where PirateSoftware is coming from
see, I’m afraid it’s simply down to money.
so I’m not convinced it would be all that productive to talk to ross.
he made the assertion, without evidence, that the petition would kill live service games, and then based everything else on that flawed premise.
it has been explained to him that this is not the case, multiple times over.
he, as an ex blizzard employee amd avid WoW player, should know exactly just how popular private servers for WoW are (used to be? haven’t played in about 10 years, but used to play a lot on warmane myself).
that makes his takes especially weird, since that’s a perfect example of how game preservation for live service games could look like! (although I’m sure corporate was ‘not amused’ by those servers at all…)
this implies to me, that his motives are not at all honorable.
the most likely explanation, which is entirely speculation on my part, is simply fear of missing out on profits, if he ever gets his game out.
or that creating his game is going to take so long (cause he spends all his time streaming instead of working on his game), that he’ll basically have to start over, since by that point he probably will have to comply with the new regulations, eating into his profits.
imho: doesn’t really matter what his motivations are, because his opinions are harmful to everyone enjoying games, period. and that, weirdly enough, includes himself!
so I’m not very optimistic on this point, but i would like to be wrong!
at least that would most likely be, because there’s a more interesting explanation…
And honestly, that makes me want to watch those other streamers less.
I’m the same!
drama turns me off content creators, not the other way around…
(i only know about the drama, because so much has been showing up in the recommendations under the videos i do watch…i have watched exactly none of the drama/reaction videos)
the problem with the streamer/yt drama machine i have specifically, is that all the creators that jumped on that particular wagon were dead silent on the initiative in the first place.
and that’s the real tragedy: a whole group of people, whose livelihoods, even if they don’t necessarily depend on games, are very much enhanced by them a LOT, did fuckall to support the initiative. nothing.
…until they saw an opportunity to profit off the drama!
THAT’S what gets me!
these are all people that are supposedly (and i really do believe largely honestly) passionate about games!
…until it might eat into their profits to share something that would benefit them AND their audience.
the utter lack of solidarity is what really turns me off about these people…
(well…in addition to everything else about streamers… I don’t like streamers very much in general…never understood the appeal…)
It doesn’t need YTers to create a bunch of drama about it.
yeah, but this point is an issue with the outrage-based economy of online content, not this particular case…
sucks in it’s entirety, but until we manage to decouple content from ad revenue we’re stuck with it.
only solution i see is to declare the internet a utility (which it obviously IS, but try telling that to the money people…)
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
But what’s his profit motive? He makes mediocre indie games and did some undefined work (probably publicity) at an indie publisher. I don’t see any material change to him financially whichever way the petition goes. He’s kinda popular, but far from a big influencer.
That argument doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.
This doesn’t make much sense. The obligations only kick in once the game gets shut down, so either he makes so much that it doesn’t matter (can keep running the servers for a long time) or it doesn’t sell well and he just releases server binaries and cuts his losses. Even in the worst case (his misunderstanding), releasing server sources isn’t an issue for a failed game, and a small cost to pay for a very lucrative one.
I think he’s just an opinionated guy who sticks with his initial impression, even if it’s wrong, and will oppose anything that sounds inconvenient for game devs (what he sees himself as). That’s sadly really common, people seem to love jumping to conclusions and only really dig in if the easy assumption negatively impacts them.
Exactly! But honestly, that should be expected because their entire job is to get views.
The only one I kinda like on this subject is Gamers Nexus, because they actually approach it like journalists instead of just reacting to headlines. They’ll interview companies and people to get both sides before making a hit piece. Even then, GN can rub me the wrong way when they pursue something too far.
Same. I watch only a handful:
Notice a pattern? I watch people who are better than me at a game so I can learn to be better myself. I don’t watch action game streamers, mostly strategy games.
I’ll occasionally watch YT videos when I either don’t have time to play a game, or I am stuck and need help getting through a section.
9bananas@feddit.org 1 day ago
I’m afraid that’s a misconception: in most cases the obligations have to be considered during development.
in 95%+ of cases, you can’t “just release the binaries”, because the developers usually don’t own all of their assets/code.
modern coding, and especially game dev, is highly modularized.
you usually don’t build code from the ground up, if there is an existing solution for what you need. (some indie game devs still do that, but it’s usually because there isn’t an existing solution, or not enough budget; it’s not the usual approach)
so for example, you wouldn’t create your own networking solution for a multiplayer game, you’d just use an existing solution.
but because you didn’t write that solution yourself, that part of the code either needs to fall under a license that allows for redistribution, or it has to be removed before you “release the binaries”.
and removing such code after development is a huuuuge headache. this is something that needs to be planned for during development in most cases.
so yeah, there is some upfront cost associated with SKG, mostly in that the new regulations would need some rethinking about how to handle these code modules.
either through new or more open licenses, careful design that allows for the removal of problematic modules before release to the community, etc.
it’s not a big cost, but it is there. and creating new requirements for the code, integrating that into review cycles, testing the removals, and on and on the list goes. it’s mostly a management issue, but it’s by no means trivial.
not that any of this is a deal breaker, but it should be kept in my mind that these new regulations are not entirely free… it’s gonna cause some chaos in the industry. manageable chaos, but all chaos is somewhat expensive, when it comes to industry.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
They should be, but my understanding is that there’s only a penalty if they kill a game without an EOL solution, and what their EOL plans are don’t need to be complete or even stay the same during development. The wording is really flexible here and allows companies a lot of room to explore different options.
If a company can’t redistribute the server code, their options include (and there are probably more):
That’s certainly easier to do at the start, but my understanding is that the obligation only kicks in once the servers are shut down.
And yes, it’s not “free”, but it’s basically free for an indie shop that likely built the server from scratch or used something FOSS. And that describes PS.
9bananas@feddit.org 1 day ago
yes, that’s pretty much correct.
and i think i misunderstood the part about the obligations only kicking in after service ends; you are right about that.
yeah, there’s a lot of wiggle room; the proposal is pretty generous!