Stop Killing Games

Here is an easy breakdown of how I feel about this initiative.
I cannot and will not support a vague and potentially dangerous start to this conversation.
Call out the specific business practices that need to be resolved, not just games in general.

Part 2:

Watch the stream here:

Join the community here:

#Pants #StopKillingGames #PirateSoftware

- Edited by Sunder

[PirateSoftware]

Let's do a little round up for everyone in the comments saying the same stuff.

1. "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 you now have to give out server binaries to keep the game in a playable state.
- I can now profit off your work via private servers.

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.


2. "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.


3. "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.


4. "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.


5. "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.

6. "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.


7. "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.

[HegeRoberto]

5:53 the problem was that the Crew was sold at full price even in 2023 and nobody warned buyers that the game will be unplayable in a year. That's why even German law dictates that a service needs to announce its cancellation at least 2 years prior.

[baronblitz]

I personally like how Capcom shut down megaman xdive and then released a version of the game that %100 runs offline.

[mkyprm]

The only thing you missed about The Crew Thor is that it HAD a single player campaign. They killed the whole game, not only the online part.

[Moonhwl]

These sort of arguments are why Johnny Silverhand blew up Arasaka Tower.

[miroist]

Valve solved this problem 20 years ago. All of their multiplayer games are playable offline.

[dybdal]

Isn't the idea to get the companies to give the players tools to run their own servers, when the company wants to kill their own servers?

[Denjo]

That's so weird.
Valve dropped support for 3 Counter Strike games,
but I can still boot up CS 1.6 right now and play online without any issues.
Guess Gaben IS the gaming god after all.

[glitchedsushi]

“This would destroy live service games”

Aaaand, signed

[addidaswguy]

"single player games that are online only are rare"

Not so rare anymore, not at all.

[MissTomi]

The idea that people won't host game servers if they aren't allowed to monetize them is extremely silly, there are DECADES of old games all of which are still playable and active thanks to fan hosting their own servers. The official matchmaking servers for Counter-Strike Global Offensive shut down recently after Counter-Strike 2 came out, but the game isn't rendered unplayable, you can still go and play it on community servers. This used to be the NORM!

[Spekor]

the crew was "online only" because ubisoft wants to use online DRM. there was a single player mode.

[ludothorn]

you dont have to convince me thor, i've alredy signed.

[gaminwizard]

5:12 Dude, Dataminers literally found a disabled offline-mode in the code.

[Godofdrakes]

As a player turned dev myself I'm... disappointed. It's like people don't remember that what SKG is asking for used to be the norm. To this day I can fire up a Modern Warfare 3 server (the original) and host a game with friends. It's not something I do often, but the option is there and it costs the company that made the game nothing. The new Modern Warfare 3 will become unplayable when ATVI decides its time is done.

[Phisnom]

as a casual follower ever since the beta release of Heartbound, this is extremely disappointing to watch.

while Ross's movement has its issues (understandable, the man has never claimed to have inside knowledge of the industry), completely dismissing and throwing away a pro-consumer initiative like this by explaining how live services *currently* work and how players never had ownership of their games, setting this down as an immoveable fact, misses the goal of the movement entirely. The way live service games are currently developed should NOT be the standard, that's the point.

you talk about how dangerous this movement is, how much work developers would have to do to provide post-service functionality, about how live service games may not even continue to be made because of this... but who are we kidding here? Live service games are THE most profitable form of entertainment in the history of ANY medium. Do you truly genuinely believe legislation that forces companies to create end-of-life plans for their games will keep them away from the potential constant unending billions of dollars in revenue every year that a successful lives service game provides?

you talk about providing players with the tools to create their own servers as if it's a tremendous undertaking too costly to perform, and yes, that may be true for some existing large multiplayer games that never planned for this kind of transition, but this once again shows your careless disregard for this movement as Ross has stated multiple times this is for FUTURE multiplayer titles, not existing ones. a game designed from the ground up with an existing end of life plan is not an outrageous ask, if anything, it should be the standard. A standard which will obviously be very costly to implement at first (but will still be a miniscule cost by comparison to how profitable these projects are), but will naturally be optimized as these games will CONTINUE to be developed in the future, because let's be honest, every publisher and studio wants a cut of that GAAS pie.

it *should* be the standard to develop games with online functionality that will still be in *some* playable state as long as you've purchased it. it should not be outrageous or gross to ask companies "what will happen to the game i bought in a few years, will i still be able to play it?" and have them respond with either yes or no.

and in the end that's what this is all about, it's about supporting and strengthening consumer rights, forcing companies to be responsible and accountable for the pieces of art they task their developers to create, ensuring works can be preserved instead of allowing them to be thrown into the garbage and lighting the thing on fire once it stops being profitable, because "that's just how it works right now" doesn't make it right.

why are you against this as a developer? do you simply not care what happens to the work you poured so much effort on while working under these companies? where is the passion? where is the interest in preserving art? it does not make sense to me to be against this initiative simply because "this is not how it works" as if the way it currently works is fine.

your reaction to this initiative makes you look entirely dismissive of consumers and unconcerned with games as an artform, which I can't imagine will be liked by new indie developers who look up to you and your channel for advice. I'd urge you to reconsider your stance but based on further comments after the reception of this video I don't believe you will.

I still hope you are able to weather the storm of negative comments that these types of videos usually attract and that you have a good day, thank you for at least being honest and open in your beliefs and priorities even if I thoroughly disagree with them.

[topster]

"This is bad, if this petition passes, it would damage all live service games"

Holy shit, where do I sign?

[JoeShmo]

"What's the most important aspect about any game? Well, being able to fuckin play it!"
-AVGN

[krissa]

i love how whenever presented with a bad consequence of the live service model like it being rendered uplayable, including the singleplayer campaign, the response we get is "but thats normal". Did it ever occur that it being normal is a bad thing? Maybe games being unarchivable and made to be wiped from the earth when theyre no longer profitable through predatory microtransactions or subscription services might be a bad direction for the industry to go in.

[WwZa]

"If we don't allow monetization - Who is going to pay for the hosting if the servers cannot be monetized?"

Me? On my local server running on my machine? For just me and my buddies? We had this technology 30 years ago...