gustavovargas8716]

To be honest, anthem didnt had the chance do "live" They launched a game without content(Just the bare minimum) and when come the time to make more game(continuing the campaing, like destiny), they quitted and come with that clown idea of remaking the game

[@jcudejko]

"The problem with Twitch, is that I am an idiot" You know what Josh? I like the cut of your jib.

[@bbsonjohn]

Concord is the essence of real live service game. 700 all time peak players, 60 current players, server shutting down in 3 months

[@Thanatos6669]

yes because pc numbers on a console based game actually matter /s

[@hawnsolo]

​@@Thanatos6669Helldivers is a recent example so what your point?

[@Rick586]

The only way to save Concord at this point is to make it free-to-play while selling character/weapon skins (and preferably giving away all of those cosmetics for free to the people who actually bought the game). The way to take advantage of the existing marketing would be to cobble together a singleplayer campaign DLC (kind of like Halo Infinite) that reuses the existing maps (similar to the original Battlefront games). If that sold well they could invest in making more singleplayer campaign DLCs with original maps, the sales of which could support the development of more free multiplayer content to keep that side of the game fresh. It's unlikely that they'll bother to do any of this and instead just let the game die for a tax write-off (or whatever), but my plan could theoretically work. Edit/update: They just announced that Concord is shutting down this week. They gave up after only two weeks.

[@Thanatos6669]

@@Rick586 game is doing fine on PlayStation they should never have released on pc, no console game should

[@bbsonjohn]

@@Thanatos6669sure a 600 players game on PC is going to be drastically different on consoles. Let say there are 10 times the audience. So totally 6600 players. Do you think the game is a great success? And I can guarantee you there would not be a 10-times difference in popularity for a new game like this. It is called order of magnitude estimation. No matter how much you Concord console fanboys fantasize, Concord is a dead game, and by a huge margin.

[@KurisuFenrisWolf]

You can't call Concord a live service game when it was dead on arrival.

[@poppers7317]

death service game

[@Jan12700]

It's not completely dead yet. Something like Babylons Fall was dead on arrival...

[@TheLloydLightning]

​@@Jan12700Babylon Fall had a higher player peak.

[@fenrifegads5571]

I just call it a weimar game. J-soft. Loxism-simulator. G-slop.

[@darwinxavier3516]

It was so doa that I didn't even hear anyone mention its existence til a week ago.

[@bon3scrush3r]

I used to have a CD with a wow vanilla server ..you could just play offline, by yourself. That was more than 10 years ago

[@_XMB_]

If Blizzard turned off the WoW servers that private server would go too

[@GrassSaint33]

​@@_XMB_ how does that work? blizzards servers being up have nothing to do with private servers

[@AdulAhmad68]

​@@_XMB_ clueless

[@Shadowrunner523]

@@AdulAhmad68 How dose blizzard shutting down a server they own magically shut down a server they do not own , have no access to the hardware or software of and is in no way related to them aside from what game runs on the server? Got anything better than a one word response? A rebuttal perhaps. (Replied to the wrong comment, meant for xmb. Mistake left here for posterity)

[@СашаБицадзе-щ7г]

@@Shadowrunner523 Did you even comprehend the comment you're replying to? You are agreeing with the person you are criticizing. How do you even understand the comment made by XMB, understand the fact that Adul made a one word reply, yet, made a comment calling out Adul for the point that was made by XMB?

[@lidge1994]

Something just occured to be..games as a service means they should focus most on GOOD service, when in fact, the main focus is the shittiest, most greedy service.. It's like opening a restaurant, not cleaning the dishes, having rats and roaches and getting mad when you're not turning a huge profit...it's bad service!

[@fenrifegads5571]

We live in weimar. Thus everything accelerates towards degeneration and entropy. There are solutions. If you have the stones to consider them.

[@justinhowe3878]

But they are turning a huge profit. That's why they keep doing it. Or when they don't, they shut down and move on to the next venture. Which is normal business.

[@TheMorriganAensland]

​@@justinhowe3878 Except a lot of them don't make much money. How many FAILED PubG & Overwatch & WoW clones have FAILED?! How much money do they FAIL to make by putting the Shop BEFORE the Gameplay?! How much MORE Money would have been made by Long Term Thinking??

[@SaveMeXenu]

@@justinhowe3878 "they" meaning the publishers. Publishers give the bare minimum funding for a game that they can suck as much money out of as they can, then axe the game and sometimes the studio when it's no longer profitable. Publishers are a mistake in every industry.

[@artursbricis4434]

I know it's not the point, but the restaurant service is in fact regulated. Everybody knows that. You cannot serve mold food, you must list allergens, you can't store detergents with food in the same closed... etc etc. They will close your business otherwise. Why can't we have that for games? One can argue that cooking is also form of art, and it's fine, you still have top chefs. They are doing great! We will still have live service games after SKG.

[@BenersantheBread]

Thor has a vested interest in the petition failing. That's why he's refusing to have a discussion with Ross on grounds as shaky as "You sound like a greasy car salesman and you said politicians are corrupt so the bill would probably pass"

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

Yep. All of Thors games are live services and are designed to die one day, which this initiative is trying stop. If only his fans knew that the guy they love, actually hates them.

[@drfoto2673]

I don't hate the games, I hate the model. If live service died tomorrow but the games still remained would anyone but the CEO's and shareholders be crying?

[@NTR-Impact]

I like the Gacha model. It's free and everyone can play while others can choose to fund the game.

[@RandomPersonOf2005]

​@@NTR-Impacthowever even great gacha games still do go offline. Exp, dragalia lost was a great game but the only way to play it in 2024 is through private servers

[@NTR-Impact]

@@RandomPersonOf2005 Yes, the gacha model is great.

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

@@NTR-Impact It is ot thet great, I mean, in theory it could be, but it is too predatory with it's gambling and FOMO. I like some of Gachas, and I think they are better then this western model, but I think it should be regulated more.

[@NTR-Impact]

@@reactiondavant-garde3391 I disagree. Regulations means authoritarian way of thinking. The customer should be well-informed yet, but let have people freedom on where they spend their money. Afterall it's none of our business really.

[@Jan12700]

I say it again as I already did in the first video of the topic. You really should do a dedicated Video on it on your main Channel. With your reach we could get a couple thousand more supportes and also clear up effectively more misinformation that did come from Thor and others like him.

[@sandy120]

I'd love josh to give us a full video on this. He's a much better speaker than Ross (no hate, I love the guy but concise, well thought out speech is not his strong point. Hillarious rambling is more his speed) and could probably more effectively communicate the goals and objectives of both the eu initiative and the campaign in general and his thoughts on it.

[@_XMB_]

What misinformation has Thor spread?

[@sandy120]

@@_XMB_ 1) developers would be forced to keep running servers 2) developers would be forced to release software that they have licenced from 3rd parties 3) developers would have to put in an insurmountable effort to make sure these games are available after end of life 4) that people would bot/ddos games to death so they can make their own servers and charge for them 5) saying a eu initiative needs to be tightly written 6) misrepresenting what would happen to games-as-servce or subscription model games like WoW 7) that it is impossible for users to run servers for modern games 8) that he has 20 years developer experience Just a quick short list off the top of my head.

[@Jan12700]

@@sandy120 That's also why Josh would be one of the best to explain this better then everyone else. Josh has the Wittling Skills, can explain everything very well so that most people understand it, knows many anecdotes of Games that could have been saved with this and he takes the time to redo things. Also he has no fear to do these kinds of videos and speak up on things the think are good or bad.

[@TheRadioSquare]

​@@sandy120 A major one is that he doesn't understand what an initiative means, so he presented is as law that is being voted on.

[@martinzyka6432]

I can't concentrate on what you saying, I justkeep staring at that attribute spread and thinking what the fuck is happening...

[@anaguma90]

Your third eye has been opened as you gaze upon THE BUILD.

[@filiformis]

Welcome to Josh's streams.

[@martinzyka6432]

@@anaguma90 I am speechless and in awe

[@carlschrappen9712]

If he was use the Frenzied Flame seal on that build, he could probably get genuinely good damage out of his incantations.

[@CarlosAlbertoGarcíaJiménez]

Fuck! I cannot unsee it now...

[@iHelderScrolls]

Wildstar is a perfect example of a game where there's still a community that wants to play that game and they refuse to make the files public

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

Everyday I see more and more games die while still having people who want to play. Such a sad thing to happen

[@RAFMnBgaming]

I would have loved to play Wildstar but it was gone before I even got the chance.

[@theinfernity1799]

Battleborn had a similar community. But luckily the community had a few nice guys. They made a cracked version of the launcher so if you download Battleborn through steam and then you start the launcher, it will be a weird version of the original game but you can still play the missions (why weird? You don't really have a menu. Rather it is an old style menu from past 2000 where you select missions and characters by typing in a specific number or so). But yeah, now with Overwatch 2 failing to provide an actual PvE mode, people hope for Battleborns glorious return... If they hopefully wouldn't remake it too much...

[@twi57ed]

Today Forever Winter devs announced the Early Access launch on the 24th. They have said that the game will be playable peer to peer. If an indie studio can add this feature then the bigger studios dont have any excuse.

[@jayjayjumper1026]

They would earn less. xD

[@CyberGenesis1]

Because if you dont do peer to peer correctly, you expose your users to each other as a security problem. It's not that it isn't doable, it's that it isn't safe to do poorly and most indie devs dont have the NetCode experience to do it correctly. That's why most p2p will use a brokering server, which puts us right back where we are now. old games, ie early C&C, AoE, Bnet were doing TCP/IP p2p 9the wrong way) because we didn't know any better. It's the same argument as "Well i didnt have a carseat when i was a kid, and i turned out fine" - yeah, because the ones that didn't turn out fine, are dead. Security risks have increased, required security steps have increased

[@Jan12700]

Every Nintendo Game is just P2P but they still need a Server for Matchmaking...

[@fenrifegads5571]

@@CyberGenesis1 A game developer is neither my mother nor my father. I am a grown adult human male. I can make my own decisions about what I want to expose myself, and my computer, to. This used to be taken for granted. But now (((everyone))) wants to infantalise everyone else. I blame low T levels. There is no "doing it correctly" it's not theirs to do. Just sell me a game and let me do what I want to do with it. Just let players host their own servers. It's a solved problem. The issue, however, is that it doesn't solve the problem of "how do we simultaniously propogandise our audience with our ideology while also siphoning as much cash from them as feasable with as little effort as possible." Now. Colour me crazy. But as an inveterate noticer... I don't feel like any of that is in my best interests.

[@VluggeJapie59]

Aside from what the others have said I also think that we all agree on the middle ground. Developers should take efforts to ensure that their game remains playable. Where the discussion comes in is if we have enough faith in lawmakers on if they can conscicly and accurately describe what is and isn't part of this effort. And also what the consequences are for being to strict or to lenient. To lenient ofcourse is easy because then nothing changes. But there is still valid discussion to be had about how bad the current situation is. To strict will mean that developing games or a certain type of game might be more difficult. For example GW might now want a online peer to peer experience because that means that people can mod it. And right or wrong GW is in the business of selling a IP licence. If people mod space marine 2 so that you can play as the Guard or as stormcast against scaven then GW can no longer sell that licence (for space marine like game but for age of sigmar). So it is a difficult subject with a lot of potential nuance..

[@nicholaswhite7056]

I seriously dont get how many people ignore the part where its not law, its a petition, its a "hey constituents are interested in this issue, please look into it" its not full law!!! What the fuck is going on!!!??? Like we can have the actual full legalese battle when the thing gets all the signatures and its announced as a thing the EU is looking into, but trying to cut it off now using this disingenuous "if they get the signatures its immediately put up for vote with no room for changes so we shouldnt do it" garbage fucking sucks and the people peddling that narrative should ashamed of themselves, if they had any shame to lose.

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

Yea it’s pretty insane how dumb these people are. ITS NOT LAW, ITS A INITIATIVE! A CALL TO ACTION!

[@existentialselkath1264]

If a game must be a service, sell it like a service. Fixed time rentals or subscriptions, and it'll sell if it's actually worth it.

[@larseich5796]

Especially since a lot of games already basically have a subscription. They just don't call it that. That's what a battle pass is. It's a subscription to "game premium" that doesn't auto renew.

[@thegreendude2086]

Hmm idk about that, there are games were you can buy incredibly expensive stuff, like skins or instant access, were people seem to generally be aware that they are funding the game and not just spending money for the item. Skins in Valorant or premie access in Warframe comes to mind. They don't seem to need to advertise themselves as a service for people to get it. Unless I am completely misunderstanding your point, I'm tired and it's late.

[@existentialselkath1264]

@@thegreendude2086 I think you misunderstand? Either that or I misunderstand you. I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of what you're talking about. When I say sell it like a service, I just mean that if a purchase isn't permanent then the customer should know how long that purchase lasts. Everything else is fair game.

[@thegreendude2086]

@@existentialselkath1264 yeah no then I completely misunderstood I agree with your point

[@The3ndertainer]

So you think that they should instead charge the user more money?

[@morpheus_uat]

0:16 say no more, king

[@freshmaker0088]

B..b...b...but the accent?

[@CyberGenesis1]

Path of Exile is also the PRIME EXAMPLE of the type of game that would be effected by this discussion. It's a game with an entirely single-player possible campaign, but cannot be accessed without a net connection for "reasons". See also Diablo 3/4, Starcraft 2...these are the pain points. I'm not looking at WoW or other ACTUAL MMOs. Imagine Elder Ring COULDN'T be played offline. That's what we're talking about. Start there, argue 'live service' later.

[@jesseclark7966]

@@CyberGenesis1 Path of Exile is a perfect of example of why MMOs that can be played alone do need to connect to the server. First of all, the game is built with a client-server architecture to prevent cheating. This is needed because the game has trading, cooperation, PvP, and leaderboards. If it ran offline in a single-player mode, people could cheat offline, then use the rewards of cheating in multiplayer. This could mean selling items they earned illegitimately, or winning in PvP with their level maxed out. If they created an offline mode with the caveat that you could never move that account to online, almost noone would play it. Second, since the game is built on that client-server model, it would take considerable extra work to build it to run offline. Work that isn't worth it if almost noone would play that mode. Third, the game is free to play and monetized with stash tabs and skins. The game has to keep track of what you've purchased, and has to make sure that you get those things but not other things. If they allowed private servers, they'd have to enforce that those servers not grant people items and stash tabs they haven't purchased. This enforcement could get expensive. It's not worth forcing them to do something that's quite costly to their business and offers so little benefit to players. You'll just end up with fewer multiplayer games. The cost-benefit analysis of an offline mode is different for every game, so some have it and some don't. Most games that should run offline already do, just because of market forces. A blanket legal requirement of offline modes would force developers to add them even when they don't make sense.

[@Mejker]

​@@jesseclark7966i absolutely disagree, as avid PoE player i can tell you that anyone who wants to play a hardcore SSF character in PoE would at least consider offline mode over server connected one due to how dangerous and common it is for servers to shit the bed. If there was an option to purchase access to offline PoE for a full-game price - i'd pay that right away. They could have old leagues available as standalone modes and people who enjoyed playing that specific league could keep enjoying it whenever they wanted. Nobody ahould care if you cheat in your single player experience so that's a moot point.

[@jesseclark7966]

@@Mejker Sure, cheating in exclusively single player isn't a problem. But like I said, it becomes a problem if the rewards of single-player can be used in multiplayer. So it would have to be impossible to convert offline accounts to online multiplayer. It would also mean that the characters couldn't appear on leaderboards. I don't think that many people would be as willing to pay for an offline mode as you are. Most people who play the game value at least some of the features of being online enough to be willing to tolerate occasional lag. If the offline mode had to be purchased, that would deter far more people. It likely wouldn't make enough money to cover development costs, especially with reduced revenue from other transactions. If a large number of people were willing to pay for an offline mode, then Grinding Gear Games would likely have decided that doing so would be profitable, and would've already done it.

[@TheTwinkelminkelson]

​@@Mejker Doubly so since the vast majority of PoE players don't even play with other people.

[@Wintercat1]

​@@jesseclark7966Being able to play PoE offline while the servers are still available could cause issues, yes. But we're talking about end of life. When it no longer makes sense for GGG to maintain PoE, it would suck if it there was no way to play it anymore, ever. It would suck for the players and it would suck for the people who spent a good chunk of their careers creating it. The bare minimum that would be great to achieve from Stop Killing Games would be releasing the source code at EOL so fans can host not-for-profit servers. An even better, but still reasonable, requirement would be for devs to also release an offline-only patch at EOL, even if it's either more demanding (running client/server interactions on the client system) or it deprecates the online features. An offline patch requires more work from the devs, but it's a pretty reasonable level of consumer protection if you're not requiring them to guarantee full functionality. A couple asides: I think GGG does a pretty top-notch job putting the players first in their game-as-a-service. I doubt they have much issue with Stop Killing Games. Also, I agree with the other guy: if you think almost nobody would play or pay for offline-only accounts that's simply laughable. Literally anyone who regularly plays SSF would appreciate it especially if it didn't cost extra, and I think another small fraction of the player base would be willing to buy into it just for peace of mind.

[@jarrakul]

*Coughs in City of Heroes Homecoming.*

[@CyberGenesis1]

Yeah, now go actually look into the amount of time, effort, and legal fuckery that was required to get that use license from the devs. The problem with current games is that often PUBLISHERS own the Property rights. You can't, as a dev, tell randos they can run servers for your game because you don't have the legal right to.

[@Shadowrunner523]

@@CyberGenesis1 Sounds like a problem with the industry.

[@SaveMeXenu]

@@Shadowrunner523 Agreed. A problem we should be working on fixing instead of making excuses for.

[@mrbigglezworth42]

My big problem with that guys suggestion that it would somehow "increase the workload of the devs"...no, no it wouldn't. People were keeping vanilla servers of WoW up and running on their own dime and their own effort before Blizzard went and shut them all down to make their own vanilla servers. The whole point is that people want to be able to play the games they paid for long after you as the developer/creator are done with it and are no longer supporting it.

[@matthewa6027]

Do you know much work and time went into getting those vanilla servers running? If my small team of 5 make an online fighting game that uses steam servers, then we would still need to put work into peer to peer or server hosting abilities for the player, which is a massive time sink. Networking is a tedious trial and error process; But we would be obligated to make it just for third party hosts to start charging players. We wouldn't even bother making the game at this point. The ability to host your own wow, runescape, league, call of duty servers sounds great to me, but your effectively stopping smaller teams from making the games they want to make. League of Legends entire game is on their servers. The amount of work to backward engineer this would be astounding, with zero profit. There is a good middle line in here somewhere, but that's not what people are talking about. Remember that Thor didn't say "No entity should ever control our video games" but actually said "This initiate is to vague and doesn't start the right conversation" which is MILES away from what has been assumed. There is a lot of gray area in what Ross is pushing for; even though I agree with the main message.

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

@@matthewa6027it work take no work, literally 0. Unless the companies purposely goes out of their way to add as many road blocks as they can to make it impossible, than sure you’ll be right. But that’s not our fault, it’s their fault, their problem.

[@Captain.Mystic]

@matthewa6027 "Remember that Thor didn't say "No entity should ever control our video games" but actually said "This initiate is to vague and doesn't start the right conversation" The problem with this is that he didnt really provide any good questions to actually push off the conversation instead. One of his main suggestions was "play single player games" which doesnt get to the core issue that single player games can also be killed simply because the business decided that they arent going to provide a way to access the game offline. This could be for a number of reasons, but we saw this problem as early as the beginning of 360 era due to the fact that day 1 patches could be made which immediately invalidated the physical copy you had, and this simply got worse as the disc became a medium to hold an installer than any real portion of the game, as shoddy as that real portion could be. There were also terrible business decisions at the time like EA basically killing off simcity entirely due to their aggressive DRM practices which forced players to play online even if they didnt want to interact with the multiplayer features. Why should a business be allowed to decide that your copy is no longer valid because you dont have an internet connection? And even if a game is multiplayer only, why should a business be allowed to decide that they are the only ones allowed to control the content that players can experience from that game for no reason than the fact that it allows them to sell skins and MTX? What rights should a player have in owning the product they bought? If a player wants to play a game outside its multiplayer facets, say for the fact that you are really only playing a multiplayer game for its campaign, then why should they have to interact with a server? If the player doesnt have the rights to a private server, even a barebones shoddy option that supports a max of a few players at a time, then what are the guarantees that a game wont simply be thrown through a merger, deleted from servers, and never be accessible again after only a few months because the game was designed with a mandatory internet connection in mind? That last question is especially important in the context that this isnt just an issue that is exclusive to games, were seeing it happen right now in streaming services. What are the rights of a consumer when the company has a tangible product they refuse to sell, but will enforce their every right to make sure nobody can enjoy that content even when they make no money from it and lose no money from having other people distribute or even make something inspired by it? If the harry potter series was deleted from every streaming service because JK rowling decided to sell the rights, and then it wasnt profitable enough to keep on streaming services because apparently tax write offs are good for stock price, then should a company be allowed to also rescind your rights to even owning the DVD? what would stop them from making a system update for DRM that could detect your copy of sorcerers stone and simply refuse to play it because its not an "official" copy of the movie anymore that is "compatible with the player reading the disc" or simply for the fact that your ISP is having downtime maintenance or you dont have the money to budget for internet that month? Were living in an age where the lifetime before a piece of media becomes no longer legally accessible is getting to the scope of weeks and months. If it werent for archivists and pirates doing everything they can to extend the lifetime for media they enjoy, then some extremely popular shows and movies would be impossible to watch. This isnt a question about "should a company be required to provide support for a game forever?" because thats simply silly, were not talking about updating Photoshop 1 to be compatible with an iphone or quake to have security/feature updates. This is a question about the rights of a consumer when all art made digitally is reproducible at literally zero cost, and yet being able to find the media you want to experience is becoming increasingly difficult to do legally because otherwise it doesnt line the pockets of shareholders and private equity. "If my small team of 5 make an online fighting game that uses steam servers, then we would still need to put work into peer to peer or server hosting abilities for the player, which is a massive time sink. Networking is a tedious trial and error process; But we would be obligated to make it just for third party hosts to start charging players. We wouldn't even bother making the game at this point." This argument is stupid and closed minded. Because guess what, i can boot up smash bros melee on a gamecube right now and with two gamecube controllers play with my roommates, or with one gamecube controller play the campaign modes. There just needs to be a way to play the game without requiring access to a server, and if the game requires a server to be played(even if a lot of live service and online games could EASILY get away with being single player or at the very least server instance based coop experiences left 4 dead style, or in the case of destinys raids, Call of Dutys zombie easter eggs, due to how they are designed) then there should be a way to host that server privately.

[@MitoDrium]

I've lost respect for Thor. Not because of his stance on this topic, he has brought a few good points, no, i lost respect because not only had he ignored both Accursed Farms' as well as Louis Rossman's invitation for a discussion, he also deleted AF's comment on his video, where he addressed some of Thor's concerns. Maybe he was scared of a discussion, because he knew most of what he actually talks about is either pulled out of his ass, or he just heard it from someone and just repeats it. It's clear to me that Thor's priority are developers, seeing as he himself is one, and not the consumer.

[@ayeyuh6920]

If you want to lose even more respect for him, look up "Maldavius Figtree"

[@exilestudios9546]

the thing is devs by and large support this initiative so his priority isnt the devs its management who are the ones who actually stand to lose with the initiative

[@eonhet7826]

I have never heard of MMO's being referred to as games as a service until Thor said it. But yeah, it makes no difference. Lots and lots of MMO's have been released to the public after their shutdown and can still be enjoyed by small pockets of players on private servers. Also, lots of MMO's have TOTALLY disappeared off the face of the planet upon being shutdown. It's a simple question of; which one is better? Which one is actually fair to the players?

[@sasquatchbill9430]

MMOs are the first service based games though, unless its a single purchase mmo, you are actively subscribing to have access to the service, in this case the game. And while a good amount of MMOs have allowed private servers after they close down, an even larger number have not, or actively made sure there weren't. For example Star Wars Galaxies has a fair chunk of private servers, none of which are legally allowed to be run, and are doing so because disney/lucas films hasnt sent them a cease and desist letter.

[@NTR-Impact]

Basically, boomers who want to play MMOs solo.

[@eonhet7826]

@@NTR-Impact Like what Josh has done on multiple videos?

[@darthgamer9861]

@@NTR-ImpactI side with the boomers here

[@NTR-Impact]

@@darthgamer9861 Ok 👍

[@fettel1988]

I feel like some of this "for/against" is coming from re-defining MMOs as "live service". Technically they are, but I feel like the vast majority of gamers are thinking more the gachas and the games like Suicide Squad or Babylon Fall. You know, the game that bombed so hard it was removed from gaming.

[@thefool8224]

or single player games with tacked in online components, just so they can have a cash shop. then when the servers go down you lose the game

[@Xynth25]

The problem is that it doesn't matter what gamers think, what will matter is what the people eventually writing the legislation think. What definitions they see as appropriate.

[@nairocamilo]

​@@Xynth25That only matters if you actually believe that there will be absolutely NO input from the industry/consumers when the legislators start working of the ACTUAL legislation. Which is... Beyond Improbable, I believe, unethical.

[@TheClintonio]

MMO is a more specific term so of course we don't want to lose specificity to a term usually reserved for shitty games.

[@thefool8224]

@@nairocamilo if only you knew how much legislation gets passed without approval or consent from the population

[@Nick_Vendel]

personally when i say "live service games are bad for consumers" i mean all of them, for one specific reason, when support ends, those games are finished as well. It's one of the reasons i have issues with MMOs in general, is that when publisher decides to kill servers, all of your progress, all the effort you put into those games is basically erased and you can never play again. As far as i can see this is a strong criticism when comparing MMOs/server-based live-service games against standalone singleplayer (or even multiplayer) games. If publishers would actually give ability to the consumers to host their own servers once they're themselves stop doing so, i think that would largely remove this criticism. Like Ross says, as long as publishers/developers try to give their consumers fair end-of-life plan in a good faith, it would be enough to deal with this issue that plagues live service games. I will be really sad the day SWTOR closes its servers and all i'm left with of that game is distant memories of great time i had playing it, and how ambitious and impressive that game felt to me.

[@BeautifulExodus]

Agreed, I'm a pretty big MMO player myself and I'd rather see them grouped with the other live service games than not. It'd be nice to be able to continue or go back to them once service is shutdown.

[@Nick_Vendel]

@@BeautifulExodus Yeah. Hell, i even would be fine if i lost all my progress, but still had access to the game in some way, like let's say before publisher closes the servers, devs give some short window to get your account info/progress and once you miss it, it is gone, and i did miss it. Then at least i could start anew if i want to... that would still be better than MMO becoming "lost media" imo. Like i could still re-experience all those things i have fond memories of, even if from a "brand-new account".

[@justinhowe3878]

If you don't like that part of live service games, you can just choose not to play them. I don't see how this is a legislative issue, except in cases where functionally single player games are being tied to an online account that adds nothing to the user experience and only serves to give companies control over the game. But that's a completely different issue than "live service games end and go away." Everything ends and goes away. It's up to you what you want to spend your money on, not the government to protect you from those choices.

[@Nick_Vendel]

@@justinhowe3878 ​"If you don't like that part of live service games, you can just choose not to play them" That's arguing in a bad faith. Nothing is perfect, and just because i see a flaw in a thing i like doesn't mean i should either "STFU and take it" or "GTFO and shove it". Criticism exists so those things could improve. Thing is, i'm indeed barely playing live-service games (the last one i think was SWTOR, though i might be wrong), still there are good games among live-service variety, those that are worthy of being preserved (and that's a lot of games, as different people will find different games worth preserving), disregarding them and letting them just die out eventually just because they have those aspects is not just a waste of time and effort on player side, but on developer side as well, they put hundreds of hours of work into these games, for their publisher to just one day pull the plug and end it all. It's not great no matter how you look at it. "I don't see how this is a legislative issue", personally, i don't think ability of publishers to take away what you bought is fair, especially since you don't know when (and "if", though it's almost always "when") they going to take it away. If you don't think that's an issue, fair enough. "functionally single player games are being tied to an online account that adds nothing to the user experience and only serves to give companies control over the game. But that's a completely different issue", not completely different, but indeed is different enough, still that is also a thing that StopKillingGames is attempting to fight, and that won't go away on its own. "Everything ends and goes away"... okay, this is where it feels like straight up missing the point. The whole idea is to make live-service games still have a (chance for) life after their support ends, as in consumers who bought the games could continue to play it even after servers are down, thus getting closer to what you can do with "standalone games". There's lots of ancient games/apps that you can still play/use today that have 0 current dev support (the so called "abandonware"), this is what this initiative wants to achieve for live-service games. So i just don't see how "everything ends and goes away" is relevant here at all... nobody asks for perfect solution. "It's up to you what you want to spend your money on, not the government to protect you from those choices", generally speaking yes, but government still needs to control the industries to not go over-the-top with their policies and practices. Like i don't think anyone is into the idea of companies having complete free-roam of what they can do...

[@KasumiRINA]

Isn't the point of Stop Killing Games initiative specifically addressing that? If you want game to be playable in EU, make sure there's an option to make custom fan servers after shut down.

[@renmcmanus]

All live service games could work with a different monetization system. The idea that the current system is the only one that can work is lunacy.

[@Zevrael]

As I see it, there are exactly two good monetization strategies for live service games: 1) a single-tier subscription model with no other options to spend money on the game 2) f2p with exclusively cosmetic microtransactions Both of these enable continued development while providing a level playing field for all players. Do you propose something else that is even better in your eyes?

[@sasquatchbill9430]

@@Zevrael the issue is that games cannot run off of 2 alone, unless they engage in things like manufactured FOMO or chance type gatcha systems because it is an insecure means of revenue, 1 works fine, since thats what most MMOs do, making it a guaranteed point of revenue and usually the only barrier of access to the game, outside of potentially a one time purchase.

[@leadpaintchips9461]

@@Zevrael That second one is only good if there's enough 'free' cosmetics that don't look like complete dogwater for players to get. I've paid for every DRG cosmetic pack other then the latest one and will eventually pick it up, while never buying any more funny money for Darktide other then what came in the special edition.

[@Zevrael]

@@leadpaintchips9461 Actually, I think it's ideal if you don't get any cosmetics for free in this model. They would exclusively be a way for the developers to thank you for supporting them. Wanting cosmetics without being prepared to pay for them is entitled behavior, in my opinion.

[@Incognito-gh5qi]

A great example of what you're talking about is the Star Wars Galaxies restoration project, fans brought the game back after the company killed it in favor of SW:TOR. 2 more examples are TTRR and TTCC that brought back Toon Town after Disney killed it. I'm sure if OSRS ever kills itself from bad unpolled updates that the community will probably host private servers too (but we shall see)

[@damiand6818]

To be fair, OSRS became a thing because of private pre-EOC servers. They saw how popular the private servers were then ran the polls and such to make OSRS, which slowly gained more popularity than RS3. Otherwise Runescape private servers have been a thing since like 2006, are the only way to play classic now, and probably exist for RS3 too- but never much looked into them as I like.. most people have no interest in RS3. Or at least what RS3 has become.

[@zibix4562]

@@damiand6818 Ive actually tried servers that were PRE eoc, but like post graphical update. That transitional phase where it was, in my opinion, the best of both worlds. not a ton of em and not something many pure players would like since i think it was more pve focused.

[@damiand6818]

@@zibix4562 Yeah that was my favourite era myself.. where they had not gone overboard on the 6th age or daily scape stuff, it looked nice but not over done, there was so much QoL stuff.. I absolutely loved the story lines that were going on, etc etc. But I'm biased because that was when I was really into runescape and played the most.

[@Dino-te5rt]

You 100% need to make a video on this on your main channel. it will help at lot and clear up misinformation that was spread around.

[@garbageTruk]

When's the new channel named "Josh BASED Heyes" gonna launch?

[@EliasKaydanius]

Josh Strife Base

[@dependent-ability8631]

based on what?

[@amharbinger]

0:21 Josh Strife Teacher. His own career coming out.

[@billthecanuck]

agree 100% i was just talking about this exact thing with some friends on discord last night, one of my favourite games of all time, marvel heroes, got closed down a few years ago, servers deleted game completely gone, i had spent thousands of hours in that game on both PC and PS4, had all heroes unlocked nearly every skin etc.... and then one day it was all just gone... i can't even login to see my heroes or anything. i feel like consumers need to be protected somehow for these types of games, if we're meant to spend our money on these products and the company can just go "ok we've taken enough money, games gone now thanks" and youc an no longer access or play those games... that's just wrong... and it's why since marvel heroes shut down i have spent maybe $20 on live service games, when before marvel heroes i had sunk thousands of dollars into various games.

[@metallboy25]

Suckers like you are the problem.

[@Thanatos6669]

why? its not yours, you were dumb enough to spend money on it

[@xstreampunk7662]

honestly asking, did you expect the servers to run forever? i'm just confused cause you should have known that you don't own the server and that server will only lasts based on the owners desire

[@SaveMeXenu]

@@xstreampunk7662 Sure, this is a good point, but it doesn't invalidate the entire conversation. I own several hundred games, close to 1000, on steam and we've always had the question "what happens when Steam shuts down?". It's good that this conversation is finally coming to light and we can get a definitive answer.

[@Arassar]

Man, I loved Marvel Heroes. I even got one of those legendary scroll drops that gave two of everything. What a fun game...

[@realQuestion]

YaaS (Yapping as a Service)

[@Despoina_Nyx]

I saw a comment like that and my answer was like "Do you really don't understand that is a joke?" Cuz like..... it was crystal clear that it was a joke, that yeah, there are good live service games and that you in reality didn't want them to die. And like their concern trolling is so transparent cuz it's just always "But what about" "This will cause this" With no way actual ideas on how to amend it or word things in a way that would allow things to work. Like perhaps there could be an ammend that would require a game sold as a service to change it's language and have a proper life plan with clear end of service dates with maybe fines if they close the game before those dates. It could be it so perhaps they can force offline version with clear messaging that this version is not the final intended way to play. Add basic bots and the ability to play the main story content all sold with the game. Or add the ability for a end of service peer 2 peer style connection messaging clearly that this limits player numbers. And people far smarter than me could come up with ideas of how to run this that would still allow live service game to exist. But probably still deter the worst aspects of live service anti consumer practices.

[@TheSilversepiroth]

The problem with taking the disingenuous argumentation at its face is that when you use the term "games as a service," you don't think of MMORPGs, because often you can do 99.9% of the content in the game without ever even _LOOKING_ at the in-game store. In a properly built MMO, looking at the store is done solely because you want something that's in it, not because the game, either through blatant pop-ups or how the game is designed, constantly drags your gaze back to the store. No, when people hear of "games as a service," they think of a game that's designed as a phone app game instead of an *_ACTUAL_* game. Games like Fallout 76, CS:GO, Overwatch, and even Suicide Squad (or keeping with Marvel the attempt at bringing back Ultimate Alliance they released a while back that *_also_* failed catastrophically,) that are designed not providing an experience, but for wealth extraction from those who thought they bought a game & are easily suckered into the pay to play loop

[@wownice2927]

i like megaman x dive offline which is a singleplayer verison of x gacha

[@vedritmathias9193]

I'm in favor of the Stop Killing Games idea. I'm making an online game and very much intend that - when I decide to "kill" the game - I will make available the files and directions for hosting a server. After shutting down the game, it will literally cost me nothing to allow other people to host their own servers. "Why don't you let people host their own servers to begin with?" because that would be counter to how *I* want to run *my* game. It would also make it easier for nefarious people to find vulnerabilities.

[@ANDELE3025]

Even if you release the server bins on release, nothing would change as far as vulnerabilities as long as the obfuscation options weren't released (which is easy because its not the same files in 99.99% of projects) and you have a solid handshake system set up. Hell you could add extra protection in the client compile by limiting the applications programming commands that can be run in-client directly.

[@basedspacetemplar]

LOVE IT

[@NotSeregnar]

Congrats on obtaining the entirety of the Concord audience!

[@torskforce]

Hell yeah!

[@KasumiRINA]

Last time you talked about it Final Fantasy Mobius was long since unplayable and Dissidia Opera Omnia just shut down... Now Final Fantasy Brave Exvius is facing server shutdown with 2 month warning. War of the Visions is living on borrowed time... I don't wasnt to invest anything into games that's gonna get a rug pull soon.

[@Russian_engineer_bmstu]

Oh, ffbe dies? Damn Didn't login in a while, but it was my brave frontier replacement for a while... Super sad Like, all servers or just eu/global, BTW?

[@Russian_engineer_bmstu]

I have 2A since nier collab, sad to loose my jpg

[@KasumiRINA]

@@Russian_engineer_bmstu I think just global, Jp is celebrating another anniversary?

[@Russian_engineer_bmstu]

@@KasumiRINA sad

[@vsolyomi]

"The problem with Twitch is that I am an idiot" - a piece of worldly wisdom...

[@D3bugMod3]

Hi, So I want to try something. In most cases more than one thing can be true. Yes, stop killing games has a point. Is it possible that Thor, Muta & many developers also have a point? Is it possible that gaming discourse over simplifies complex or technical topics? And that our over simplifications are distorting the conversation? Agreeing with anything ive asked doesn't make anyone wrong. Nor does it undermine the efforts of the initiative. All it means is there's more to the conversation that we should be discussing. If that's true, how does ignoring the larger conversation help gaming or improve gaming discourse? I'm asking because we've turned talking about video games into a partisan fight. Where for one side to be right. The other side by default has to be wrong. I'm not on the side of gamers, devs or journalists. I'm pro games, full stop. I simply don't see how gaming gets better by insisting anyone who disagrees with the popular opinion is automatically wrong. Especially if we refuse to thoroughly investigate alternatives. And base our conclusions on provable data over emotional reactions. Take care and have a good one

[@AnimatedDisc]

Very true. I found it odd seeing how sharp the battle of two sides became. I watched PirateSoftware's takes and he prefaces that he think it's a good initiative, but takes incredible issues with specific points. And I think the same is done with Josh's takes. The thing I see often on the internet now is that people choose a side, and stay there, and often ridicule the other side. Very sad. Although I will say that it seems like a skill to be able to not get swept into it, and instead stay listening and understanding, before making our own personal conclusions. Your comment was a bit of fresh air

[@fatcat2015]

Only someone eager to kiss Thor’s feet would put up a “both sides” type deflection here. Clearly he’s talking nonsense since no one with any sense actually agreed with him, clearly he’s arguing in bad faith since he refuses to actually talk to anyone including the founder of the Stop Killing Games initiative. And clearly, after recent events, we now know in retrospect he’s just an uninformed egomaniac who has no idea about anything. Between WoW, faking playthroughs of puzzle games like Animal Well, to sending false DMCAs to an indie game dev.

[@D3bugMod3]

@fatcat2015 Hi, thanks for the comment. I've actually been using UE going on 6 yrs. I'm currently studying roll back net code, github repositories, and... "Dedicated servers with AWS." The server course is run by a full stack developer. So 3D modeling, back & front-end work. Ya name it the dude can do it. I've also contacted and watched videos from several other devs. So no, my position has nothing to do with Thor. Like i said. This is a conversation we should be having. I left my comment because this isn't as simple as "anyone" is making it out to be. I want to ask a question. I am honestly asking without a dash of salt, so... When is gaming discourse wrong? Because no matter what, we always think we're right. Take care and have a good one

[@Ragnaracc]

The argument being made by Thor are completely misleading: Attacking a developer. Forcing the developer to shut down. Monetizing private servers. Profiting. Assume the developer collapses and is forced to release the server binaries. At that point, someone sets up a paid private server. However, nothing prevents others from hosting their own servers. There is no need to join pay-to-play servers for games like Minecraft, TF2, or ARMA when self-hosting is an option. This line of reasoning resembles past scaremongering tactics used by major game companies to dissuade community servers. Claims such as "Official servers are always better," "Community servers do not support account progress," or even "Community servers may contain malware" have been used before. While there may be some truth to these statements, they are not relevant concerns for those who can set up their own servers. The TF2 botting issue provides a clear example. The bot problem primarily affected official Valve servers, while community servers had active moderation to ban bots, making them the superior option. Regarding licensing concerns, any disputes are the responsibility of the license provider. If companies such as Disney or Jaguar object to a community server, they have the legal means to pursue action against the server provider. This scenario may sound problematic, but the current situation is even worse-players are not even given the opportunity to continue playing. Simply having the option is preferable to complete shutdown. A similar issue arises with fan revival projects being shut down. Games like FusionFall, Club Penguin, and Toontown have been reverse-engineered by fans, despite being abandoned for over 20 years and with no plans from the original studios to bring them back. A policy like this could prevent such revivals from happening. Another flawed assumption in this discussion is the belief that developers and studios always act in good faith. However, history has repeatedly shown otherwise. This is a post-Fallout 76, post-No Man’s Sky, and post-multiple-Skyrim-releases gaming industry. Developers do not always prioritize the best interests of their player base. Pokémon is another prime example of this trend. Fundamentally, this argument is misguided. Forcing a studio to release server binaries before shutting down official support should be seen as an obvious and beneficial solution. Attempting to portray it as a negative development is entirely baffling.

[@tioalra6746]

the best situation would be if they rebalanced the progress and then sell the game as an single player/ koop game, where they dont need to worry about cheaters or servers. so many live service mmos basically delete all their old stuff, just so players spend months on those 2 new dungeons, while basically skipping everything prior.

[@fenrifegads5571]

Best for who? Best for them is to retain maximum control so that they don't have to compete with mods or player hosted servers. So they can force their politics down your throat and ban any dissent. So they can fart out whatever low effort trash they can be bothered with and charge top dollar to a captive sunk-cost audience. Best for us is player hosted servers. Like we used to have as standard in all multiplayer games.

[@Ornithopter470]

That is expressly not what the stop killing games initiative claims, and is so much work that studios just wouldn't bother with any game that may fall under whatever regulation happens. Making a game like WoW work as a single player game would require more work than making an entirely new game. Making it co-op in the p2p sense would be equally difficult, as doing secure p2p is HARD. And if it's not secure, then everyone who plays it is going to become part of a botnet.

[@fenrifegads5571]

@@Ornithopter470 "Making a game like WoW work as a single player game would require more work than making an entirely new game" Bull. Shite. All they have to do is release the server files. It's been done. It was done with Everquest, probably before you were born. Judging by your rhetorical prowess. "Secure P2P is hard" Says who? The people who have a financial interest in not going P2P? "If it's not secure everyone is part of a botnet" Again: So says the people who are financially biased against this. Big old "citation needed" on that one. Putting that aside: All you have to do is release the server info, as stated before, and people can host their own servers. No p2p needed. And even if, for some nonsense "I'm financially biased against this course of action so heres a spurious reason not to do it" justification it HAS to be p2p.... So what. I'm a grown adult human male. Let me decide what risks I want to take on, and on what basis. Why are you so scared of being accountable for yourself and your own actions? You really need a multinational megacorp to decide what risk is acceptable for you? Gross.

[@kabob0077]

3:58 God knows Otherland deserves to be seen... Thank you, Josh, for archiving that MMO before it died.

[@101lwx]

Making a sarcastic snide joke on the Internet is hard cause of a lot of people have a very low perception stat and don't talk to people irl so they can't fathom the idea that someone might be talking genuinely about something while also making a cheeky joke here and there

[@themurmeli88]

It's not just that. It's harder to read if someone is being sarcastic without verbal tone and body language, and if you do not know the person.

[@kristienwhitney-johns5863]

0:46 something tells me you was a liked teacher

[@Ralathar44]

Aye, good editing does wonders for both good communication and managing how something you're saying is perceived :). Also lets you correct mistakes/mispeaking without people seeing them and using that to anchor their perception of your opinions/person :P. Understandable sir :). Carefully edited KZbin video vs stream of consciousness is night and day.

[@KasumiRINA]

Personally I like a mix, let's plays but planned instead of someone just bumping around in the game but even the latter can be fun to watch, my fav video style is still ReRez/AVGN bad games "reviews" that are just condensed LPs with script.

[@DagothDaddy]

My issue with Pirates response is he didn't have one. He just nitpicked the wording which cam obviously be amended then acted like that means the entire idea is bad. Which is no different than saying "minor spelling mistake therefore your argument is invalid."

[@LordOfLemon]

It was a good joke, but yeah, way too many people take these jokes seriously. Thor literally said that "this will kill live service games" or something along those lines and a lot of his fans take him at his word, without realizing how ridiculous that claim is.

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

Yea, the initiative doesn’t say once live service is bad or has to go. It just says it’s the cause of the death which it is.

[@pogie1987]

I'm watching this video on September 4th. The last 5 seconds of this video are some of the funniest seconds in my life😂

[@Kar4ever3]

Oh that last one..... good one Visa. Yeah that is about the playerbase right there.

[@madnessobserver]

It's worth pointing out that "games as a service" is a much more insidious concept than what's often defined as, "games as a service" doesn't just encompass online-only F2P games, subscription based games, or paid games with online elements; technically, every single digital purchase is not actually ownership of a product but the temporary and revocable access to a product. Your online Steam/Epic/Nintendo/Sony library is also "games as a service". You don't actually own anything on any digital platform, so when push comes to shove and certain services are inevitably shut down, you won't have access to any digital good you spent your money on. That's how much power the consumer has lost over the past few decades. Thor's proposal of simply changing "buy" to "rent" completely ignores the fact that the problem isn't just the lack transparency, but how companies have collectively decided the consumer has no rights to digital ownership on any capacity, because they've been at war with how digital goods fudamentally function since the medium's inception. The current state of F2P/subscription/online-only games (i.e: once the company cannot/doesn't want to support them they must be deleted from existence) cannot be accepted either, because it's not only the concept of ownership that's at stake, but also the idea of being able to preserve videogames at all. Defending videogames being a perishable product is the most blatant anti-art and anti-consumer philosophy one could possibly imagine for a *digital* medium. And as others have pointed out when responding to Thor's corporate-centric take and various strawmans: "you can take a man out of Blizzard, but you can't take Blizzard out of the man".

[@dard2240]

The more i watch videos about video game situations, the more i feel like companies want to create such controversies just so they could awake hate in gamers twoards them just so they don't loose interest in them, even if they doing it as haters. Games become so mundane and boring looking that they don't have any more tactics to keep an interest in them then to turn their fans against them. Hate is a feeling to, and it's brings engagement regardless of opinion.

[@fenrifegads5571]

The more I watch videos about the weimar republic the more I see the parallels between that period of history and today. I don't believe it's what you suggest. I believe the intention is demoralisation and division. I believe the intention is to destory our culture by debasing and perverting it completely. I belive the aim is to siphon cash out of the human cattle which were put on this earth to serve them and theirs. I believe it's loxism.

[@micheljolicoeur6094]

Me watching this 3 days later, the day Rock Steady gets gutted as Josh says "20 person raid, if you were playing Suicide Squad that would have been the entire player base" 🤣

[@julienandrus4169]

Is he leveling all of his stats equally?

[@arkadiuszmatej525]

not anymore, he reached 31 in everything at level 169, the build is now perfect (56 at 369 would theoretically be better, but that's not realistic)

[@Guitar-Dog]

It’s perfectly balanced

[@Arthera0]

yes. he doesnt like meta gaming and always go with the best of the best. he cares about having fun and pissing off backseaters is just glorious.

[@Guitar-Dog]

@@arkadiuszmatej525 why is 31 and 56 relative? He could have 32 in every stat or 33

[@dfsdhjk4780]

@@Guitar-Dog It's the actual levels he's talking about (169 and 369)

[@Aramakie98]

I believe it is Jim Gaffigan who has the bit about old timey letters compared to something we would text out now, lol... "My dearest family, The battle at Trafalgar has cost us much but it did not cost us Liberty..." vs some quick text response "Sure. I got milk. Do you need me to get more pizza rolls 2?" I wish I could have a writers room & adequate time so many times a day, a week, a decade, lol.

[@foxglovelove8379]

I thought this was going to be something about how he had some major revelation about the Stop Killing Games initiative that he needed to clarify. But no, I forgot l live in the dumb timeline and it was just about something ridiculous

[@Matjo7588dk]

Ive signed it. I wish I could sign it again. I hope it goes through. It might be the only chance gamers get to stop the abuse the gaming industry is doing. If we don't get this right. Consumers of the gaming industry will not have the same protection and rights as other industries in 30-50 years when people making the laws get to that point. Most of what the gaming companies do, or a lot of it. Is against the law in other industries where the effect is pretty much the same. Also a great thing to look at with this is Age of Empires 2. Microsoft ran the game. And then stopped supporting it. But private people and players kept it going. Making a service called Voobly. It had a pro scene that grew while Microsoft did not spend money on it. It grew so big, and AOE2 tournaments pulled in so many viewers ( Think it peaked around 80.000 for the biggest, on one stream ) That Microsoft decided to bring back funding for AOE2, and released first HD ( Sucked ) And the DE. selling the game again for profit, and selling DLC for it. For more profit. So companies can actually make more money with this model. If they make a good game, fans want to keep alive and grow. It gives them a chance to go back to it.

[@theinfernity1799]

I have also heard from a few people that there was a megaman gacha game. The support did end and the publishers decided to sell it instead as a 25€ version or so. Other games I always like to point out: Last epoch, got an offline mode (also because the devs wanted to see it be played on steam deck) Wayfinder, got changed from mmorpg to Singleplayer within few months. Palworld, came with a tool to set up your own dedicated server (many steam games do feature such a tool now) Battleborn, died in like 2014 or so but the community revived it last year or so. There is now a cracked launcher that only works when you really own Battleborn on steam - So it isn't pirating because you still need the game. Which is cool.

[@Thrano]

Speaking on a public platform is incredibly difficult. Just look at any politician's speech that is full of points that are technically correct but require more context than is provided. Speaking to handfuls, dozens, hundreds or thousands on people on a stream or a video is not much different. I run a channel (unaffiliated to this account because I'm not insane) where I found that speaking on any topic that might be controversial even in passing is very difficult because you make your point but while you are speaking you feel like you need to mention six other issues that seemingly contradict your point and require further explanation. So you talk and explain and give all the information and your video is 5 hours long and... nobody's watching it because it's too long. It is, unfortunately, much more financially viable to simply reflect the popular opinion of your target demographic and not go too deep into any topic. Bonus points if you shadowban users commenting on missing context.

[@Kradily]

Actually wheezing at the end there 😂😂😂😂😂

[@SteamedToast]

People's inability to distinguish MMO's from Live Service Singleplayer speaks to how ubiquitous forced-online subscription based gameplay is now days.

[@fenrifegads5571]

MMO when the term was created: "more players in the same match at the same time than the standard 64-player shooter game." MMO now: "any game where you connect to a server." Game (((publishers))) do this kind of pilpul a lot. For example: Beta then: a development stage after alpha but before full release. Not fully finished but content complete. Bug testing and balencing. Beta now: the demo we release 2 weeks before launch but you can't complain about anything because we call it a "beta" implying we can change anything about the game despite the discs going to print 2 months ago to be ready for shipping

[@FaticusDolphinius]

The problem comes from there being no distinction in the term Live Service Game itself. You might find that distinction, but lawmakers might not. Industry experts might not.

[@fenrifegads5571]

@@FaticusDolphinius The discinction is clear and obvious to anyone not being disingenuous. Which I will admit, politicains are at a core level. But that's beside the point.

[@futhington]

To be honest, I don't see that MMOs being swept up in it is even a bad thing. Imagine a hypothetical world where, tomorrow, Blizzard decides to shut down World of Warcraft because it's not making them enough money relative to the cost of running it (I said imagine): would you rather be in a position where, as part of their responsibility to consumers, they had to release software to enable private servers to exist for those who want them, or one where they can just take the money and run?

[@videogamecoverss]

Counterpoint, since the initiative doesn't lay out what "Live Service" is, you're leaving it up to the politicians to decide what constitutes it. We are trying to tell you guys that politicians are shitty and stupid. You guys think politicians are honorable and will follow the "Spirit of the law" which they literally never do That's why we want a more specific version, as it is written right now, it will effect everything If people don't want to rewrite it to target specifically what they're claiming they want it to target, then it's obvious the intent is for all live service games, not just the ones performing the terrible business practices. The last thing I want to do is to have politicians define what "Live service" means when they know nothing about it, because the people making the initiative can't properly define it either otherwise they would in the initiative. Expecting politicians to 1: Understand what it's about and 2: Follow the "Spirit" of it, are both incredibly foolish to believe.

[@sinner506]

Off topic, but wth are those stats?

[@ShallowVA]

That joke was the best part of the video! Its literally the first thing I said when I heard Thor say that line too!

[@Sniperbear13]

its always funny when you get those who like to think they got you in a "AHA" like that. it really just shows how little they understand.

[@Pro_Triforcer]

"Game as a service" is a term used to sell games to publishers and investors, not gamers. Good game devs don't call them that, so nobody else calls them that.

[@Jan12700]

Everything that has "as a service" can you put into this category, like IaaS (AWS), PaaS (Azure) and SaaS (Adobe).

[@BIackstrength]

No, it's a technical term with a definition : any game that is provided as a service provided by the devs and not a "good" that you can own indefinitely. It's because people don't realise what it means that we're in this situation. And the big greedy companies make profit from it, while the independent devs will suffer the consequences if laws are passed.

[@pringles_mcgee]

​@@BIackstrength yeah all those indie devs running live service games and then killing them and refusing to allow the players to continue playing solo. give me a fuckin break lmao

[@Candlemancer]

​@@BIackstrength Yeah, that's why the big greedy publishers are fighting tooth and nail against it, because it will magically make them more money.

[@BIackstrength]

@@Candlemancer You don't seem to have understood my comment.

[@ZapatosVibes]

Shots fired xD

[@TheFrontmanRocker]

It's terrifying how many people don't understand jokes nowadays. I can't even imagine what should happen in person's mind when he hears "Live service will die? Damn, I am in!" to think that you are 100% serious. I am not a native speaker, yet I see that clearly. Unbelievable how uncultured and unaware people are to not pick this up. Truly a skibidi generation, can't understand humor if you don't have "/s" at the end

[@mekudesu]

No, I believe him 100% seriously. Live service games need to die. It's not only a waste of consumer time and money but a waste of developer time and talent. Nobody remembers these games. Nobody is fondly reminiscing over live service games thinking about what the world would be like without them. We're always thinking about what it would be like without them and it would be amazingly better.

[@TheFrontmanRocker]

@@mekudesu Whatever you prefer, but I am talking only about Josh' take here

[@fettel1988]

Nuance and context died years ago

[@Nif-kun]

It's bias of hearing. The exclusion of nuance to create imaginary leverage. You'd notice how they'd typically inherit the traits of narcissism and insecurity. Two traits that are prevalent in the modern day.

[@jambott5520]

Not everyone can easily pick up on that stuff. Like you do realise autism exists? A lot of people who are autistic struggle to get that shit. It ain't nothing to do with the current generation.

[@MitchellWinning]

Don't ever get confused between the "players" ( part of the product) and "the customer" ( share holders )

[@eugeneflores6153]

1:05 Moiscritikal and Asmongold tactics, lmao

[@hatemeister]

You'd have to be absolutely insane if you think asmon and charlie are streamers that always say stuff that everyone agrees with and they never say or do anything controversial lmao 🤡

[@Ouvii]

​@@hatemeisterTroo, bro

[@tyeberiusmcintyre1879]

only game i really play is warframe, i still stand by my stance that live service games just up and dying because of 'stop killing games' is a good thing. it would be a small price to pay for the future of gaming.

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

It’s a great price to pay. Some of the best games in history are all none live service games. We can go back to those times

[@MidwayWuzzupman]

Stop Killing Games only affects game services that are shutting down. This means absolutely nothing to ongoing services.

[@Yesnaught]

Yes, but I vaguely recall Thor's concern was that you can just DDoS or otherwise artificially choke out a service, which kills the userbase for the service/game, and force the developer to decide to formally shut it down because it's no longer viable. At which point, the developer would be basically required to open source some or all of their game, or whatever SKG requires. SKG is a well intended idea, but it's not quite there yet, and I'm not sure it can ever close out this loophole.

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

@@Yesnaughtas yes, a terrible point by a terrible person named Thor. There has been many games with dedicated and community servers which have never had this issue. This is also the equivalent of saying “cars shouldn’t have seat belts because there’s a 1 in a million chance they can harm the driver more in a car crash”

[@MidwayWuzzupman]

@@Yesnaught except DDoS is a concern regardless of if SKG goes through or not. Even if somehow this encourages DDoS attacks and thus kills the live service industry, this is still a better outcome than the lost media hellscape we currently have.

[@HighEffortUsername]

​@@Yesnaught The thing is, you can do that already, it doesn't become any less illegal after the initiative gets passed. Scummy companies could do this to shut down competitors to their games, but it's too much effort for relatively little gain.

[@darwinxavier3516]

@@HighEffortUsername Plus if its EVER found out that a game company did that to a competitor...ooooo. Even if they survive the legal consequences, their reputation would get raked naked across the coals harder than Artesian Builds.

[@SigridKroon]

A great example of a game that is hosted free once the official ones went down is City of Heroes: Homecoming, which went on to get the official seal of approval from the company. That is how you do it

[@pierrechristen7221]

So the server / game code was handed over illegally by a dev to a player, who kept the illegal server secret because otherwise NCSoft would have nuked it from orbit, just to be sure. Then after 6-7 years of secret operations and being brought to light against their will, they didnt have a choice but to give away the server code to everyone. And after a few years of negotiations a single group got the permission to keep the servers up from NCSoft because they didnt want to spend the money to sue them and get another round of death threats. Sure that's how you do it.

[@ReformedOrthodoxRabbiClinton]

Don't worry Josh. Jokes aside from your first video, you put more thought into that one video than Thor spreading misinformation in 2 videos thinking he knows it all.

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

Yep.

[@limo_was_here]

bit of regulation to just have games properly have an end of life plan is honestly necessary, too many games have been cut while only being online for like 3 weeks or so. It's a huge waste of resources not to. (in the grand scheme of things)

[@MickeyValentineLondon]

BUT YOU KILLED TERA !!!!

[@RAFMnBgaming]

next year josh is gonna rebirth tera as a singleplayer game using his vast psychic might.

[@GretgorPooper]

Josh is so freaking charming.

[@OgOssman]

This is why i dont like thor, his whole Simp Army came at josh for talking truth. Thor had a horrible take, that sided with corporations for the $$$$$$$$.....

[@ArgentumEmperio]

Let's try this then: What do YOU think Thor's take on it was?

[@Russian_engineer_bmstu]

​@@ArgentumEmperio"mmo preservation is fundamentally pointless because game with few to no other people will be different" source : pirate software, stop killing games part 2, 5:15 (ish)

[@LtAlguien]

@@Russian_engineer_bmstu He also said "If the servers need to be shut down, it makes sense for me for access to that game to be cut, if is online only" and "That's developer time and money, and when you already have sequels, it makes more sense to move on, I don't find that to be a problem" So Thor's take on the whole thing seems to be "Shut up about old product, consum new product"

[@AdumbP]

topher grace and henry cavill's lovechild is making good points but what is that attribute spread kings field vid was dope tho thanks josh

[@iamlegion3093]

Too late Josh, I shall now take the clip of your joking again about “killing live service games” and provide 0 context once again. Muahahahahaha

[@reznovvazileski3193]

Yea totally agreed here. When people shit on live service games, I think what they're mostly mad about are the "we forced it to be live service because it's more profitable" games. More naturally live service games like ARPGs and MMORPGs tend to do much better in that kind of environment. But now try to make a live service Assassin's Creed game. Oh wait, they are and it looks awful. Some games are just better served as the good old boxed game model. You pay this amount for this much game and you go suck a fat one until we decide to make either an expansion or a sequel.

[@The0rangeCow]

Don't worry, thor isn't that much of an expert in things either. If you were to look into him, you might find his experience isn't as extensive as he sometimes makes it out to be.

[@SaveMeXenu]

This. Homie worked in the security department at Blizzard, not the development side. His credentials as a dev come ONLY from Heartbound, a game that's been in early access for years now. Which is FINE and I'm not saying you have to have hundreds of games under your belt, I'm simply saying that he tries to make it out like he has WAY more experience than he actually does.

[@BIackstrength]

It's not like he's worked on QA, Moderation and Security for WoW, Diablo, etc. Then worked on security at Amazon Games. Then founded an indie studio with 2 games, and now is well into developing a whole indie MMO based on Minecraft. So when he talks about how bad actors could exploit the initiative to harm dev studios, and how this initiative will be detrimental to all live service games, but especially independent ones with less resources, and the most honnest ones because they actually have meaningful infrastructures that cannot easily be made into private servers, or offline servers. I'm sure you have much more experience than him to be able to assess his expertise ? On my side, being a software and web dev, everything he said was accurate. Although I don't agree with all his opinions, because I do think there are ways to actually preserve live services games without hurting the devs.

[@SaveMeXenu]

@@BIackstrength Oh I see. So we're not allowed to criticize something if we can't do it better. Your fanboyism is showing and you are literally proving my point. He worked QA and security. Then worked security. Then "made" one game that's been in early access for 6 years and in that 6 years he's only added 3 hours of content to his game. I know game devs with a hell of a lot more experience in actual game development than him that think his take on this is hilariously wrong.

[@TheFrontmanRocker]

@@BIackstrength > QA, Moderation and Security So this is what game development is all about > Then founded an indie studio with 2 games, and now is well into developing a whole indie MMO based on Minecraft Are you talking about Heartbound, an Undertale clone that was in early access for 6 years and haven't seen updates in centuries? Amazing portfolio indeed

[@BIackstrength]

@@TheFrontmanRocker - QA is core to game development, it means you will interact with every part of the game in more extensive details than some of the programmers or deigners will ever do. The rest of the dev team relies on the QA feedback to be accurate because they don't have time to both do these intensive tests AND develop the game or fix the bugs. - Moderation is core to live service games, and especially MMOs. Helps understanding how the community interacts with the game's evolution and the devs. - Security is core to all online games, and gives him insight on how people could use laws forcing devs to reveal their tech against them. > Heartbound, a game with 95% Overwhelmingly positive on steam, except in recent reviews (what could have happened, hm). You're just repeating what you read elsewhere, because the game was updated just 4 months ago. > And you don't have any argument against the actual MMO he's working on that has probably more players than Concord right now. So I guess that's that. So yeah, you clearly don't understand what constitutes a good experience in video game that could help inform someone on the issues there are with this initiative. You don't have to agree with Thor. I don't even though I recognize he's got more experience and insight than me. But I have actual arguments to oppose him, no demonstrably wrong ad-hominems repeated from other trolls.

[@Calypso694]

There’s nothing wrong with live service games at all. They just have to be ethically done IE only cosmetic and have good content and a solid loop to keep you engaged. It’s a simple formula. Keep servers alive by the public after they die and it’s all good.

[@WisteriaNerium]

The initiative doesn't really requires to keep the servers running forever if it's an inconvenience to the devs, it some cases it can be as simple as just allowing the offline portion of the game to still be playable.

[@Calypso694]

@@WisteriaNerium if its a multiplayer game it does. What offline portion? Lan parties dont exist anymore.Hitman WOA definitely needs to just be converted to not being able to log in on a server all the time.

[@WisteriaNerium]

@@Calypso694 Releasing either the server binaries or tools so players can make their own dedicated servers.

[@Calypso694]

@@WisteriaNerium thats what i said

[@WisteriaNerium]

@@Calypso694 "Keep servers alive by the public" it sounds vague enough that someone who might try to discredit your argument could say that you're advocating for servers to stay up forever. I know it's a small distinction but I'm just trying to help

[@lordmictian6951]

I found thor had a ton of useful info about the industry. Its clear he knows what he's talking about when it comes to making a game and the systems involved. However.... the way he talks, the way he acts, the way he behaves, screams of someone who refuses to accept any way besides his as "the right way", so much so that I actually cannot recall a single time he has listened to a comment and said "yeah, good point" or anything close to it. It's always "No, thats wrong". Which is fine... if that wasnt his response to every question he seems to answer. But because he had good info about games, I kept watching him. Right up until this drama where his only play was what he did before, refuse to concede a single view and double down.

[@CharlesJester-f5h]

Ironically most of the 'useful info' about the industry he spews is filled with misinformation. The majority of it is true, but because he lies randomly throughout to make himself sound smarter, you never know what you can trust. Plus even his opinion on stop killing games was motivated by the fact he was planning on producing a live service game. Not sure if still plans on it, though, given his potential playerbase just got cut by 80%.

[@WeirdGuy4928]

If I had had more time, I wouldn't have watched this whole video.

[@pixelomega3042]

While anyone with a brain should’ve noticed your sarcasm in the 1st vid, I’m absolutely all for Games as a Service dying and never coming back. It’s easily one of the worst philosophies that a dev can stick to when making a game

[@donttouchmysoda7551]

You can't lose aginst thor just wait till he says something dumb (inevitable) call him on it and watch him, dubble tripple, then quadruple down on it 😂

[@mrbaileys4371]

I'm pretty sure Ross already specified it wouldn't be targeting subscription services. Thor is a bad actor. He has money in the pot, and if we make devs protect games then he loses money. Or something. Thor wants money and is trying to brainrot gaslight his viewers into believing saving games is a bad thing.

[@Lokaror]

Agreed. Thor never had any interest in actually having a meaningful discussion.

[@ethanfreeman1106]

You really think you can just make stuff up about other people and everyone will just run with it 😂 how delusional are you my guy?

[@ethanfreeman1106]

Thor isn't against "saving games" but what you guys are doing ain't it. Just a bunch of extremists gathering together demanding shit from the government with your poorly worded clauses is going to have the opposite kind of effects you say you want. HOW you're doing it is the problem. You think having an ideology and a sense of righteousness is the right thing to do, but you don't realize that's doing the same thing as those with the woke mentality that's been ruining video games. Then you go around accusing other people without ever getting what they're trying to get at, because you'd like to paint yourself in a good light. If you have a head on your shoulder at all, you'd realize Ross and Thor aren't even on different sides, it's just one of them is being wildly naive in not just ideas but the execution of those ideas. This is precisely the kind of conversations Thor cautioned us about: a bunch of clueless people thinking they're affecting a positive change on the world, but they're ruining it in the process. Because they never took the time to understand anything! 😂

[@asromeburns3588]

@@ethanfreeman1106 sorry, but we will force you to release server tools when you shut down the service. cry and moan all you want.

[@vaidenkelsier7757]

Oh I wholly disagree with that. I think Thor has some reactionary takes, but I also think he's generally a good dude and does some good things. Calling him a bad actor seems really extreme.

[@calvin3379]

This is Josh's guilty conscience speaking because of all the games he's already killed.

[@thebadger4040]

I kinda understand taking that joke seriously. I would understand a person familiar with MMOs and knowing more about them than most people deciding that the genre needs to die.

[@killsode4760]

"you must appreciate live service games, you review MMORPG's" just because you like or appreciate something doesn't mean you need to suck the toes of the entire damn genre.

[@MagiCave]

​@@killsode4760 but that's the thing, isn't it? Live service isn't even a genre, it's a monetization model. What people hate are the bad practices employed by bad live services titles, which is good, but the live service model is one of the most engaging way to develop a game for both players and devs, not to mention how it allows the creation of ambitious projects developed in chunks throughout the years instead of keeping a title under wraps for likely a decade or more until it's fully completed, which is simply not viable. Does this sound a lot like Steam's Early Access? Because it is. Would you call Early Access a genre? The difference between the two lays in how a title gets revenue to keep releasing content at a steady pace, and how much trustworthy the developers are to not compromise gameplay over remuneration.

[@Zoltri]

Honestly, I think its difficult to give a detailed, and cohesive answer about the idea of Live service games, because ultimately, they're not really good or bad just based off the fact they're a Live service, but its a tool that has really positive and really negative potential depending on how someone chooses to use it, which leads to really strong emotions around it as a subject, regardless of context.

[@cyberturkey77]

That's great Josh now complete Mass Effect 3 or else.

[@Nikelaos_Khristianos]

He probably already has - just in his own time - because people back-seated too much

[@xXxCJ123xXx]

The Hitman WoA Ttrilogy is a perfect example of why Stop Killing games is such a big deal. At somepoint IO will shut down the servers like they did for Absolution and the game will simply not able to be played. Thankfully there's a third party mod called Peacock to run a local server that lets you play the game but its lacking a lot of features.

[@illpunchyouintheface9094]

Thank god for modders. Sadly they ain’t miracle workers and people are actually using them as a reason to why we don’t need stop killing games, which is terrible.

[@randomxgen6167]

MMOs were MMOs before live service came about. Live service came about around the time the industry arbitrarily decided to control your access. Let's look at EA for example. Simcity 2013 required you to sign up with and log into an online service in order to play it. Before, you could just plug in simcity 4 and play the game. After, you need to sign up for their service, log into origin or ea app or whatever to play the game. Now, the point of contention is twofold: 1. Playability is contingent on access to the EA online service. If they're down for maintenance, due to system instability, or just taken offline because EA felt like it? You no longer have access. 2. This is the important part, so crayon eaters pay attention: It's not required. After sims 2013 came out, modders found a way to play the game offline anyways, so there was literally no reason the game had to be online as a service, except for EA choosing to do so at the expense of consumers. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Seriously, it's really fucking simple. People failing to understand it are either being willfully ignorant of key facts for some motivation or another, or come from a time after live service was implemented and normalized, and just haven't thought about the alternative yet. It's not a hard topic to discuss, and people making it hard are stupid or have an agenda. After all, the only think you _actually_ need to is look at a summoning salt video about people speedrunning mario or something, then extrapolate how infeasible that would be for something like the crew.

[@TheFireFox36]

I want to add. Starcraft 2 WoL required internet access to play the game. Idk if it is the current state, but I remember being a young boy and being furious that I couldn't play sc2 offline

[@publiusii4246]

Ideally we would live in a world where no game had to die but it is undeniably wrong that you can be sold a product up front ~60 down no subscription no clear labeling that the product will die at a given time and the vendor can just take it from me at anytime. Like Disney isn't allowed to break into my house and shred DVDs on my shelf. Why can ubisoft install self destruct protocols on my games

[@callmetravesty8762]

Because they arn't your games. You just own a license to play the game. I think that's bullshit obviously but that is the legality around it.

[@publiusii4246]

@@callmetravesty8762 that's the reason this is happening in the EU. They don't live in you signed a contract after buying our product saying you actually don't own it land. Where "it's bullshit but that's the law" is something people say. Consumer protection actually does its job there especially in France.

[@callmetravesty8762]

@@publiusii4246 I'm from EU mate. And yes the law could and should be changed but pointing out how it is *now* in regards to your original post is still commentary. Don't be an ass. P.S: I'm from the EU = I'm from the European Union. I'm from EU = I'm from Europe lol. It's not "the EU" it's just "EU" lol

[@callmetravesty8762]

@@publiusii4246 1. I'm from EU. Don't explain to me how it is. Specially when you're currently wrong. It's looking promising but nothing is moving anywhere fast yet. 2. The law could and should be changed but it doesn't change the relevance of my reply to your original post. Win on truths, not false equivalencies. 3. It's just EU. "The EU" is the European Union. Tell me you're American without telling me your American.

[@publiusii4246]

@@callmetravesty8762 yeah I think it's pretty clear I'm american. Obviously not am expert but from following Ross's journey I understand there is at least an argument that the EU law as it currently stands already makes the practice illegal. It just hasn't been tested. Take the W, compared to my country where law makers who have decided to enforce EULAs like they are laws as if it weren't bad enough corporations are people.

[@Ar1AnX1x]

this constant milktoast takes is also true about the outrage, drama and ragebait spaces of youtube too, they say the most repetitive talking points they have in their echo chambers and then act like they're the vanguard of telling the truth, they actually go against their own echo chamber a lot less than communities they make fun of

[@SpiralDownward]

milquetoast (thank you Bloodborne!)

[@Ar1AnX1x]

@@SpiralDownward brain ain't braining

[@nerdjournal]

Bro that was wild. I was reading the comment section and was just absolutely lost. Nothing anyone said had ANYTHING to do with the video. Heck, on my screen someone was talking about a point and sharing a link to a section of video 30 minutes beyond the point this video ends. Luckily I refreshed and the proper comment section pulled up. I seriously thought I had gone crazy.