I haven’t really been following it or him (I don’t really even know much, other than the gist of not wanting games to disappear when devs decide it’s too expensive to keep the servers). What did he do? Because normally he gives pretty good takes.
I haven’t really been following it or him (I don’t really even know much, other than the gist of not wanting games to disappear when devs decide it’s too expensive to keep the servers). What did he do? Because normally he gives pretty good takes.
paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
He wildly misunderstood/misrepresented the initiative two videos in a row (and continues to ten months later), and he continually discredits the entire initiative because of contrived edge cases.
I think this paragraph from this twitter reply really sums it up:
The idea that creativity would be hampered because games would have to remain playable when the company shuts down servers one day is ridiculous. Can you imagine if we talked like this about anything else? “We can’t force every phone to use the same USB-C charging port because it would be too technically infeasible to do so and hamper creativity.” “We can’t outlaw CFCs because they’re useful chemicals and it would be technically infeasible for some products to be made without chlorofluorocarbons (the things that fucked up the ozone layer).” “My dislike of the initiative stems entirely from the wording to ‘make all cars limit their emissions’ which is not possible for some cars and could limit what kinds of cars companies make in the future.” Ridiculous.
It’s absurd that I’m not exaggerating when I say his opposition to Stop Killing Games entirely boils down to “I think companies should be allowed to take games away because it would be really hard for them to leave some games playable when they’re done supporting them 🥺”