[ANSWERED] What's going on with some person seemingly called "PirateSoftware" and the stop killing games campaign?
[ANSWERED] What's going on with some person seemingly called "PirateSoftware" and the stop killing games campaign?
Saw people talking in comments at several places now, expressing animosity towards them to say the least, always presented as something that everyone seems to know about.
You're viewing a single thread.
He's a youtuber who is a known game dev.
And he's pointed out the obvious issue that you can't just demand companies keep servers up and running, if you legally mandate servers can't be turned off then companies would stop releasing online games because that's stupid.
It often costs millions of dollars a year to keep servers up and running. If they are causing the company to lose money, then yeah obviously they're gonna turn em off.
Only naive, entitled gamers would demand such a wild thing. It's not going to get past any courts
Only naive, entitled gamers would demand such a wild thing. It's not going to get past any courts
Which is why the SKG campaign is specifically not demanding that. Pirate Software has misrepresented the stance of the SKG campaign consistently in his videos. Seriously.
I read the proposal.
As a software developer, yes you are 100% asking that, up to the limit of "within feasability"
And guess what, 100% of the time the answer will just be "no, its not feasible, fuck off" by every publisher ever, so its a total waste of time.
There's no feasible/safe/secure way to hand off your entire application stack for people to run locally, you just have to get over it. The publisher isn't going to give you any kind of access to even an old copy of their auth servers, and basically every "phone home" video game ever uses an auth server, so you are already dead on arrival with this sort of requirement.
There's no way to decouple off from the auth server when the entire online functionality is deep rooted in the concept of you having an account to auth with.
I'm a software developer too, funny that.
I have also read the proposal. They ask that if it is not feasible, that publishers put an expiration date on their products, to clarify that the "game purchase" is actually the purchase of a limited-time license that is not guaranteed to continue working. The current practices are deceptive.
So firstly, that's extremely easy to achieve, no more onerous than a decent warranty (or even a disclaimer that there is no warranty and it's never guaranteed to work), but also, there are third party hosting companies that game publishers could hand off hosting duties to without open-sourcing, creating a final "single player only" patch, or otherwise creating a gentler off-ramp to allow the community to continue to maintain games on their own dime.
Lol, maybe learn about the movement, dork. This is absolutely not what's being demanded.
I am very aware of it, and I've read the proposal.
This is absolutely not what’s being demanded.
It is 100% what is being demanded, the proposal says:
This practice deprives European citizens of their property by making it so that they lose access to their product an indeterminate/arbitrary amount of time after the point of sale. We wish to see this remedied, at the core of this Initiative.
The ONLY way to do this is everything aformentioned. It's indirect in how it's asking for it, but in real life practice the only way the proposal actually gets what it wants, is by either:
A: Demanding (foolishly) that the game devs keep the servers up and running (not happening, get over it)
B: Demanding (even more foolishly) that the game devs release a copy of all the necessary backend technology for self hosting, which you can't demand because it's proprietary and some of it may still be in use, so it's a security and business risk to expose that sort of stuff, so no business will ever be able to feasibly do that.
Sorry but no, it's a foolish demand.
Oh, you're a complete idiot. That explains a lot...
"Known game dev."
His "game" has been in limbo for what, a decade? And he "worked" at blizzard because of his daddy.
Dude doesn't know shit.
I worked with him both directly and tangentially at Blizzard for a few years, and with his dad for longer. He's the real deal, and has a real level head about the industry.
If you disagree with his point, say that instead of using this type of attack on his person. That's just rude.
Yeah and my uncle works at Nintendo.
Not sure what your uncle has to do with it. Be the change you want to see in the world my dude 😎
[Citation Needed]
I worked with him directly and he's not the real deal. I can make up and just say what I want online too.
That's kind of the biggest problem with this whole ordeal. The people who are talking about it aren't capable of reading the petition, the petition isn't asking for that. Same problem we have with near every controversy.
Thankyou for giving a perfect example as to why we hate pirate software. Because of his bullshit, this is what you think the Stop Killing Games movement is about.
Maybe try to not get your opinions on such things from narcissistic youtubers.
It skirts around the issue in its wording, but the proposal in actual real life practice is, indeed, effectively demanding this.
The proposal doesn't actually supply any specific solutions to the problem, it's just stomping its feet and throwing a tantrum about the problem, but literally doesn't actually give a real solution.
"Waaah, I don't like it when they do x"
"Okay well, what alternative do you propose?"
"I dunno, I just don't want them to do that cuz I don't like it"
Sorry mate but you have to actually genuinely be able to describe a practical solution to the problem if you wanna make any headway. Otherwise it's just gonna get tossed out as pointless.
Or...
If you indeed try and push something like this through, game devs will just go "okay fuck it, you don't get anything at all then because you demanded something functionally impossible from us, byeeeee" and congrats now you killed your local game dev industry, good job :)