ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- Original video: • Stop Killing Games - 2 . In response to @PirateSoftware 's follow up video on his first stop killing game coverage.
Reference of copyright law in the United States in case anyone is interested: www.copyright.gov/title17/
Sorry for some awkward cuts, too many cusses :P
····················································································
Reaction of the first stop killing game video: • Stop killing stop kill...
Subscribe to my channel for more: / @thenyunyutv
Follow me on Twitch: / nyyunyu
Follow me on Twitter: x.com/NyuNyu_tv
····················································································
For business inquires: nyunyu.tv.official@gmail.com
····················································································
Hope you enjoy the video,
Thanks!
Thank you all for the views, comments and likes. As a starting content creator, this level of engagement is very inspiring, and I deeply appreciate everyone's support.
Having read some of the comments and after rewatching the video myself, I want to clarify and apologize that my tone towards developers in larger studios might be a bit too harsh. My point was not that they can't have opinions, or their takes wouldn't be insightful. My original intent was that this initiative is a negotiation/decision process between consumers and publishing entities exclusively. A funny analogy to illustrate this point would be if a mommy and a daddy are getting a divorce and somehow the nanny gets a say in which one gets custody.
The point of me stating that in the first place was to illustrate on how Thor is absolutely gaslighting and straw manning by saying that he has the larger studio devs' support.
Hope this makes thing clear.
One thing to also point out: This is a citizen's initiative and it has a character limit and has to be vague. Then it is handed over to lawyers, lawmakers, developers and so on in the EU. Then they work out, back and forth, all the little details, then it is sent to the EU to be voted in as a law.
He's complaining about devs' side not being included in this initiative. It is a CITIZENS' initiative, not the "consumers' and devs alliance" initiative! Make your own fuckin petition! And of course by refusing to talk to Ross he guarantees there will no devs' perspective at least from him
Why is he so much in opposition? Well... this guy is about to publish an online service game. If you check wiki article for "Rivals 2" game (marketing and release section), it should now make more sense :[
Aha! Then I was almost right in my previous assumption. >_>
lol that makes sense, his opinion of game preservation was pretty hardcore biased xD like duh we wanna preserve Everything, not just the things we personally particularly like or whatever. that's kinda the point of preservation, dummy! XD
He is unironically a wretched, evil man. He shouldn't be making games, or owning anything.
the anti preservation take is insane not wanting to preserve art however limited of audience or experience is its absurd think of any other media, do we have the entire art or media from history? No we still try to preserve it, should we get rid of monuments because they are not in perfect condition of experience the same way how they were 2000 years ago?? NO we still try to preserve them lol
11:30 And what? Josh Strife Hays have like 60+ video series of "worst MMO ever" where 80% of MMO are dead. And yes, we, gamers want to preserve such games. Not Thor should decide what game is worth preservation, neither me or you. But you can ask paleontologists should we preserv cave paintings, or archivists is there a newspaper that we can remove wfrom history.
This is fair. I had VR chat in my mind when I said that. I feel like that would a pointless game to play alone. There’s definitely more nuisances to be ironed out here.
I also want to point out that his example of apex is bad too. That game could be old school multiplayer like quake. You don't need a company side server for this game. He laments the player numbers but what's stopping me from having a LAN with 19 buddies and hip into a custom lobby in 10y? In that case not the numbers but the cut support...
Why can't I make a private wow(when the petition applies) server, use GM to give myself and 9 of my friends max level and gear and run a dungeon out raid for a weekend? He is effectively denying us even the option
Notice how he said "i have 20 years experience in the game dev industry" not only is this straight up a lie, its also trying to use his "authority" as an argument
I'd like to point out that the vast vast majority of indie games(except for mobile I guess) are NOT live service or always-online. This will NOT affect the indie scene very much. The rest of indie devs that insist on LS will have the whole lifetime of the game figure it out.
Thank you for your video. I agree mostly, except for 2 of your takes.
1. People always matter. Devs, consumers or publishers. They matter and if they are in the EU, they can sign the petition or choose not to.
2. If a game with social interaction looses playerbase, it should certainly not have to die/be rendered unplayable. It will always be a work of art that the devs, not necessarily publishers, poured their heart into and by design should keep existing. Not frozen at the height of their time, that would be silly and no other aspect of life functions like that either.
All this aside, it is very important how you untangled this mess with IP vs goods/services. How Jason confuses these two is almost malicious.
2:50 Pokémon fan artist are in shambles.
7:30 My counter argument is:
1. If we are talking about game that are being bought/purchased, what does it matter if someone gets paid for hosting a server? The consumer has already bought the game i.e. the developer was paid. If we are talking about piracy of the game that would be one thing, but the discussion is around letting people who bought the game being able to play it.
2. If everyone can host a server, then people would pay for one because it provides something that other servers don't, and what is wrong with hosters getting paid for it.
8:05 This was the most absurd scenario ever. The only example he gave was TF2 and that game is only alive because everyone can host server. And these servers often have their own moderation, something Valve fails to provide. There is not source that the server hosters are the ones behind the botting and most of them are strongly in favor of getting rid of them (look at FixTF2). And yes, many servers run ad or accept donations, but they do so for things the main game doesn't provide.
8:55 I agree. If I bought the game I should be able to play it and not have the companies decide if I get to play it.
Side note: Most developer in are not in control of what happens to the game when it shutdown.
9:42 I wonder how he would feel if all these games would be permanently shut down.
9:58 I disagree, If I and my friend payed for a game, why shouldn't we be able to boot up a server and played. Of course Pirate Software will talk about F2P games in a discussion around ownership of games you've purchased. Its a trap, don't fall for it. Edit: There are people talking about F2P game preservation, but that is not about game ownership.
11:02 Wrong. If I payed for a game then I should be able to play it, even if I'm the only person who plays it, I own it and I get to decide what to do with it!
11:25 He's gone from advocating for players playing games however they like to telling players they shouldn't play games however they like.
12:23 Its not including the developer because this is consumer rights issue, not developers.
13:01 Most people agree you should be able to talk about it. They also think they should be able to criticize you.
13:44 No. If I cheat in a game I bought, why can I not play one private servers with my friends? Not many talk about it, but I believe people should be banned from official servers, not the entire game.
Thanks for commenting.
I agree with most of what you say.
Just 2 things I want to clarify: for your first point, it is not a matter of should. Legally you simply cannot do that without the permission of the current owner of the copyright. Morally you can definitely argue the individuals in the community who put in the efforts should be able to monetize but copyright law is enforced strictly, at least in the United States.
Second. for 11:02, I’m all for what you are saying, but there are certain games where this just wouldn’t make sense such as most mmo and in the extremely case VR chat where the game is to talk to other people.
If a publisher does not want to provide the game's community with servers. The publisher should not be able to shutdown community hosted servers nor should they be able to claim monetary compensation for a service they have refused to provide to the community.
@@theNyuNyuTV 11:02. It depends on every player. We think that it doesn't make sense, but someone may think the opposite. If someone wants to play WoW alone or with a few friend, then who are we to say "NO"?
The same for PUBG and Apex Legends. It's up to the existing players to find ways to gather together and play, even if they do it once a month. Even if no one is playing at the moment, there is a possibility to play. Or maybe some wierdo wants to wander through the maps? Whatever, it has to be up to a player to decide when to drop the game: for a while or forever.
11:03 No, it's complete bullshit, no one wants to replicate the game when it was at it's peak, people just want to be able to play it, regarless if theres 1 people on a match, or 100, this isn't a alien concept, also private servers can recreate that height, like wow private servers or servers for games like Battlefield that has hundreds of player on a single match, "social" games can be be left on a playable state
Neither the iniciative is asking to run games indefenitely, they're asking that thye devs should let players to continue playing that game by letting them make private servers or other way to play the game
PS is being disingenious again to gaslight people that leaving games in a playable state is impossible but it's not only possible, but its also has been done before
I see your point, but I just think universally this wouldn't make sense for every single game. The most extreme example I can think of is VR chat. It definitely would work for most games, but I think the decision needs to be on a game-by-game basis and there should be exemptions and limitations to the initiative.
@@theNyuNyuTV not possible to have exemptions simply because it goes against the preservation initiative AND publishers would abuse that loophole, say live service is exempt, then publishers would force all future games under the live service banner,
@@theNyuNyuTV in my opinion, no matter how difficult it is, every game can be revived, I'll even agree with Asmongold that the devs shouldn't do anything (only if it isn't possible), they just lost the ability to shut down any solution gamers invent to revive their favorite games
@@theNyuNyuTV even vr chat should be preserved. it's like books in a library, even if they suck, they are still worthy of preservation for various reasons, even if you'd think nobody would ever have reason to read them. we definitely can do it, fans have preserved and resurrected countless games over the years, so developers have no excuse really aside from not wanting to do it.
how to pretend to be knowledgeble and sell your customer (watcher) pure bullshit. You can left Blizzard but Blizzard never left you. Thor have decent charisma, but this both intellectualy dishonest strawmaning and company-like anti-consumer rythoric. BUT last nail in the coffin is wehen he say that he is backed by other devs but doesn't want to speak to Ross. At that point you know he has no stence. He has intrest.
The overwhelming majority of live service games are shit, they should tank. Whether people make them or not is irrelevant, but they should not be as prevalent as they currently are in the industry. The business model and how its been implemented is clearly anti consumer
i think he definitely said one thing that i agree with at the very end, which was kinda misunderstood maybe. oftentimes we've been getting sold essentially subscriptions to games, that can be revoked for any reason and at any time, including end of life, leaving us without the game we paid for. i don't think he was intentionally trying to confuse the issue with licensing or whatever, and this was what he meant.
i believe his point was that developers need to stop "selling us games" when actually they're selling us a temporary subscription to play the game, and i certainly agree. there's no problem with live service games exactly (aside from the fact we probably can't preserve them when they eventually go away, which is lame), they just need to be clear about how long we can expect the game to continue to exist once we've paid for it, and be very clear about what the end of life for that title will look like.
the crew being a prime example: if you "bought the game" 3 months and 1 day before it was shut down, you actually received a 3 month subscription, not the game you purchased. from a consumer protection standpoint, this should not happen, and these conditions should always be made beyond crystal clear to any customer.
But that's not a solution. That's an anti-solution. It gives the companies all the excuses they want. If they stop "selling games" then they are perfectly excused from doing ANYTHING that helps you. This is providing them the excuse NOT to change.
@@ViddyOJames well that's where we come in, and we stop "buying games" that are actually limited subscriptions.
they can choose to make only 100% online games that will by design disappear at their whim, as is their right, and we can choose to not support them, while asking them to make something we can actually keep.
I don't think that when he says that he "want's to talk for the developers, many of which cant because yada-yada" you can just throw a "they don't matter because their job is to make the game and they just get told what to do". If that's the case then you can just make the argument that "consumers don't matter either because they don't even make shit to begin with". Its the same logic, makes no sense.
When he says that, what he means is that he is trying to bring a point of view from the dev side. The "because if they talk they get fired" line is unnecessary, sure, even manipulative if you want, but still his main message is that he is offering another point of view. So the "they don't matter because they are not important enough" doesn't really make sense as an answer, it doesn't rebut anything.
What's important is the arguments, not from where they come.
Market is made of supply and demand. Consumers are the demand. You don’t have a market without the consumers.
Now for self publishing/indie devs, yes, they do have a say in this(I mentioned this at the end). But for the people who works in triple AAA who get gutted for idiotic directors and publishers while they make record profits. I’m sorry, you don’t take part in the business decisions related to the initiative.
Yes, it is in very bad faith for him to say that. I saw a lot of game devs came out and talked against him(check out Lets all game’s coverage on this). The point I was trying to make(perhaps too harsh on the tone and delivery) is that he’s gaslighting and straw manning with the developer crowd that isn’t being targeted by the initiative to begin with.
Consumers pay for the product. You cant argue they dont matter. "he is trying to bring a point of view from the dev side" No he doesn't, not in good faith. If he was, he'd talk to Ross to hash it out. By refusing a discussion and providing no alternatives he's ensuring his opinion will be ignored. Literally every comment on the topic I've seen from people claiming to be devs said Thor is full of it.
@@legion999 I'm not arguing that consumers don't matter, I was arguing that "devs don't matter" makes no sense either, because it's about the points being made not "this or that group being right" or "this or that group being the only ones that can bring things up".
I do think he is trying to join the conversation from the devs side. May be doing so with an unpopular opinion for the consumers, but its one and its from the devs side.
Lots of stupid takes are driven by irrational fears of things that will never happen.
All games should be required to be able to be played indefinitely he doesn’t get to decide what I can or can’t play just like his argument about those that want all live service games to die he’s contradicting himself about that he’s to biased about this if you ask me
His entire Tf2 bit of his video completely goes against his entire argument.
Tf2 is and really all Valve games are still alive to this day because of Player Hosted Servers.
Player Hosting Servers are the primary argument of the SKG initiative. And thors argument against that is idiotic.
no wonder he's a furry
PirateSoftware / Thor is unironically evil. He'd rather his games/art be destroyed than stomach the idea of someone else making money off his art. He's nothing more than a prideful, egotistical, possessive artist. He doesn't deserve a place in society (or reality), let alone in the game market.
Wow. That's a hell of a take...
@@Marmotus But it's a correct one. So-called "artists" who would rather art be destroyed than be possessed / profited off of by someone other than them aren't real artists.
They're doing it for their ego or their wallet, not to bring the audience joy.
Sure, decisions are made by the publishers, but the devs have to put those decisions into a product. So they're involved and should be heared to. Excluding people from a discussion because you don't like their points is called deffamation and is just disgusting. It's an iniviative, every voice is as important as an other.
To give an other example: Titanfall. Still had an active community and a single hacker destroyed the game for years. EA or ReSpawn should fix it, however they can't or did not care.
Also in your paradoxical argument you completly neglect smaller projects, you only consider AAA productions. Other studios do not have the ressources to defend themself. "Let them go" is just cynical.
Also funny: Thor as a cannadian? tries to speak about an EU iniciative, you as an US citizen? try to correct him, that its already managed by the US copyright law... BRO its an other f****** continent! Your laws do NOT apply here. Thats no argument.
The problem with your comment here is that most devs who have spoken on this, who aren't friends with Thor, have been in support of it. When Thor was approached by Ross (The spokesperson of Stop Killing Games) to get in a call and discuss the developer end of things, Thor turned him down and called him disgusting. Making a pointed argument about Ross' cynical approach to the political nature of his campaign while actively contradicting himself. ("We don't want lawmakers to figure out the laws, they may not understand the nuance of our industry" - "If you think lawmakers aren't paying attention to a billion dollar industry that's dangerous" Were Thor's words, I believe) No one is advocating that developers shouldn't actively be involved in this discussion outside of gross hyperbole. That said, Ross has made it clear he doesn't want games to retroactively be involved in this process if passed, it would take place some time in the future to prevent people from having to re-architect games. A point Thor also misses due to lack of proper investigation and follow-up on a subject he claims to be "his wheelhouse."
@@IDestroyStuff You're absolutely right, but you're talking about the bigger picture, while I try to point out the flaws of the specivic words used in the video here.
Phrases like the dev side does not matter are generally harmful for this debate, excluding persons which are directly involved. Attacking others and calling them dumb while also trying to apply US law to an EU initiative is just dishonest. I'm not trying to defend or attack thor in any way, I'm not siding with persons, just trying to argue properly. And the things pointed out in this video are often flawed. Ross isn't mentioned in this video at all. Nevertheless I can highly recommend his FAQ, because there the scope of this initiative is realy clear. Thats also the reason why I finally signed. But even most creators advocating for this initiative do not know what it is about and how it will shape the future. They should have watched the FAQ beforehand.
Hard disagree on live service games. They've been a cancer in the gaming market in regards to creative capital and genuine quality. I don't mind if a game has an online mode you opt into, but it should be playable offline. Constantly monetized and always online is worthless. And it's not like the initiative even seeks to kill those types of games, Thor just wants to strawman that argument. But I sure as hell won't cry over MMOs, gachas, etc. as a game type, finally dying off. They've never been good for the player, only a more lucrative money making machine for the company, while dialing back the actual quality that the end user receives.
Ubisoft killed a 10-year-old racing game, so let's use the government to shut down old school runescape.
Imagine being this entitled.
@@eugenesis8188 That isn't even close to what I said. Cry about it.
@@GamePlayuh9510 brother, you went through the entire narcissist's prayer without any input from other humans.
It's actually remarkable.
@@eugenesis8188 If you're just going to bring insults, you're no better than Thor. No challenging of the ideas, just petty name calling.
It's rather ironic to call someone else a narcissist, when you strut into the room, believe you've already won, and then sling derogatives on the way out, all without saying anything of value.
@GamePlayuh9510 You should Google the narcissist's prayer.
I'm not calling you names. I correctly identified a thought process that can be used to justify anything. There's no way to argue against somebody who thinks you deserve the bad thing they're trying to do to you.
Saying that the devs who will have to foot the costs of implementing the initiative don't matter is really, genuinely, awful. Saying that those people don't matter is probably the best way to alienate people.
And it will be devs, not publishers, doing the legwork.
This is a sentiment not an argument. Publishers and business people make those decisions that fk with the consumer. Developers didn’t make those decisions. And it goes both ways. The outcome of this initiative wouldn’t have mattered to the devs either except the indie ones.
Yeah. It doesn't mean devs will spend more, it means devs will be paid more. Or hired longer. Or both.
@@theNyuNyuTV I did not state that it was an argument. I stated that you had an incredibly toxic take on the realities of the industry.
Publishers don't make design decisions, or tooling decisions. They might make artistic or directorial decisions, but they're not telling the Dev's "You must use AWS, kubernetes and docker containers to make the game dynamically scalable". Because the publisher really, really does not give a *shit* about exactly how the game is architected. They just want the game to make them a billion dollars.
Saying that it would only affect indie dev's is also a really problematic statement, because that quite possibly means that we get less online indie games, which have been some of the best games made over the past ten years.
What's worse: I agree with the initiative on there being a consumer rights problem with games breaking after support ends. I agree that customer rights in regards to software are problematic. They've been problematic for going on 30 years now (in the US specifically, I am referring to the DMCA, which I am sure you're familar with, as a guy posting youtube videos. Is an awful piece of legislation).
@@uis246 That is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.
Game devs tend to be paid fairly poorly. Particularly in comparison to other software production jobs.
They also deal with rather tight deadlines. I'm sure you remember the outrage-bait over CDPR's insane crunch during Cyberpunk 2077's development. 6-day work weeks, 12+ hour days. If you think publishers are going to pay more because requirements change, you're actively deluding yourself about an industry you aren't working in.
And this is in Poland, which is part of the EU. Which supposedly has good worker protection laws.
1. Design/tooling decisions are derivative of directional decisions. If you are getting told to make a game work at end of life, you'll do just that. This is about consumers vs businesses, period. You can get as emotional as you want, nobody is going to care.
2. Accusing what I said as problematic by restating what I said? Also, I hope you know how burden of proof works. As far as I see, indies game that gained massive popularity are very much so NOT online. Examples: shovel knight, the stanley parable, vampire survivors, holocube, get over it, only up, undertale, superhot, cuphead, inside. I hope you don't plan to argue with minecraft with it literally built around community hosted servers.
3. This is where I stopped taking you seriously. If you know US copyright law at all, you know DMCA is nothing but provisional changes and scope redefinition of the original Copyright Act of 1976. And the fact you use it as an example of anti-consumerism is laughable. DMCA of 1998 created something called safe harbors which allow copyright owners to send take down notices without going through litigation. It is designed to shield online services like, as you said, a TH-camr from monetary liability and limits other forms of liability for copyright infringement. The only problem there is with DMCA is people's ignorance of it and how copyright owners ILLEGALLY abuse it by striking fair use which is also well defined in the copyright law. Without DMCA, any company can shut down and silence anyone with criticism by drowning and finically crippling them with lawsuits.