Sisi sempre per quel motivo lì, ma è pieno di giochi delistati dagli store per motivi di diritti musicali, di recente c’è stata una collaborazione per rimettere in vendita Alpha Protocol che pure era stato tolto per una canzone, ne parla Raycevick in un video pubblicato di recente in cui cita anche la campagna di Ross, con interviste a sviluppatori ex Obsidian che ci avevano lavorato e produttori di GOG, parlano anche un po’ delle difficoltà di riportare negli store giochi del genere che fra diritti collaborazioni tra diverse aziende e tutto spesso è complicato riuscire a organizzare la cosa
Videogames are being destroyed! Most video games work indefinitely, but a growing number are designed to stop working as soon as publishers end support. This effectively robs customers, destroys games as an artform, and is unnecessary. Our movement seeks to pass new law in the EU to put an end to this practice. Our proposal would do the following:
Require video games sold to remain in a working state when support ends.
Require no connections to the publisher after support ends.
Not interfere with any business practices while a game is still being supported.
If you are an EU citizen, please sign the Citizens’ Initiative!
Mah ho guardato il video secondo me non è che dica chissà che verità assolute, la critica sul fatto che l’iniziativa è troppo vasta e non va bene che deve essere più specifica quando Ross ha detto fin dall’inizio che non è un esperto in materia legale e consultandosi con chi ne sa di più è stato consigliato di partire con una questione più ampia per poi focalizzarsi su i punti effettivamente critici.
Da come ne parla sembra che venga chiesto l’assassinio dei GaaS o dei multiplayer, quando il punto è far si che ai giocatori venga permesso di accedere al gioco anche dopo che il publisher smette di supportarlo ufficialmente.
-I’m afraid you’re misunderstanding several parts of our initiative. We want as many games as possible to be left in some playable state upon shutdown, not just specifically targeted ones. The Crew was just a convenient example to take action on, it represents hundreds of games that have already been destroyed in a similar manner and hundreds more “at risk” of being destroyed. We’re not looking at the advertising being the primary bad practice, but the preventable destruction of videogames themselves.
-This isn’t about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it’s primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.
-A key component is how the game is sold and conveyed to the player. Goods are generally sold as one time purchases and you can keep them indefinitely. Services are generally sold with a clearly stated expiration date. Most “Live service” games do neither of these. They are often sold as a one-time purchase with no statement whatsoever about the duration, so customers can’t make an informed decision, it’s gambling how long the game lasts. Other industries would face legal charges for operating this way. This could likely be running afoul of EU law even without the ECI, that’s being tested.
-The EU has laws on EULAs that ban unfair or one-sided terms. MANY existing game EULAs likely violate those. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA. The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely.
-We’re not making a distinction between preservation of multiplayer and single player and neither does the law. We fail to find reasons why a 4v4 arena game like Nosgoth should be destroyed permanently when it shuts down other than it being deliberately designed that way with no recourse for the customer.
-As for the reasons why I think this initiative could pass, that’s my cynicism bleeding though. I think what we’re doing is pushing a good cause that would benefit millions of people through an imperfect system where petty factors of politicians could be a large part of what determines its success or not. Democracy can be a messy process and I was acknowledging that. I’m not championing these flawed factors, but rather saying I think our odds are decent.
Finally, while your earlier comments towards me were far from civil, I don’t wish you any ill will, nor do I encourage anyone to harass you. I and others still absolutely disagree with you on the necessity of saving games, but I wanted to be clear causing you trouble is not something I nor the campaign seeks at all. Personally, I think you made your stance clear, you’re not going to change your mind, so people should stop bothering you about it."
Il problema sta in quei giochi (molto rari, ma ci sono) dove rilasciare il server non possono. Facciamo finta che hanno sviluppato una tecnologia “innovativa” che riescono a supportare 10-20k online in un singolo mondo, e questa tecnologia la usano per diversi giochi di loro proprietà. Vuol dire che se un live service chiude devono rilasciare la tecnologia a tutti? Ok, non sono obbligati a rilasciare i sorgenti, ma comunque sarebbe facile da fare inverse engineering e comunque dovrebbero darti le istruzioni su come far girare la loro tecnologia, che potrebbe essere perfino sotto NDA.
Ecco, questi tipi di giochi (come detto, rari), non verrebbero mai più sviluppati e si starebbe castrando la ricerca e sviluppo nei live service, giochi che ormai sono i più giocati.
Se mi dici il gioco ad arena FPS, senza nessun tipo di gestione di account, collegato a steamwork che non vuole rilasciare i server dedicati perchè non hanno voglia di sviluppare un server browser… allora sticazzi, ti do ragione, ma non ci sono solo questi giochi.
Onestamente mi è caduto parecchio, perché cagare il cazzo ad un’iniziativa del genere? Non mi sorprenderebbe se uno dei loro prossimi giochi casualmente dovesse essere un GAAS Non dico che sia sbagliato quello che dice, dico solo che poteva beatamente farsi i cazzi suoi.
Si anch’io l’ho letto grazie a un altro utente che l’ha riportato, non mi sembra un atteggiamento proprio onesto, che poi anche nel video si rivolge con dei modi abbastanza aggressivi, che va beh non è la fine del mondo ma unito a tutto mi sembra affrontare l’argomento abbastanza in malafede
Let’s do a little round up for everyone in the comments saying the same stuff.
“You’re a co-founder/owner of Offbrand Games and this is a conflict of interest.”
I am not a co-founder or owner of Offbrand Games nor do I gain anything of monetary or status value by pushing for liveservice games to exist.
I’m the Director of Strategy for them and a big part of my job is helping to pick which games we work with and how to best protect the developers during contract negotiations.
It’s literally the reason I wanted to get into publishing and help fix the imbalance of power between publishers and devs.
I’ve been public about wanting to do this for literal years and we had a massive announcement about me joining up.
Quite simply, no I don’t make any money for this, there is no conflict of interest, and your tinfoil hat is far too tight.
“Why shouldn’t we have the right to the server binaries so we can keep playing these games?”
Are you going to allow monetization of these servers or not?
If we don’t allow monetization - Who would be the party that enforces non-monetization of that server?
If it’s the government I feel like we’re making an insane amount of red tape.
If it’s the original company then this doesn’t work if they shut down.
If we don’t allow monetization - Who is going to pay for the hosting if the servers cannot be monetized?
If they cannot be monetized then these servers will also eventually shut down due to cost.
We don’t up preserving games like this we just shift their death down the road.
If we do allow monetization - This leads to a really weird attack potential if people can monetize the servers.
You make an awesome game that has a small community.
I want to monetize that game and run my own servers.
I create a shitload of bots and constant exploits to erode the game and your business.
Your business closes and now I can monetize your work without anyone stopping me.
This isn’t unlikely as we’ve seen mass attacks such as with TF2.
We actually see echoes of this in the mobile market already as well.
The only defense right now is DMCA or other takedown measures.
Devs legitimately have very little protections as-is and this would erode that further.
This creates an incentive for abuse where the abuser is protected as they are within their legal right to operate said “abandoned” games servers.
“He’s just a rich ego now”
I’ve been an indie dev for 8 years now and most that time I made less than Federal minimum wage.
I have just gained financial success in the last year due to the community supporting me in what I do.
Now that I make more I have poured it all back into that community, charity, and animal rescue.
If I become a millionaire then I have failed. Your attacks here make no sense.
“He’s not even offering solutions he’s just yapping”
Except I have offered a solution.
Inform the customer at point of purchase that they will be getting a license to the game.
It should never be posed as a purchase or buying the game at all. Because you aren’t.
You’re buying a license and a big part of the problem is that players don’t know what this means.
Licenses like this allow developers to ban bad actors from the service and are insanely important.
Inform the customer correctly and the grand majority of issues here fall away.
“He banned Ross and hates players.”
No I did not. Ross is not banned on this channel.
We’ve been blocking and banning people who are posting hate speech, doxxing attempts, and insane false information about me.
As of now that list is over 1,000 people just from the last three days alone.
Has some splash damage happened here? Probably. Shit happens and a deleted comment is not the end of the world.
It’s not that deep.
“It’s easy to do because the FAQ said so.”
It’s very clearly that nobody involved in writing that FAQ actually makes games.
I’ve had a 20 year career in the industry spanning from QA, Engineering, IT, and Red Team.
These demands are not “simple” problems to solve and cannot be done easily even for new games.
It’s not feasible to produce the requested content in this initiatives current form.
Demanding this and stating that all developers are wrong and greedy is actually absurd.
“This won’t even effect Live Service games read the FAQ!”
I did and the FAQ does not change the potential damage done to live service games.
Under the current initiative all games would need to be made into a playable state at end of life.
This puts a massive extra financial burden on specifically live service games while incentivizing single player ones.
Why would I spend extra money building a live service distributable server for end of life?
I wouldn’t.
I would just make single player or local play games as they cost less to produce under this scenario.
For those that say “Good” and dislike live service games, that’s not a good position.
Your personal dislike of live service games should not control developers on what they could or should make.
Nor should it limit players in their options of what kinds of games they have access to.
“He won’t even talk to Ross”
Correct. I think his position is disingenuous due to his comments about how this could be pushed through government.
It’s a bad direction, removes validity for what the initiative is trying to do, portrays the process in an incorrect manner, and just builds sensationalism.
Thinking that kind of language is ok puts him squarely on my “not worth it to talk to” list as there are others that could have a more productive conversation.
Louis Rossman and Asmongold have much better takes on this and actually try to engage about the issue in a measured way.
At the end of the day I am now and always have been a game developer.
The majority of my platform has and will continue to be advocating for teaching how this industry actually works.
This flashpoint moment is the greatest example of why players need to actually know how games are made.
Why do you think I run game jams or a discord to help you make games?
It’s so you can see that requests like this don’t make sense and gain perspective on the industry.
It stops the internet hate machine from band-wagoning against developers which always happens due to lack of perspective.
Stay frosty.
Credo abbia detto tutto. Bello vedere qualcun’altro parlarne al di fuori dei videogiocatori, ed è quello che dico da sempre. In più il problema dei ban! Già ora è difficile bannare cheaters, ma con una roba del genere diventerebbe illegale revocare la licenza ad un cheater/exoploiter e dovrebbero continuare a farlo giocare.
Pensate ad un eve online, un unico server, nessuna possibilità di un singleplayer e non può bannare un cheater/exploiter perchè la legge non lo consente… visto che usare cheat o exploit non è “illegale”, è solo contro il tos.
Questa cosa va bene solo in giochi singleplayer con un drm online only che sono andati offline per sempre. Devo essere sincero… mhm… Non ne conosco tanti
“He won’t even talk to Ross”
Correct. I think his position is disingenuous due to his comments about how this could be pushed through government.
It’s a bad direction, removes validity for what the initiative is trying to do, portrays the process in an incorrect manner, and just builds sensationalism.
Thinking that kind of language is ok puts him squarely on my “not worth it to talk to” list as there are others that could have a more productive conversation.
Louis Rossman and Asmongold have much better takes on this and actually try to engage about the issue in a measured way.
Per quanto riguarda cheating e exploit non mi pare dica da nessuna parte che sarà vietato bannare la gente durante il normale periodo di vita del gioco
Dalle FAQ sul sito
Q: does this mean publishers will have to release copies of the game to banned players for hacking or disruptive behaviour?
A: Not while the game is being supported. All our measures are focused on what becomes of the game once support ends. So if disruptive players in an online-only game become banned, but regular players may continue playing with active support, then they would not be entitled to run the game offline until support officially ended, which could be many years later
Ok, non l’avevo letto.
Quindi è ok revocare la licenza quando il gioco è ancora in vita, ma non possono farlo a fine vita?
Ah no, aspetta, lui dice di non revocare la licenza ma semplicemente di non farlo giocare online
“be entitled to run the game offline until support officially ended, which could be many years later”
Quindi un cheater avrà per sempre la licenza, ma viene bloccato nel giocare. Tranne quando il gioco finisce la vita, quindi questo cheater potrà continuare a usare cheat senza strumenti di ban. Bellissima idea!
Poi ho fatto l’esempio di eve online… che solo il database server utilizza 4TB di ram… come cavolo potrebbero rendere il giooco giocabile da tutti una volta che eve online dovesse chiudere?
Ok, se cancelli tutti i dati di tutti gli utenti probabilmente non avrai bisogno di 4tb di ram, comunque usa una architettura che non girerebbe su un computer desktop qualunque.
Si perchè pensa un po’… non tutti odiano i live service, anzi, se vai a guardare i numeri direi proprio il contrario.
Eh si, andiamo ad attaccarci a queste cavolate Asmongold ha semplicemente detto qualcosa simile a quello che ha detto lui, e visto che è un giocatore di live service anche lui ne è contro.
Si ma non direi che vengono fatti per mandare avanti lo stato dell’arte dei videogiochi, son tutti fatti per acchiappare le whale che ci spendono i fantastiliardi oltre ai 70€ d’acquisto, cioè gli sviluppatori della serie Batman Arkham son passati da fare Arkham Knight a quella merda bruciante di Suicide squad, dubito sia stata una libera scelta e non una imposizione del publisher.
Oltretutto son giochi che comunque hanno una componente single player sempre molto marcata quindi perché io che l’ho pagato e mi piace non dovrei aver la possibilità di giocarci più?
Non dico che sia sbagliato quello che dice, dico solo che poteva beatamente farsi i cazzi suoi.
