Its not from selfish reasons I dont wish to. I'm not saying I am not signing out of spite or apathy.
If I felt the conclusion of forcing them to was all gain and no loss I would.
As I dont think his blanket statement of "purposely ending the life of it to sell you more" is globally true like he implies all through the video. Tons of my old games dont have MP anymore because the company is no more. It wasnt greed, it was lack of funding.
1. And if a company knows it has to pay for servers, or be sued for breach (not keeping servers up for preagreed time). And its losing money, someone..somewhere, is getting fired so can pay it and stay afloat. And this is not all cases I admit and know, the big AAA one are doing fine either way. But I dont wish to contribute to the gamble at those other smaller ones not doing fine, people get fired so the obligation to keep servers so we can have fun on them.
2. And if #1 isn't the after effect. The idea of "Make them spend money they dont want to" really equals "They ultimately in the end make us spend it". the Big AAA knows if they want to shut down a server for a cost losing game, and cannot. The next one they make will make sure, that the cost loss is covered by us.
---
For the option to take it back to P2P self hosted, only works for game structured around it. Some games work on the mechanic that everyone is in the same service, and matchmaking/teaming/quick queue depends on it. So online is the only option for those gamestyles.
Even for P2P games, like the ones on now defunct gamespy network, some was on it because they was smaller, and could not afford to host self hosted server list (even if only a p2p list of games). Someone needs to list all the self hosts servers, on a server somewhere for you to find and join them. If they was forced to do inhouse, that game wouldnt have had MP at all.
I guess in summary, this idea of making them guarantee online services for X years, has a chance to fuck the smaller devs if the game doesn't profit enough to support server rental payments for X years, while AAA companies will find a way to shuffle the cost off to you. And I dont like either of those solutions.
I'm not arguing against those that wants it. I'm merely stating my opinion on why I dont feel right signing it.
Thinking on it, I know how to articulate my issue with the petition.
Its just pointing out a problem, with no further thought into how it can/should be fixed. Its a document just stating: here is a problem, sign if you think it is so companies fix it.
Ok. But you are leaving it up to them, on how to fix it. So rest assured they will fix it so it's more benefitable to them, than us in the long run.
And all the vague back of napkin solutions have equal, but different problems.
Games like fortnite:
Spoiler:
- P2P fail over won't work. Unless you just want to play with only friends you invite. Lets say it just has a P2P server list to fix that problem. Someone needs to host that list. Who will? Dedicated users? We are back to where we was, relying on people that have no obligations to keep the server list running.
- Use the way steam does it, with steam server list hosting. Steams will always be around? People thought that of GameSpy Network. And you are back to square one. Relying on people that have no obligations to keep the server list running.
And a new problem: Platform locked.
- Require them to give a timeline of life of service? They will over compensate for costs as they cannot predict the future. And cut/remove/reduce production costs/quality to keep a bottom line that accounts for worst case X+ years of server uptime requirements.
- 1/2 a dozen other open ended problems/situations that can arise from the lack of framework of proposed fixes.
So my problem isn't the petition, its the lack of thought out proposals of limited choice actual feasible solutions to the problem.
Leaving that up to governments, and the AAA companies, will surely be a worse place than we are now: We got a solution and got what we wanted. But at what cost since we gave the power to decide how, to those who interests of not doing it benefit them.
So to me the question is:
"Will you sign this saying it needs fixed, and we let govt and AAA titles work out how to?"
"No, propose solutions they need to follow and I will decide if I agree with them. Right now there is no actual solutions suggested for me to agree are fair."
Thinking on it, I know how to articulate my issue with the petition.
Its just pointing out a problem, with no further thought into how it can/should be fixed.
So basically -
Civilian: Officer, that shop owner took my item after I paid for it and walked out of the shop.
Cop: So? What do you plan to do about?
The solution, for the future, is simple - If you plan to make a "live service" game where the purchaser is REQUIRED to connect to a publisher's server to play the game, you develop the back-end in such a way that, upon the server no longer being available, the game and content sold can still be accessed and played by the purchaser. if needed, release server hosting tools , or a SP conversion patch.
This should be a legal requirement for all "Live Service" games where the user is expected to purchase either the game itself, or content for that game.
Publishers don't like it? Then stop with the scammy live service bullshit.
Failing that, they should be required to list, in big red fucking letters at the top of the store page and/or box - "THIS GAME MAY CEASE TO FUNCTION ON X DATE, OR THEREAFTER." Hold them legally responsible to supporting the game till a minimum of that date - and make them look like the thieves they are for everyone to see.
I can never be free, because the shackles I wear can't be touched or be seen.
i9-9900k, MSI MPG-Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon, 32GB DDR4 @ 3000, eVGA GTX 1080 DT, Samsung 970 EVO Plus nVME 1TB
Failing that, they should be required to list, in big red fucking letters at the top of the store page and/or box - "THIS GAME MAY CEASE TO FUNCTION ON X DATE, OR THEREAFTER." Hold them legally responsible to supporting the game till a minimum of that date - and make them look like the thieves they are for everyone to see.
Can you imagine what would happen in the matter of a bankruptcy, merger or God knows what else (an Act of God?) occurring there. Idk about courts overseas, but it'll be void, ignored, or tied up in courts for years in the US.
My issue isnt "upon the server no longer being available, the game and content sold can still be accessed and played by the purchaser. if needed, release server hosting tools , or a SP conversion patch."
My issue is the follow up to that the petition leaves open ended, for the people we are petition to decide freely to do:
How so? What are the demands of restrictions of that? Do they have free reign on decisions of how and when to do that? Since releasing hosting tools clears them from needing to host servers. They can just drop their hosting 1 day after meeting sales expectations of games? Who knows! we didnt clarify that.
Or just going "OK SP it is!" solves the requirements: welcome to Fortnite, with no one else to play with, no any sort of MP to speak of...we did as you asked".
So it's that the petition is leaving it in the hands of the dev to work out how that works. And I can say with confidence they will do it in a way that the need to do that, is pushed off on the costumer to fund in one way or the other.
The petition needs to be thought out more with clear guidelines of acceptable propositions they stick to requiring to be done. Before I would sign "I wish to let corporations decide how to fix a problem they dont want to fix"
It a poorly thought out, opened ended petition with no propositions of solutions. It needs to be refined, clarified, and workshopped to demands of satisfaction and not just: "Make games playable..by some means (we dont detail how any specific ones would work and be acceptable), that we leave up to you shitty devs to decide"
Last edited by |DXWarlock on Mon, 22nd Apr 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
Failing that, they should be required to list, in big red fucking letters at the top of the store page and/or box - "THIS GAME MAY CEASE TO FUNCTION ON X DATE, OR THEREAFTER." Hold them legally responsible to supporting the game till a minimum of that date - and make them look like the thieves they are for everyone to see.
Can you imagine what would happen in the matter of a bankruptcy, merger or God knows what else (an Act of God?) occurring there. Idk about courts overseas, but it'll be void, ignored, or tied up in courts for years in the US.
Well, it will cause publishers to stop and have a real hard think about the trash they are releasing. After all, who'd want to put a 5 year support date on a game they know is complete trash and nobody will be playing in a year? So they put it out with a 2 year support date instead - then everybody that's considering buying it knows well ahead of time what a shit show they are in-store for and have only themselves to blame if they buy it.
Way past time someone hold these shameless fucking suits accountable for their fucking bullshit with regards to their products and treatment of the playerbase. It's not just Ubisoft - Blizzard, EA, the lot of these fucks have no accountability.
|DXWarlock wrote:
Or just going "OK SP it is!" solves the requirements: welcome to Fortnite, with no one else to play with, no any sort of MP to speak of...we did as you asked".
I think it's more or less a given that competitive multiplayer focused games (Battlefield, Fortnight, COD), or pure MMO's, that obviously it wouldn't apply to that part (SP campaign should still be accessible). But again, if support is ending officially there's no drawback to releasing self-hosting server tools.
I can never be free, because the shackles I wear can't be touched or be seen.
i9-9900k, MSI MPG-Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon, 32GB DDR4 @ 3000, eVGA GTX 1080 DT, Samsung 970 EVO Plus nVME 1TB
Idea of petition: Good
Execution of petition in any reasonably logical "here is our demands" way: Horrible.
As it has no demands, its just lists a problem and leaving it up to everyone BUT the consumer on how it should be fixed..not one demand of "process of workable solutions" in it.
It feels like a "Stop drilling for Oil" petition. No alternate solutions of what it should be replaced or moved towards, proposals for process of how to. Just a demand: "I dont like Oil, so stop..thx"
Immunity wrote:
I think it's more or less a given that competitive multiplayer focused games (Battlefield, Fortnight, COD), or pure MMO's, that obviously it wouldn't apply to that part (SP campaign should still be accessible). But again, if support is ending officially there's no drawback to releasing self-hosting server tools.
Is it a given? is it not? Thats my problem, and why I wont sign. Because I wont sign a thing I dont know what it effects, how, or what it even covers...
We are assuming what ANY of the rules are, and what any of the expectations are. Because it doesnt outline any. Maybe thats the games I would want fixed, to find out "No no, we talked about it after you signed, they are not covered".
Why? Because it was all workshopped out WTF it even covers AFTER it was made.
Just wants me to blindly sign because "No signing = anti consumer, and you dont want to be anti consumer do you?? So sign!"
Signed. I'm surprised it's at 180k~ signatures already, though I still doubt it'll get to a million.
It's possible I guess if some more big influencers jump on board.
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
uuh that's the guy who essentially started and is leading this effort
makes great youtube videos about obscure video games (ross's game dungeon), as well as freeman's mind, a pretty popular halflife series.
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
Yeah probably won't because of too many people having that attitude like you
1 mil signatures would be a breeze otherwise
The EU is also responsible for loot box percentage chances having to be shown for example, so it's not without precedent to have the EU pass laws regarding gaming.
In the end nobody knows unless it's attempted, so why not at least try and see
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
Last edited by Surray on Tue, 6th Aug 2024 10:44; edited 1 time in total
But yeah should have known better than to start a "discussion" in this shitty place where all anyone can do nowadays is shit on and make fun of everything. I'm out. Goodbye.
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
But yeah should have known better than to start a "discussion" in this shitty place where all anyone can do nowadays is shit on and make fun of everything. I'm out. Goodbye.
Whether its progress is debatable. % can be faked, like Maple story. Likely some of these gacha companies mess with droprates based on player behavior in some way or fashion.
Anyway, paying 100 Euro for a tiny chance at getting what you want and all EU could do was to force them to show their "droprates". Yeah, i'm not really confident in any big changes.
Sadly being outside the EU i can't sign. I'd just do it of course if i could
OMFG! This is blowing up, responding to the disinformation disseminated by that PirateSoftware asshole is causing a second wind. Come on euro brothers support the initiative.
That Pirate Software guy always did come across as the typical uppity "I know more than you, and this is why" dickhead in most his videos. Nice to see I'm not the only one that got that vibe.
I can never be free, because the shackles I wear can't be touched or be seen.
i9-9900k, MSI MPG-Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon, 32GB DDR4 @ 3000, eVGA GTX 1080 DT, Samsung 970 EVO Plus nVME 1TB
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum