The end of Stop Killing Games [Accursed Farms]

The EU Citizens petition to stop killing games is not looking good. It's shy of halfway where it needs to be, on a very high threshold, and it's over in a month and change.
paraphrasing a little more than a half hour of the video: "Man, fuck Thor/Pirate Software for either lying or misunderstanding and signal boosting his incorrect interpretation of the campaign."
The past year has been quite draining on Ross, so he's done campaigning after next month.
It will still take a few years for the dust to clear at various consumer protection bureaus in 5 different countries, and the UK's seems to be run by old men who don't understand what's going on.
At least The Crew 2 and Motorfest will get offline modes as a consolation prize?

Games @sh.itjust.works

Accursed Farms

The end of Stop Killing Games - The Final Update.

50 1

You're viewing a single thread.

78 comments

I am still of the opinion that they aimed too small and focused too narrow. Games are a "luxury" anyone can live without and it's hard to rally grassroots support behind protecting something that people only use for entertainment. Yeah it's low stakes to force them to let you continue to play it after servers shut down but the same low stakes also makes the petition itself pretty ignorable to anyone who's not a very invested "gamer".
Actual right to repair and right to continue to access to the software and services and devices you buy goes SO far beyond mere games, there are other huge impacts to society from exactly the same problem that leads to game servers being shut down, and this petition ignored them completely to focus exclusively on games. I know that was done purposefully, but I think it was a miscalculation.
I'm convinced it could have got a lot of support if it had broader aims. Yes if you go after the big boys who are locking down tractor parts and integrated electronic modules so they become obsolete and unrepairable and directly impacting farmers and our food supply, you're going to REALLY piss off some very big business interests who are going to try and kill your petition, but you're also going to help educate and hopefully get a lot of support from politicians who already know this is a problem and from the general public who doesn't care about games but does care about society (at least once they're properly educated about it, which is hard but also a necessary and positive step to even attempt).
- Games are a luxury that happen to be the biggest market of the entertainment industry with more revenue than music and movies combined.
- that was sort of the point though. a big case with a narrow focus can later be used as a fulcrum for a wider scope, given that the original case has the right spin. it's also easier than going after the anti-repair people.
  
  But politicians will actually be prepared to get behind right to repair. But they regard games as a bit infantile, and don't really want to be involved. A point that was made right at the start of all of this and was then completely ignored.
  
  that's an assumption. for all we know they would have connected the two, or seen one as harmless and implemented it, or lobbied against both.
  
  People are already talking about to right to repair, so why not take advantage of that, why make life more difficult for yourself than it needs to be?
  
  because to most people software is not a thing that can be repaired.
  
  So how is that different?
  I don't understand, the arguement is whether or not they should have equated this to the right to repair movement, and then you say you think that's a bad idea but I don't understand your justification. Your justification seems to be that people don't care about software, but my if they do not care about software, then they also do not care about hardware, and therefore your comment is irrelevant.
  I literally don't understand your justification for not equating game preservation to right to repair.
  
  i was on mobile so i was keeping it terse. let's see if i can expand a bit now that i'm at a keyboard.
  the right to repair movement is fighting companies that deliberately make it harder to fix things, so that customers will have to use company services to repair their stuff, or buy new stuff. john deere and apple are two big players here, with cryptographical signatures built into parts that void the warranty if they don't match. this is actively adversarial behavior and should plainly be illegal. skg, on the other hand, is fighting companies that just leave their stuff to rot. they're just neglecting their product once there is no profit in it, which you can't really say about e.g. john deere; they are obligated by law to provide parts for the things they sell for x amount of years after they no longer sell the product itself.
  so, the two are in different legal frameworks: right to repair is trying to stop capture of the spare parts market, while skg is fighting for there to even be a spare parts market. and that's where my previous point comes in: while machines are inherently understood to be repairable (because they used to be) and the fact that companies are trying to clamp down on that is plainly obvious, software has never been generally understood to be changeable by the end user. it has always been an enthusiast/professional-only thing.
  so, equating the two may harm either
  a) rtr, because of the assumption that only people with the correct credentials should have access to repair parts,
  b) skg, because of the assumption that they want companies to provide support for things for up to several years like in the parts market, or
  c) both, because of the assumption that they want the same thing, which, if implemented, would make neither side happy.
  i'm not 100% sure i'm making sense here, because on some level i do think they share similarities. of course they do. but how do you present that to a group of amateurs (legislators) in a coherent way? i don't think you can without harming either cause.
- It was a shitshow start to finish.
  First and foremost: it is an inherently adversarial "movement" name which actively shifts the blame toward developers. One of my gaming buddies was a community manager for one of the studios that got gutted over the past year or so (gotta "love" how that doesn't narrow it down at all) and he definitely had some Thoughts about getting constant social media spam about how they are "killing games" by not releasing offline versions of old games as they were doing layoffs on the regular.
  There is a reason the only dev/"dev" who gave any meaningful feedback was thor the shithead. And while it may suck that he didn't have the same opinion as the people accusing devs of killing the games they spent the better part of a decade on... Yeah, pirate software is a dipshit who was just trying to put himself as a position of authority because his dad worked at Blizzard.
  But most of the key points he raised were sensationalized but not actually wrong if you look at things from a developer perspective. Well, from the perspective of a developer who expects to get fired any second now because funding will arbitrarily dry up. Yeah, the end result will TOTALLY be that you get an extra six months of salary to make the offline client and not that you'll be held in breach of contract and lose your severance because you couldn't pound that out in a week.
  But even without starting things off at "its just about ethics in game journalism" levels of discourse: Yes, yes, yes, I know that Ross et al intentionally were vague and shut the fuck up. If you push "We need legislature on X" to a governing body without an actionable plan? Schoolhouse Rock doesn't start blaring and Aaron Sorkin doesn't... okay, he still gets a boner but for different reasons. What happens is the lobbyists and Jack Thompsons of the world swoop in and make damned sure that those "details get ironed out" the way they want.
  It sucks because treating this as part of a larger effort that included actual Game Preservation efforts and worked with policy groups and developers would actually have been awesome AND gotten widespread support even from the studios themselves. Instead it was a flashy campaign that started off by flipping the bird to people getting fired left and right and reveled in its ignorance of how legislature even works. And then managed to get dragged into a slapfight with some jackass who plays wow and sells mobile games.
  It was overly narrow in most cases while positioning itself as speaking for some massive swathe of the industry it was actively antagonizing.
  
  Well, from the perspective of a developer who expects to get fired any second now because funding will arbitrarily dry up. Yeah, the end result will TOTALLY be that you get an extra six months of salary to make the offline client and not that you'll be held in breach of contract and lose your severance because you couldn't pound that out in a week.
  This is like saying:
  "You shouldn't ask for more rights, otherwise I will have to work in the gulags for longer."
  
  But most of the key points he raised were sensationalized but not actually wrong if you look at things from a developer perspective.
  they were also not really relevant to the campaign, which was the biggest problem with his comments. there was no expectation that studios do extra work to keep servers up, or make offline clients. the expected legislation was to have publishers allow external use of the relevant source code of the product when the publisher deems the work no longer profitable, to spare people the effort of reverse-engineering protocols and building their own servers. a knock-on effect of that would be that future services would have to be built with eventual shutdown procedures in mind, which, let's face it, they should already have been doing.
  thor was saying "this isn't feasible because it's a bunch of extra work for the developers", completely missing the point that this is not on the developers. it's on the company sitting on the IP. they can publish source trees no problem, no developer involvement necessary. and the legislation would have made sure of that fact.
  
  There is a reason that there are regularly listicles about "top 1000 horrifically angry comments on github" and the like. And that goes up even more when you are working on a closed source product and have been up and pounding through tickets for 26 hours straight.
  Not to mention proprietary or re-used code. Like... I think Call of Duty is STILL technically the quake 3 engine if you go deep enough into the source code? And while Q3a (presumably licensed at some point since it is GPL from a google) is open source, there is going to be a lot of code in there that isn't. It is very common to use other libraries and suddenly needing to open source your account management system because one of your games is dead in the water is a huge problem. ESPECIALLY if the goal is so that "fans" can... reverse engineer it to build their own servers (and nobody would EVER profit from one of those...).
  And then you just have the kind of "spirit of the law" shit that Apple et al love to abuse. Is that game fundamentally unplayable "offline" because it did REALLY cool stuff with sharding so that players can drop in and out of a game seamlessly? Or is it a bunch of phone homes for every single achievement for a fully SP game? Because that would NEVER happen.
  thor was saying “this isn’t feasible because it’s a bunch of extra work for the developers”, completely missing the point that this is not on the developers. it’s on the company sitting on the IP.
  Which can be the difference between "Okay, we'll give you two months to get this shit popular again" versus "Well, it is going to cost X engineering hours to clean up the source so we are just gonna kill it now and get on that. Oh, and if the source isn't cleaned up within, let's say, one month, that is a breach of contract and none of your team gets severance"
  The other aspect this tends to ignore is the use of proprietary software libraries and even having expert consultants come out. My understanding is nVidia have mostly stopped doing it (for gaming) but for decades they would fly out a solution engineer or five to look at the game, help optimize the graphics and physics pipelines, and even document what needs to be added to the drivers on release.
  Not all of those contractors who have ever touched the code are going to be okay with it being released. Since this would be the equivalent of having potentially entire mega companies worth of software libraries and the like change their license overnight.
  
  and that's what the regulation is for. to get them to plan ahead.
  
  Wow, somebody didn't watch the video.
  
  There was plenty of off-the-record talk from devs who wanted something to show for the years they put into a project that was shut down in less time than it took to make the game in the first place.
  
  And that always comes up because it is the truth. It is the same problem as "Well, you worked yourself to death for the past five years but decided you needed to take time off for mental health reasons. Unfortunately, we don't launch until six months from now so go fuck yourself. Hey, send in Fred on your way out so we can tell him he needs to work 90 hour weeks for the next six months but won't have been here long enough to get in the credits".
  You know what doesn't get that? Being told you need to architect your game, from the start, to use listen servers while also being unhackable and controlling all progression in the data center AND scaling near infinitely with no host migration issues (oh Warframe...). Or to know that if things even look slightly bad you will have no runway to fix it and will immediately be told to wrap it up and release the "offline mode" in the next month.
  
  People can (and shouldn't) be nasty about anything. Part of a community manager's responsibility would be to convey what customers are asking for, and...yeah, games should have listen servers and offline modes and do what they can to prevent cheating. Those are all things that some segment of their customers or potential customers care about. And at the same time, plenty of devs want to make their games live forever but don't have the ability to make it so. It's not inherently adversarial, nor does it inherently shift blame toward developers. We all know why we don't have these things: microtransactions. The people mandating those are the ones with a profit share incentive, which aren't typically the boots on the ground actually building the game.
  
  No. But "stop killing games" is an inherently adversarial statement. Hell, even a lot of PUBLISHERS would rather keep their games running forever. Let alone the devs who have put their blood, sweat, and tears into it.
  People can (and shouldn’t) be nasty about anything. Part of a community manager’s responsibility would be to convey what customers are asking for, and…yeah, games should have listen servers and offline modes and do what they can to prevent cheating.
  And here we get to the crux of things. And the good news is that we already fucking went through all of this.
  "Nobody should have to put up with harassment. But, really, it is your job to deal with that and we have our demands. So give me what I want and this all goes away". Am I talking about "Stop killing games and give us an offline server for your MMO" or am I talking about "Fire that bitch and stop talking about woke games because I care about ethics in games journalism"?
  And we saw the exact same responses from the dev side (and the smarter/older influencers). Either completely ignoring it because they don't want to get doxxed or "Yeah... there are parts of that I really like. But I don't know enough to really comment too much. Anyway, back to talking about the new Silent Hill game".
  
  Hell, even a lot of PUBLISHERS would rather keep their games running forever.
  This is such a shit take that publishers want games running forever. The whole reason they get shut down is because they don't make a profit and if something that's not earning them money might as well be something that's going to take gamers away from their new game. So they'll of course shut it down. It's in their incentive.
  Your arguments seem very disingenuous.
  
  Harassment is not an inherent part of Stop Killing Games. If publishers (or really, whoever the financiers are for a given game) wanted their game to live forever, they had the power at the start and opted not to.
  
  Yet again, your response was "if they didn't want to get harassed by the people who totally aren't with us, they shouldn't have crossed us"
  Yet again, we lived through all this shit with gamergate.
  
  "stop stabbing me"
  "Oh, you are very adversarial! How dare you ask me to stop stabbing you? This is how I make my money!"
  
  Neither time was that my response. I have asked developers via social media for LAN or listen servers or offline modes, and I've never been nasty about it. Being doxxed or getting hate campaigns is not okay. Customers asking for features for a video game that are important to them are not harassment, and listening to requests for those features is part of the job. If everyone at a company wanted their game to live forever, from the bottom all the way to the top, and it didn't launch with an offline mode, then I don't believe they wanted it to live forever; it simply didn't make their list of priorities.

78 comments