I don't think this will go anywhere, but I admire Ross for how much effort he's putting in. Is he still not an EU citizen? He said there isn't much he can do personally in a stream recently, hasn't he been living in Poland for 12 years?

>>954407 >I don't think this will go anywhere I am of the belief that we don't know until we try. >spoiler I have no idea about this, unfortunately. I don't know this youtuber, this only caught my attention because it's something I agree with.

>>954406 Europoor here, sadly I don't own The Crew, so I can't help with much. I can sign the European Citizens' Initiative, but it will take months for that to happen. If any anon actually does own the Crew, I hope you will be able to do more than me.

>>954407 I'm more of the opinion that this is one of those times where you should just vote with your wallet and let the consoomers who purchase always-online games get fucked like they deserve.

>>954406 Great initiative. >>954410 >Vote with your wallet Does not work and never will.

>>954410 >>954412 Anybody who says "vote with your wallet" unironically is a sheltered basement dweller who's never gone outside and actually talked to normalfags. They are the least inquisitive, most apathetic people you can imagine. This needs to be settled in law, you can't trust consumers to do anything in their own interest.

Unfortunately, I am a burger and as such, can do very little in way of support because the US' law on the subject is mega fucked, but good luck to everyone who can actually do something.

>>954410 The thing with "vote with your wallet" is that everyone is doing that all the time. It's simple supply and demand, if someone makes shitty content, they won't buy it. And if they want to buy it it's their own fault. Not much can be done with that really. You can't force people to do things they don't want to

>>954424 If you watch the video, Ross explains that anyone in the world can contact the DGCCRF (French authorities), because Ubisoft is a French company, so even burgers can help as long as they had bought the game. France is a slim, but still our best chance of making it harder for companies to destroy games. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/countries/united_states

I feel conflicted. On the one hand I don't like running to daddy government, because the government cuts both ways. On the other hand, everything is a fucking service nowadays, it has really gotten out of control, and if the government does not tard-wrangle companies, who will? This has gone way past just video games, it affects security devices, medical devices and farm equipment. At some point you cannot even rely on the free market because if every manufacturer does it, what is there left to vote with your wallet for? >>954418 This. Normalfags cannot fathom the idea that bad things can and will happen to them. Bad things always happen to someone else, and that person deserved it for having done something bad. Oh, they won't spy on me, they won't turn the service off, they won't ban me... It's the whole "I have nothing to hide" cope all over again. And honestly, I cannot really blame them, living with the knowledge of how kiked everything is is living every day at the edge of madness. I don't know how to solve the normalfag question. The way I see it there are several levels: > Ignorance The normalfag does now know how kiked things are. He thinks that if he buys an item it will remain functional indefinitely (barring physical damage of course), and when it comes to services he believes that the company does only one thing and nothing shady. This person still lives in the past and does not understand how online services work. > Delusion This normalfag understands that everything he buys is dependent on some external service that could be taken away at any moment and that could invade his privacy. He operates under the principle of "it won't happen to me" or "what are the odds". > Cope and blackpilled The normalfag who has simply resigned himself to his fate. He knows everything is kiked, but he does not care. So what if it's taken away, he will own nothing and convince himself that he's happy. That's, like, just how the world works, man. Usually when confronted he will go into full-on defensive like "of course they spy on everyone, duh". > Paranoia That's basically us here. We refuse and minimize kikery as much as possible.

>>954427 >Bad things always happen to someone else, and that person deserved it for having done something bad. It's funny because this is something that even the ancient hebrews knew it wasn't true with the Book of Job, so even Christians should know this is bullshit. Even hindus knew this was bullshit, in the Mahabharata when the virtuous Pandavas lost all their wealth and status, to the demonic and atheistic cousins, as a result of following scripture, and had to spend 12 years in a forest, then 1 year in servitude, before they could take back their wealth by force.

Tis long overdue. Unfortunately gaydevs might find a way out by purchasing/selling exclusive hosting rights to one of the most popular game server hostings. An absolute most of the multiplayer games developed nowadays don't ever feature a dedicated server option, not because the are greedy, but because they are lazy to port hosting provider specific API from one to an another. Moreover how would you transfer character/microtransaction data from a dying server? Legally that is a nightmare. Countries where both gambling and box opening are regulated require you to store client's data because his relatives might pull the money back. Of course proper devs should store this data in separate databases, but that is either true or will be used as an excuse. How would you tell wales who are into this shit that their skins are dead? Authorization server data or the server API itself is a whole other can of worms that might contradict the EU cookies directive. Once again, when proper coders get their hands on the multiplayer source code and realize what a heaping pile of shit that is, cheats are going to properly bleed players from the older AND newer videogames from the same company. If you think source engine bots were bad, wait until you see what shit code other companies are running. Play Dark Souls and get rookited will become a norm and normies will blame PC chuds for that. TBH that is a fucking feat! Probably these dumb japs transfer executable source code instead of game state data, that's why "there is no way to fix that". Security through obscurity is a bad practice, but it will be used as an another excuse. Imagine what kind of hellscape we are entering where "your brain is being hacked" becomes a norm.

>>954447 >>954427 You need to kill yourself, right now, you fucking tourist.

>>954406 THIS WHOLE SHIT IS 15 YEARS TOO LATE! Fucking niggers! Fucking jew niggers! Fucking empty headed pre-redditor jew nigger faggots! And we still didn't reach the point where the braindead masses just realize how platforms like Steam going to fuck over us over on the long run! WHAT FUCKING EVEN

>>954426 I didn't own the game, unfortunately, so I can't even do that.

I was raised to look for the good in people and practice goodwill and compassion, so I do sometimes hope that shills find a form of employment that doesn't include posting the same shit every day for years on end, but sometimes I do also hope they get hit by a truck on the way back to their favela or shitting street.

I'm still glad somebody with an audience is taking action. Now that I'm reading a bunch of the arguments surrounding this, I'm being torn in a few different directions. We shouldn't need to trust gubmint to retard proof everything, but thanks to normalfags enabling AAA to fuck us over, I'm thinking this might be a very necessary evil. >>954425 >if someone makes shitty content, they won't buy it. You underestimate the average CONSOOMer's apathy. AAA have been making shit content for years and have been rewarded for their efforts, so we've been getting lots more shit content ever since, and that's a large part of why live service games have been so widespread and cancerous today. Add that other companies need to be producing content worth spending in order to demonstrate what the core audience wants, which is extremely rare these days NOT IMPOSSIBLE, Elden Ring, Gravity Circuit, Stray, etc, and there's no easy way to force bullshit out of gaming and anons here exclusively resort to piracy even for genuinely good games. >>954427 >and that person deserved it for having done something bad This board's opinions on normalfags in a nutshell. As much as >we'd all love a new industry to run away towards free from the burden of normalfag pandering, nobody has the money power or reach to rival AAA, so we're stuck with trying to patch and bandage this bleeding husk of an industry instead. My personal problem is that the industry is fucking us in addition to the fools parting with their money, and there has to be some force that threatens AAA to change their business practices to benefit the core audience. With boycotts being ineffective, government regulation is the next best step in spite of all of its downsides. Plus, a win here can domino effect into other positive changes not only in the vidya industry, but other companies in big tech and big pharma like you mentioned. >I don't know how to solve the normalfag question Gatekeep. You're not allowed to have serious gaming discussions unless you spend 50 hours a week on video games, and not exclusively mainstream sludge. <bu-bu-but muh PPH You want quality or quantity? Pick one. >>954482 Better late than never, imagine if this kikery went unchallenged another 15 years. >>954493 >I was raised to look for the good in people and practice goodwill and compassion Same, and this shit in the industry since 2014 keeps making me questioning how many people actually have any sense of good in them.

I was looking on shitter for what people thought of this campaign and saw a lot of posts in Japanese. Apparently Japanese media has been reporting on this campaign? https://gigazine.net/news/20240403-stop-killing-games/

>>954509 I was about to chime in about that. I think Japanese consumers have a huge interest in this because games on the mobage/soshage market constantly go EOS around this time of year. There's even a website and community dedicated to tracking when games go offline and oftentimes there's no recourse to playing them after the devs and publisher take them down. >gacha is trash Yes, but is it a crime if I want to play a dead gacha long after the servers shut down?

>>954406 Yes.

>>954509 Good to see it gaining traction on the Japanese side of things. I'm kind of surprised Ross didn't go into what Asian players could do at all, though I suppose that's understandable considering he's focused on getting a foothold in France and the EU.

>>954600 I think Ross and his main audience are just entirely clueless on Japan and its video games. Ross is a westaboo to the core, like Razorfist although not nearly as hamfisted with the western superiority aspect. Regarding the campaign, I am trying to get Ross some interviews with some big names in the internet liberty/video games field. What he needs most is publicity for the website so that more people sign their names on these petitions. He's gonna have to play the e-celeb game a bit, even if I am sure he hates it to a degree as I would. One person I haven't considered until now is Razorfist but in hindsight it seems like a no-brainer. Does anyone think Ross will decline simply due to Razorfist's political orientations? Like, is Ross aware his audience has a lot of faggots and lefties in it, and will deliberately shoot himself in the foot just so he doesn't anger anyone already on his side? You just know some people will take issue with whoever Ross gets publicity from, even if it's for the mutual effort of resolving the GaaS problem.

>>954418 vote with wallet means stocks tbqh, product never means shit

>>954406 >Click on "everywhere else" >"Contact the DGCCRF" >Read through the whole thing up to the end <"This options requires you to own The Crew" Well damn. I can't really help Ross and all of you and I don't have a social media presence besides imageboards, but I hope something good actually happens for once. Good luck anons.

>>954608 >Does anyone think Ross will decline simply due to Razorfist's political orientations? Like, is Ross aware his audience has a lot of faggots and lefties in it, and will deliberately shoot himself in the foot just so he doesn't anger anyone already on his side? You just know some people will take issue with whoever Ross gets publicity from, even if it's for the mutual effort of resolving the GaaS problem. I don't think he cares since he's too autistic about video games. Also most leftist and troons/fags are useless against corporations anyway, so their opinions actually don't matter.

>>954407 >Is he still not an EU citizen? He said there isn't much he can do personally in a stream recently, hasn't he been living in Poland for 12 years? Not every country is as generous with citizenship as the U.S. Most nations are more strict when it comes to it. You have to be actually fluent in the local language instead of communicative like in the U.S. Some will even require you to renounce the original citizenship. Only EU countries that hand out citizenship are Sweden and Ireland. You can also buy one in Malta or Portugal. Ross might be having trouble with speaking Polish well enough to be considered for citizenship.

>>954608 I don't think he cares, but the way he talked in the video, he's working with other people, and depending on who he's working with, they may try to steer him away from working with anyone too 'political' in the worry that it will fuck with the image of the campaign. So who's to say.

>>954512 Link to website?

>>954512 >soshage market ?

kek

>>954407 >Is he still not an EU citizen? He said there isn't much he can do personally in a stream recently, hasn't he been living in Poland for 12 years? Huh? ALso >EU citizen Fuck off. No such thing. Disregarding that, theoretically if it's more than 10 years of WORK, then yes, he can apply for Polish citizenship, provided he knows the language as well. I don't think he's here though. He has better chances in the caliphate part of europe.

>>954407 Ditto this: >>954410 >>954418 >This needs to be settled in law, you can't trust consumers to do anything in their own interest. Two things. First, it's not my responsibility to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Second, the people that are going to be dictating and writing the laws are the game companies who are performing these practices as the geriatrics in Washington don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to technology. >>954425 >And if they want to buy it it's their own fault. Not much can be done with that really. You can't force people to do things they don't want to This is also the part that annoys me to Hell and back. People do something stupid, no matter how many times they're warned not to do it, and then demand that everyone else waste their time to defend them when the inevitable result occurs. >>954427 >At some point you cannot even rely on the free market And attitudes like that are EXACTLY the reason why things are fucked. Regulations NEVER work, except for the purposes of making it harder for smaller companies to enter and operate in the market. >>954508 >but thanks to normalfags enabling AAA to fuck us over It's not even the normalfags at this point. Looking into the SBI connections shows that it's the government who's funding majority of this shit. And it's not even necessarily because the Feds are demanding it, it's the game companies (Themselves) guessing what actions they can take that will please the "overlords". It's a little hilarious because in West Taiwan, some streamer was just nailed by their police for being "too patriotic" in his antics: https://www.chinauncensored.tv/china-uncensored-episodes/love-china.-or-else And the same is now happening with these companies here in the states: https://archive.ph/IDmiU

>>954836 So what do you suggest, retard? Let things get worse and worse while the corporations with billions of dollars to spare continue to walk all over the consumer and lobby for more anti-consumer laws? Accelerationism, in a way?

>>954862 >So what do you suggest, retard? Don't give the companies who pull this shit the time of day (Even if they give it away for free, which Ubisoft did do with The Crew) and instead talk about, promote, and buy other things made by other companies who are NOT pulling this shit. Yes, that's also includes not wasting the bandwidth to even pirate the damn thing. >Let things get worse and worse while the corporations with billions of dollars to spare continue to walk all over the consumer If people freely choose to get fucked in the ass DESPITE my constant insistence against it, it's not my fault what happens to them. Like I've said, I get tired and don't care after a while because there's constant warning everywhere imaginable about what's going to happen, yet it's always a "surprise" when it does happen and I'm deemed the "asshole" for not caring after telling them at every opportunity possible that it was going to happen.

>>954865 Do you really think you won't feel the effects of these bad practices in your life if you pull a simple live-and-let-live? How about the lives of your children, assuming you have any or are planning on having any? <well, there's plenty of old games worth playing Yeah I get that, but I kinda assume most people will eventually want to play something newer, that runs on actual modern hardware. Those old games are finite while games in the future are infinite. You, or someone you care about, will eventually be forced to play whatever slop is made later on which abides by these rules which you were too lazy to even attempt to oppose. You know normalfags are mostly retarded cattle who don't deserve to consume precious scarce resources, but like it or not, your fate is tied to them since they make up the majority of the boat. The normalfags might be the ones who sink it, but you're still a passenger on board it.

>>954865 >If people freely choose to get fucked in the ass DESPITE my constant insistence against it, it's not my fault what happens to them. You do not understand the problem. I don't give a fuck about the niggercattle either, they can rot. I just don't want money flowing to the kind of "people" who make their business farming niggercattle.

>>954871 >Do you really think you won't feel the effects of these bad practices in your life if you pull a simple live-and-let-live? How does GaaS practices dictate my ability to play my PS1 and Saturn games? Or the PC games that I have on CD/DVDs? >How about the lives of your children, assuming you have any or are planning on having any? They play the hundreds of games that I own, simple as that. >I kinda assume most people will eventually want to play something newer How "new" are we talking? The 360/PS3 were still receiving new games up to 2018, and the Vita and Wii U up to 2023. Even more, what new games ARE there to play when we're receiving ports/remasters/remakes PS2 and PS3 games? And what exactly makes something "new"? <Hell, here is four pics are from the top four "GLOBAL TOP SELLERS" listed on Steam as of today (With images taken from their Steam page). Fifth pic is a fansite screenshot of Crysis from 2007 (Taken from MobyGames). >Those old games are finite while games in the future are infinite. What bullshit logic is this? >>954897 >I just don't want money flowing to the kind of "people" who make their business farming niggercattle. Anon, that's literally EVERY business that has ever existed. Do you buy Kleenex? Clothing? Food? Congratulations, you're one of the "niggercattle".

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stellar-blade-woke-activists-enraged-video-games-attractive-female-characters <LOL

>>954865 >talk about, promote, and buy other things made by other companies who are NOT pulling this shit As stated earlier, that requires alternative companies that exist who can be relied on to not pull underhanded tactics with their consumerbase, which over 90% of companies across all sizes fail at, if not for business reasons than for political ones. >it's not my fault what happens to them. <First they came for the normalfags. I did not speak out because it's not my fault what happens to them If you hate them so much why don't you make your own society free from normalfags? >>954960 >How does GaaS practices dictate my ability to play my PS1 and Saturn games? How this campaign ends has the potential to set a lot of regulations, good or bad. This can set a precedent of deprecated games being open source/open server/whatever, or it can do the exact opposite and justify companies finding ways to brick other older games and ensure you either rent their loicense to play or you don't get to play at all. Does "You will own nothing and be happy" ring any bells? If Nintendo could break every copy of SMB1 yes in this nightmare scenario they will send pinkerton thugs to smash your physical ones as well so that you had to run it through their most recent eshop, they probably would. >What bullshit logic is this? Is it bullshit logic to want the pile of "good old games" to grow rather than remain a static list of however many hundred/thousand indefinitely? There are people who do care about the medium and want to see the medium grow in a positive direction and see better games get released, nobody should tolerate games getting pushed out with as many flaws as they currently do, and EOS for live service games is a MASSIVE flaw that I think can be corrected with this campaign.

>>954976 >which over 90% of companies across all sizes fail at, if not for business reasons than for political ones. So you talk about, promote, and buy from the 10% that don't. What's so hard about that? >and justify companies finding ways to brick other older games and ensure you either rent their loicense to play or you don't get to play at all First, how? Second, if that's a REAL possibility, shouldn't Ross have kept his fucking mouth shut? >Does "You will own nothing and be happy" ring any bells? The process of the WEF trying to make me pay for a service where I get the "benefit" of a product while never actually owning it? >If Nintendo could break every copy of SMB1 so that you had to run it through their most recent eshop, they probably would. Good luck with that in a country that has more guns than the rest of the world combined. >Is it bullshit logic to want the pile of "good old games" to grow rather than remain a static list of however many hundred/thousand indefinitely? Sounds like a good reason to learn Japanese and find out which games never crossed the pond. > There are people who do care about the medium and want to see the medium grow in a positive direction and see better games get released Then how about you support the 10% of people who are doing things right rather than waste your time bitching about, and lead campaigns against, the 90% who are ruining it? >and EOS for live service games is a MASSIVE flaw that I think can be corrected with this campaign It won't because people agreed to this shit when they hit "Agree" on the EULA, long AFTER they've already been warned about this being a problem. There's reports and articles up and down EVERY FUCKING GAMING WEBSITE that explains this shit, including the ones that are controlled by baizuo. It's no my responsibility to "save" these people from doing it to themselves when the info is that fucking easy to access. Especially since being "saved" isn't what these people want. What they REALLY is for someone else to take responsibility for their actions so they don't have to. And fuck those people for being selfish self-centered assholes. Those people deserve anything that happens to them. And, yes, that includes the people (Like Ross) that played The Crew and are now complaining about the game getting shut down. And I'm not going to waste my time helping these people when I ALREADY wasted my time telling them that they should be playing something else. Just look at the Anons on this very site if you don't believe me. How many of them are still using Steam and GOG accounts after everything the political activists are Valve and CD Projekt have pulled, and especially after alternative stores to buy games from are listed all the time? Hell, we have a Helldivers 2 thread despite everything Sony has done: >>935320 We have a Dragon's Dogma 2 thread despite everything that Capcom has done: >>953404 This is a problem that is NOT going to be fixed through legal action. If anything, as you're possibly indicating, it's actually going to make it worse. So how about we address the real problem: people being lazy and refusing to change their habits.

>>955020 >people agreed to this shit when they hit "Agree" on the EULA That's the point, that stuff still breaks the law in Europe so the EULA bullshit is moot. >Then how about you support the 10% of people who are doing things right rather than waste your time bitching about, and lead campaigns against, the 90% who are ruining it? I don't see you funneling hundreds of millions into AA devs that don't suck, so that's a moot point. >How many of them are still using Steam and GOG accounts after everything the political activists are Valve and CD Projekt have pulled, and especially after alternative stores to buy games from are listed all the time? How are you going to funnel your millions of dollars into worthwhile devs if they're only on GOG or Steam, pray tell?

>>955020 >What's so hard about that? First, I was being very generous when I said 90%. Second, be the change you want to see, you can start by naming the companies that you know will not screw over the average hardcore gamer within the next ten, hell five years, with predatory anti consumer shit. Any response is most likely going to get met by other anons going bringing up something they don't like about the company and disregard the whole reply, if not outright stating >supporting companies >t. paypig And as you said, the games people want to play the most are those established IPs owned by Capcom/Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft etc, no matter how many alternatives actually exist. For there to be discussion, more than two people need to have played/been made aware of a game and be able to discuss it, any less and its shilling. Despite dozens of releases per month, all discussion congregates around the most popular and trendy titles like Helldivers and DD2, you underestimate how hard it is to penetrate mainstream slop with alternatives. >The process of the WEF trying to make me pay for a service where I get the "benefit" of a product while never actually owning it? We agree that no sane human being wants what the WEF wants right? I quite like owning property and a car and my own stockpile of food. Give them the inch that is vidya, and we're on the slippery slope to hell. >rather than [...] lead campaigns against, the 90% who are ruining it I dunno man, this sounds like something you really don't want us to do. How do I trust you're not controlled opposition and instead just an intellectual ass? >people agreed to this shit when they hit "Agree" on the EULA <Sorry, we can't use the law to null and void some bullshit that shouldn't exist on your legal agreement, there aren't any lawyers that can fix this shit after it's been signed, nope, nuh-uh I mean jewtube probably has some written rule somewhere about how you're not allowed to download their videos (they sure don't make it as simple as right click save as), but does that stop me or other likeminded individuals from posting mp4s directly copied from jewtube vids? No, cause it's a stupid fucking rule and so is the EULA saying you're not allowed to play a game you purchased because Ubisoft said so. Ross said it himself, The Crew being the thing that wakes people up to this shit and being a massive hornet's nest that can incite legal change actually gives us the chance to prevent AAA from fucking us in the ass so hard. I can't think of any other games that shut down that had this much potential to be weaponized against them. >spoiler YES JUST FIX SOCIETAL BRAINROT AND REWRITE HUMANITY'S CURRENT NATURAL INSTINCT TO BE LAZY AND FORM HABITS, THAT'S SO MUCH EASIER! I ask again that you live in your own little fantasy land if you're such an enlightened individual, Buddha did and people made a religion out of him.

>>954960 Purchasing goods at a single clear price that are then yours to do with as you see fit is a fundamentally different kind of thing from buying into a GaaS ecosystem designed to manipulate your behavior and make you spend more money later on. The butcher can't repossess my meat if I don't use it by the expiration date or if I make a burger shaped like a swastika. I can use spices I purchased elsewhere without having to worry about them reacting with some proprietary Beef Rights Management chemical blend to ruin the meal.

>>955074 >Second, be the change you want to see, you can start by naming the companies that you know will not screw over the average hardcore gamer within the next ten, hell five years, with predatory anti consumer shit. As far as " game companies" that come to mind, there's City Connection, GungHo, Hamster, Kemco, and Sunsoft. I'd also through Falcom and Nippon Ichi Software in there if it wasn't for NISA. If you're referring to storefronts, there's these options: <DLsite: https://www.dlsite.com/ <DMM Games: https://games.dmm.com/ <Fruitbat Factory: https://sites.fastspring.com/fruitbatfactory/product/buy <JAST: https://jastusa.com/ <Zoom Platform: https://www.zoom-platform.com/ >Despite dozens of releases per month, all discussion congregates around the most popular and trendy titles like Helldivers and DD2, you underestimate how hard it is to penetrate mainstream slop with alternatives. Except I wasn't talking about the "mainstream" in that context, I was talking about Anons who post on THIS site. A site that isn't even listed on Goolag. >How do I trust you're not controlled opposition and instead just an intellectual ass? How do I know that you are NOT a party who wants the lawsuit to go through for the sole purpose of it failing or the result being that companies rewrite the laws to make customer ownership even worse? >No, cause it's a stupid fucking rule and so is the EULA saying you're not allowed to play a game you purchased because Ubisoft said so. I agree, which is why I don't play those games nor use those services that can actually do that. I've asked numerous times, never receiving an answer to it, WHY are you playing games released by companies who you KNOW will have a predatory EULA attached to their games? It doesn't matter whether or not the EULA is "enforceable", the problem is that you're supporting a company who thinks they can get away with stuff like that. And there's almost nothing to discuss at that point because the question just keeps coming back to asking why you have to play THAT SPECIFIC GAME rather than something else. It's like the people who are big privacy advocates and then go out and buy a SmartTV. Why do you have to buy THAT SPECIFIC TV instead of searching around for a "dumb TV" (Yes, they still sell those) that suits your needs? Why are you proving these companies RIGHT, that they shouldn't worry about any real backlash to anything that they do because even the "most devout" moralists are hypocrites at the end of the day that don't practice a single fucking that they say? >Ross said it himself, The Crew being the thing that wakes people up to this shit And the dozens of other high profile games this happened to, like Avengers or Babylon's Fall or Evolve or Battleborn or MAG or something as far back as the PS2 version of FF11, didn't?

I thought reddit was supposed to be full of communists who were all like "fuck corpos, eat the rich" and shit, but they're all bootlicking and censoring the shit out of the campaign.

>>955152 Oh, and threads about this are getting deleted from cuckchan /v/ as well.

>>955152 >We can't force companies to spend money to keep servers active. That's. What. Community. Servers. Are. For. Release the server code so the community can run it themselves. Do these people not even think of such a thing?

>>955152 r/gaming is omega normalfag territory, check the top page and all you'll see is "remember this le gem??" and terrible memes. I checked some of the other big gaming forums on leddit and the video is up with a lot of support.

>>955155 >Do these people not even think of such a thing? Sorry for doubleposting but yes, some younger zoomers don't even realize you can still play old games just fine. I can boot up Team Fortress 1, a game from 1998 or 99, and find servers full of people right now. The idea of being able to host your own servers has been out of practice for so long for most MP games that a lot of younger gamers aren't aware it used to be an option. There still no excuse for their ignorance, as Ross points out in earlier videos you have plenty of popular games now like Minecraft which allow you to do this just fine. TF2 and CS2 are some of the most popular PC games and they also let you do this. There really is no justification for that argument, and you should call out anybody who uses it.

Quick question Not exactly on topic, but some days ago visa and master card had blocked DLsite payments. Is there a way to legal fight it?

>>955168 >going up against the banks nice try hitler srsly though, is paypal an option? Normally I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole but desperate times. Also, Musk, love him or hate him, seems intent on turning X into a form of payment processor at some point, so keep an eye on that as a possibility in the future, though knowing him he'll likely cuck out to his jew masters again once the ADL kvetches loudly enough.

>>955171 >paypal Anon... paypal droped them one year before the credit cards.

>>954645 >Also most leftist and troons/fags are useless against corporations anyway, so their opinions actually don't matter. A little naive when the threat of a controversy for seeming non-PC gets them to cuck out 8/10 times. Just look at that Sweet Baby Inc bitch who admitted to scaring investors with that fearmongering.

>>954410 >(1) >"do things that don't work, goyim!" Mhmm, every single time.

as a european I welcome more government restrictions, oversight and generally having absolute power over my entire life from birth to death, and after death depending on your organs and blood type, and before birth for the many medical uses of an european baby fetus, fuck I love being europeon

>Mandalore did a shoutout for this at the end of his Machine for Pigs review Any other ecelebs make a mention of it yet? Probably should just be sending it to as many of those niggers as possible so they can spread it to their normalfag viewers who were actually dumb enough to have bought the Crew. >>955152 Reddit bans everything corporations demand. It is pathetic. Doubly so with the ones who will happily comply with and defend those demands for free. >>955154 Well you can't make waves over there. Just mindlessly shitpost.

>>954406 I was hoping to do the same with bandai namco but with Gundam Evolution, but I had to do it with the FTC since Bandai Namco doesn't have an entry on the french website.

>>955152 >>955154 >already censored on cuckchan & plebbit (((SHUT IT DOWN))) Mode activated? How long until YouTube takes down the videos for "targeted harassment" of Ubishit? I expected the SKG site to be taken down within days. Pretty much any public 'activism' nowadays is just a regime-approved victory lap while anything outside of that gets stifled.

>>955152 I hate Reddit more than you could possibly imagine.

just more reason to pirate games off of repacking sites like fitgirl which are more convenient than buying the game off of sites with drm

>>955154 Direct them to >>>/vb/

>>955283 You can't even pirate those games, they are lost forever in time. There is no disk that can run them either.

>>955106 Funny you put Avengers here. When they shut down the servers they actually updated the game to run offline and multiplayer still works because it's peer-to-peer matchmaking. You just can't use their shitty MTX store anymore. Players even got to keep all the shitty cosmetics they unlocked and all their other progression. Not that you'd want to play that piece of shit anyway, but it's preserved as a monument to corporate hubris at least. FFXI Also has fanservers running on several different versions of the game so it's basically preserved at this point.

>>955200 >Any other ecelebs make a mention of it yet? Asmongold reacted to the video, agreed with ross and said he is down for a interview.

>>955445 >asmongold agrees with the european parliament good news, I love this

>>955106 >Except I wasn't talking about the "mainstream" in that context, I was talking about Anons who post on THIS site I was talking about penetrating discussion of mainstream games, not mainstream forums. >How do I know that you are NOT a party who wants the lawsuit to go through for the sole purpose of it failing or the result being that companies rewrite the laws to make customer ownership even worse? I was hoping you'd help me with an example, I've just seen that exact logic used before on this very forum to shut down plans <Why are you fighting an uphill battle and not just settling with the few games we haven't corrupted, just shut up and pay no heed to the modern industry goy guys. >WHY are you playing games released by companies who you KNOW will have a predatory EULA attached to their games? 1. The EULA needs to be a massive inconvenience for anyone to care which it isn't until EOS or some similar shutdown occurs, 2. People addicted to the IPs will play anything, even with as many flaws as DD2, 3. Good Non predatory games for pre-existing IPs are basically non existent, and you need all three to be a high quality and successful game with an audience that can and will discuss it, and its apparently impossible to make as most companies pick two (at best). >the question just keeps coming back to asking why you have to play THAT SPECIFIC GAME rather than something else Ask the audience of that game and they'll give you plenty of reasons even if most of them are retarded. Brand loyalty, genre enthusiast, achievement whore, waifu fag, investment justification, appeasing friends, "I MUST EXPERIENCE IT FIRST HAND", etc. >that they shouldn't worry about any real backlash to anything that they do Because the customers have been so fucking emasculated over the past two decades that they are powerless to do shit, and the average normalfag who is clueless to this shit just blindly supports it without a care in the world. Companies don't care about backlash because 99% of cases don't have a legal leg to stand on, merely a moral one that counts for shit as you've noted, let alone the resources to fight legally. Ubisoft has finally kicked a bear's ass so hard that the bear woke up and is now trying to force companies to stop kicking its ass. If I hate Ubisoft and hate the notion of owning nothing that I purchased, why should I not support the bear? >And the dozens of other high profile games this happened to, Didn't have the high number of purchases or level of quality (Yes, 4/10 > 3/10), this has also happened to other better games with little to no community backing and if something like this existed then I would've been all in. All it takes is one eceleb with a grudge and suddenly everyone sets their mind on a campaign of change. Plus, this whole thing stems from it being an EU developed and published game, most of the already shutdown games I saw on the list in that vid were US and JP. US is apparently fucked and JP will take an eternity to apply any changes compared to EU. In the end, his proposals are changes that I want to see, so I support it as it currently stands. If I'm sold up the river or the gubmint uses it to trojan some extremely bad shit in there then I'll move to Canada and euthanize myself for your satisfaction.

>>955020 >It won't because people agreed to this shit when they hit "Agree" on the EULA, long AFTER they've already been warned about this being a problem. Reading the thread and I was taking you seriously and I was gonna earnestly discuss with you up until this point when you went for the "muh EULA" argument of all fucking things. Kill yourself, niggerpill. Every single person that goes "just play retro games!" is just making excuses for what essentially is white flight, meanwhile modern gaming keeps getting worse and good newer games are becoming rarer to find. Also, I read some responses here and I'm tired of the government boogieman when corporations keep finding ways to fuck over customer rights and some here are scared to use every tool in their disposal (yes, that includes asking for help from the government to step in regarding shitty practices) to tell them to fuck off.

>>955592 >Why are you fighting an uphill battle and not just settling with the few games we haven't corrupted, just shut up and pay no heed to the modern industry guys. More often than not, I see "examples" like that nothing more than a strawman pushed by people who are angry and just want to feel like they're "doing something", regardless if what they're doing won't change anything or has the possibility of making things worse. >The EULA needs to be a massive inconvenience for anyone to care which it isn't until EOS or some similar shutdown occurs That's not answering the question. Why do you have to play that game knowing the company's history? >People addicted to the IPs will play anything, even with as many flaws as DD2 >Ask the audience of that game and they'll give you plenty of reasons even if most of them are retarded. And I see those people as "Getting what they fucking deserve" in the long run, which is why the people pushing this campaign are receiving none of my sympathy. >Good Non predatory games for pre-existing IPs are basically non existent Then you play something else. >Ubisoft has finally kicked a bear's ass so hard that the bear woke up How? No one gave a shit about The Crew. A month after it came out, everyone forgot about it. I remember seeing trailers for The Crew 2 having boats and planes, and that was it as there was so little interest in it. I didn't even know a third game existed until the whole SBI situation that started a month ago. Like I said, this is no different than all of the other GaaS titles that have shutdown. Except for Avengers as this Anon pointed out: >>955435 >If I hate Ubisoft and hate the notion of owning nothing that I purchased, why should I not support the bear? Because you're wasting time that could be spent supporting a developer who's not "poking the bear" as you phrase it. Why are you wasting all your time focusing upon Jewbisoft and what they're doing (Especially since the last time they released a "good game" was 2014, so a decade ago) instead of finding another developer who's making good games and propping them up? ENOUGH wasting time talking about what "Everyone else" is doing. What about YOU? Have you tried looking for good games out there not tied to the gaming cartel? If the answer is "No", why not? I'm not requesting that you drop everything at this very moment to search for non-pozzed games. I'm just asking what's stopping you? What's physically preventing you from just clicking on one of the sites I provided up here and perusing their catalogs for as little as five minutes: >>955106 And if you do see something that you like, what's preventing you from buying/pirating it like you would a game you see on Steam/GOG? >All it takes is one eceleb with a grudge and suddenly everyone sets their mind on a campaign of change. You mean like how Comicsgate was a big rally to fight the comic book establishment, that even got dozens of ecelebs on board and raised millions of dollars to fund campaigns, only for the entire movement to pass and be forgotten like a wet fart once reality set in that the people in charge were not actually interested in changing the comic book landscape and only started the entire rally because they weren't the ones in charge? Yeah, you can make a lot of noise, but that solves nothing at the end of the day when you don't get to the root of the problem. In that particular instance, it's because Western comic book writers have ZERO interest in creating something that isn't capeshit (Or has attractive bombshell girls). And in this particular instance, the problem is people's insistence that they "must" buy/experience products released by predatory companies all-the-while demanding that they face none of the consequences as a result of those actions. In other words, retards and idiots who want to have their cake and eat it too.

>This faggot keeps on going and doesn't reply to other anons who saw through his bullshit How funny that we have one (((anon))) that argues throughout the entire thread that we shouldn't fight back and conveniently ignores the fact that if the campaign against Ubisoft is successful, it would cause a domino effect on other shitty publishers. Hope you choke on that corporate boot you keep deepthroating at this very moment, you fucking faggot.

>>955152 Absolutely not, reddit is filled with absolute idiots who just spout whatever the fuck is trendy. They are bonafide bootlickers

>>955152 How many of these "people" are shill accounts doing shill things? Most of them.

>>955669 It is indeed reddit

>>955628 >regardless if what they're doing won't change anything or has the possibility of making things worse <How DARE you report my husband to the authorities, he's gonna get out the belt tonight and it's gonna be YOUR fault! You're like a beaten housewife. >WHY are you playing games released by companies who you KNOW will have a predatory EULA attached to their games? >Why do you have to play that game Because they're video games, you clown. What reasons do you have to play any video games? >I see those people as "Getting what they fucking deserve" I'm sure "those people" will be really bummed about the shutdown for all 12.7 seconds it takes them to launch another game. >Why are you wasting all your time focusing upon Jewbisoft and what they're doing instead of finding another developer who's making good games and propping them up? Yeah bro, why should people care about the spread of fentanyl when I've got this sweeeeeet organic weed from my dealer bro, trust me. Landmark legal case? Never heard of it. >What about YOU? Good question. What are you doing for the good of the industry? Spending $150 a year on weeb SHMUP/VNs on a chink site? Pirating all the games you like because "piracy boosts sales"? Having a meltdown whenever the words "corporation" and "law" are mentioned in the same breath? >You mean like how Comicsgate So any consumer movement is wasted effort because....... US comics are dying? >the problem is people's insistence that they "must" buy/experience products released by predatory companies all-the-while demanding that they face none of the consequences as a result of those actions Yeah, the fault lies solely with those pesky consumers and not the least bit with any innocent predatory companies who think they can get away with it. >are receiving none of my sympathy Aw, gee. If I wanted your sympathy I'd start "Buttfuckers United, LLC", causing oil spills in wildlife preserves until I get in trouble with the government. Your sympathy is a buyer's market. And not even an idiot would buy.

>>955833 >You're like a beaten housewife. And you don't know how cops treat domestic affairs. If someone calls the police, they're leaving the house with someone in handcuffs. Doesn't matter if it's the husband for beating his wife or the wife for "filing a false police report" and wasting their time. >Because they're video games That's a bullshit reason and you know. To use your example, "Why do you keep running back to your abusive husband when you know that he's going to beat you?" >What reasons do you have to play any video games? You're not answering the question. Why do you have to play THAT specific video game when you know about all the baggage and issues attached to it? >I'm sure "those people" will be really bummed about the shutdown for all 12.7 seconds it takes them to launch another game. Anon, "those people" are the ones who make bullshit campaigns such as this very thread. >Yeah bro, why should people care about the spread of fentanyl when I've got this sweeeeeet organic weed from my dealer bro, trust me. False equivalence that has no relation to the topic at hand. >What are you doing for the good of the industry? For one, not participating in it because the only winning move is not to play. Not that someone who's suffering from Stockholm syndrome would understand that. >So any consumer movement is wasted effort because....... US comics are dying? U.S. comics have been dying since the 90's. In fact, it's because of that prolonged death that the superhero fad even took off due to Marvel licensing out their IPs to anyone that would take them because they were desperate for money, which is how you ended up with gems like Nick Fury: Agent of Shield. >the fault lies solely with those consumers and not the least bit with any predatory companies who think they can get away with it Yes and? You're still not answering the question and trying to avoid it every way possible. So I'll post it in red text and see if that forces your hand: Why are YOU supporting companies who you know are trying to fuck you? And as a followup to that, why are you then bitching when they finally DO fuck you over when you already KNEW going in that they were going to fuck you over?

>>954406 Godspeed.

>>954406 The Know Your Meme link. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/stop-killing-games-campaign

>>955628 >people who are angry and just want to feel like they're "doing something" Yes, I'd rather do something and potentially escape getting fucked in the ass than get the assfucking because I did nothing. >How? Ross is the bear in this instance, he's been anal about this shit since at least Darkspore in 2015 and the combination of factors at play have given him a way to leverage his fanbase of consumer drones into "doing something" useful. The game specifically being The Crew is irrelevant, it's a means to an end with the hopes future GaaS titles aren't effectively deleted no matter how much most of them deserve it. Ubisoft only matters because their location opens up this case to EU courts where the law is undefined on these issues. >supporting a developer who's not "poking the bear" as you phrase it. And suppose Ubisoft goes unopposed and developers continue to normalize bad behavior, do you really think if they thought "companies pull EOS all the time and don't get the shit slapped out of them maybe I should do it to", that your "kosher" devs wouldn't do exactly that if they saw any advantage in doing so? The less ways developers can "poke the bear", the greater number of developers that exist who will earn their support. >Why are you wasting all your time Mindlessly playing games and not giving a shit about the outside world is me wasting my time, taking fifteen minutes out of my week to spread this discussion wherever relevant and another half hour writing my arguments against (you) is time spent productively to me need to get better at internet arguing anyways. >ENOUGH wasting time talking about what "Everyone else" is doing You're the same motherfucker who wants to >address the real problem: people being lazy and refusing to change their habits. Sorry but if you want to fix that, you have to give half a damn about what everyone else is doing. Society greatly helps dictate what companies choose to produce, convince every normalfag and investor in the world to stop buying GaaS and it'll die overnight, and you're arguing for all of us "sensible gamers" to become hermits and reject society. AAA games were good once twenty years ago, we ain't getting another potential golden age unless companies are incentivized to remove their predatory practices, and to fix companies you need to work with the masses and encourage discussion that gets them thinking the way you do so that the masses want to work with you. <yeah but WHY do you want to fix the companies so badly faggot? I'm thinking long term and want to see more good games from companies that have the budget to actually push technological and traditional boundaries rather than blow it on coke and SBI. I'm aware non pozzed games exist, and I want there to continue being non pozzed games being released when if I have children. We're a long way away from that even if this plan works, but we need one win to start the domino effect that can fix the industry. >released by predatory companies all-the-while demanding that they face none of the consequences Here's how that problem can be fixed, make companies not predatory and prevent there from being consequences to WANTING TO PLAY A NEW GAME. Simple. >>955833 >Yeah, the fault lies solely with those pesky consumers and not the least bit with any innocent predatory companies who think they can get away with it. Consumers are retarded for letting them get away with it, but corpos using and abusing their goodwill and executing stunts like this needs to be addressed first. Cure the cause not the symptoms. >>955850 >Anon, "those people" are the ones who make bullshit campaigns such as this very thread. So the hedonistic and lazy normalfags that would've just moved on are campaigning against corpos shutting down games? >the only winning move is not to play Quitter. Wasn't true in 2014 and isn't true now. >U.S. comics have been dying since the 90's. His point was one consumer revolt failing != all consumer revolts fail 100% of the time. >Why are YOU supporting companies who you know are trying to fuck you? Loaded question, people don't want to support scumbag companies that revoke their ability to play games. What they want is an industry that they can in good conscience support, events like this expose to a huge swath of normalfag gamers on the net that they cannot and should not support the industry as it currently is. >why are you then bitching when they finally DO fuck you over Already explained >it's a stupid fucking rule and so is the EULA saying you're not allowed to play a game They shouldn't have had the power in the first place, and gamers let it slide as long as they followed the assumption that they kept their bread and circuses. The assumption has been proven wrong multiple times by this point, but none that have opened up the industry to legal issues. Are you seriously telling me that the circuses getting shut down is not just cause for a consumer revolt? Look, you can ignore this event and keep choking on dicks in your cabin innawoods all you want, this is happening. When this shit hits the EU >we'll at least have gone down fighting.

>>955850 I'm not supporting companies that are trying to fuck me you dumb nigger, I'm supporting causes and boycotts that fucks them instead so they don't keep influencing the industry as a whole. Every faggot that chooses to put their heads in the sand is either a weak pathetic loser or a shill because their corporate masters are afraid of losing. Californian leftists are infiltrating my Japanese video games and people like you are so eager to convince others not to fight back, but not all of us will join in your humiliating self-flagellation rituals.

>>955928 >I'd rather do something Anon, if you're going to "Do something", educate yourself first on everything going on. >he's been anal about this shit since at least Darkspore in 2015 And since 2015, he's been talking to real lawyers about the situation (Many of them sympathetic to what he's trying to do) with them coming back and stating that the problem is people still agreeing to the EULAs despite all the press coverage extensive detailing how predatory and illegal those things are. And if these companies ever do end up in court and lose the case, the worst that's going to happen to them is a slap on the wrist that isn't going to change their business practices at the end of the day because people are still buying those games and agreeing to their EULAs. >do you really think if they thought "companies pull EOS all the time and don't get the shit slapped out of them maybe I should do it to", that your "kosher" devs wouldn't do exactly that if they saw any advantage in doing so? No because the smaller "kosher" (As you phrased it) devs cannot risk upsetting the people who are supporting them because if a game fails, that's it. Ubisoft, EA, and even WB can risk shutting those games down, any backlash be damned, because (1) their output is so massive that all they need is one success to keep the engine chugging along, (2) they've built up a warchest from the time when they were successful so they can ride it out during the times they aren't, and (3) they're dependent upon government subsidies to keep them afloat so they can pump out constant failures and still make a profit thanks to your tax dollars. >Sorry but if you want to fix that, you have to give half a damn about what everyone else is doing No, I don't. Improving society comes second, improving yourself comes first because how can you fix the world's problems if you cannot even fix your own? That's why I keep coming back to asking people why YOU have to play that specific game? Especially when you know that all you're doing is making the problem worse by doing so. >Society greatly helps dictate what companies choose to produce No, it doesn't. It's the reverse. Companies and individuals introduce products and services that they think people will exchange money for, and "society" determines if those ventures turnout to be successes or failures. For example, automobiles have been in production 1769, but they didn't receive wide adoption until 1913 when "society" deemed them "affordable enough" with the Model T. However getting governments involved screw that up each and every time. >convince every normalfag and investor in the world to stop buying GaaS and it'll die overnight No, it won't because many of the people pushing GaaS are doing so (On government/non-profit money) for the purposes of pushing their Socialist utopia where you will own nothing and be happy. >and you're arguing for all of us "sensible gamers" to become hermits and reject society No, I'm suggesting that you take your money and go elsewhere. For example, this post lists some alternatives stores that you can go to and buy games from: >>955106 >AAA games were good once twenty years ago Anon, Shenmue is a major reason why Sega became a third-party developer. >we ain't getting another potential golden age unless companies are incentivized to remove their predatory practices Anon, nothing is going to change at those companies unless you remove the people in those companies who enacted those practices in the first place? Even if the law sides against, they're going to keep trying again and again because "They know better" and you don't. While incomplete, here's a small list of those people involved if you want to get started: >>>/v/953601 This is also not accounting for non-profits entities, politicians, and people outside of the game industry who are pushing this. >I'm thinking long term and want to see more good games from companies that have the budget to actually push technological and traditional boundaries Read Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki, start building up your wealth, and learn how to code on the side. Depending on how much you put into it, you could have your own gaming giant by the end of the next decade or two for the purposes of doing exactly that. These companies are not going to do, so get off your ass and stop complaining. >I'm aware non pozzed games exist, and I want there to continue being non pozzed games being released Then how about your support those developers and talk about those games? For example, have you heard about Dread Templar, Dungeon Vixens or Dreamcutter? If so, are they any good? I've been eyeing them for a little while, but hesitant to pull the plug on buying them. >Here's how that problem can be fixed, make companies not predatory In other words, never make people responsible for their own actions because they're a bunch of stupid niggers who don't know better. The number one reason why authoritarians consistently come into power and screw it up for everyone else. >What they want is an industry that they can in good conscience support Then how about you support the developers doing things correctly instead of supporting the developers who are trying to fuck you over? >They shouldn't have had the power in the first place Then you shouldn't have been playing their games. >Are you seriously telling me that the circuses getting shut down is not just cause for a consumer revolt? Not when you've been warned time and time again what's going to happen and you CHOSE to ignore those warnings. >>956000 > Californian leftists are infiltrating my Japanese video games Sony, Marvelous, Sega, SE, Capcom, Bamco, and Nintendo were already infiltrated a long time ago. Your best options are to either burn everything to the ground and start fresh or focus on the areas where the cancer doesn't exist. I listed off several developers earlier than you can support instead.

>>956023 Why are you against this type of regulation? are you in general against consumer protection?

>>955154 >Oh, and threads about this are getting deleted from cuckchan /v/ as well. >>955669 The ammount of shills at cuckchan is incredible. why are they so agasint consumer protection? Why do they want to allow companies to scam you?

>>956023 Do you not care about the gaming industry, or are you just disillusioned to the point of sounding like a defeatist regarding it?

>>956053 >Why are you against this type of regulation? Because companies should be fully allowed to kill off their games if they want to and customers buying those games agreed to those terms. Does that make it "morally right"? NO, but that doesn't matter. If you didn't like that predicament, then you shouldn't have been supporting that company. And that's what this keeps coming back to. >are you in general against consumer protection? I'm against laws that try to keep retards and the irresponsible "safe" because that does nothing except bounce back and screw up my life. >>956064 >Do you not care about the gaming industry There multiple ways to "care about the game industry". I care about the fact that there are alternatives to the biggest storefronts on the market and groups who's games people should be playing but aren't, but you guys don't seem to care one iota about those. Why is that? Don't you care about the game industry? Shouldn't you be helping those alternative stores? Shouldn't you be supporting those lesser-known and/or morally-upright groups? Why are you not and instead arguing that people should be putting their time and money into companies who are actively harming the industry by this thread's standards? Again, don't you care about the game industry? Because you sure as Hell don't show it by outright ignoring those entities within it.

>>956068 How is acting to help set a precedent for future games not caring about the gaming industry? >companies should be fully allowed to kill off their games The entire reason this campaign exists is because people disagree with that sentiment.

>>956069 >How is acting to help set a precedent for future games not caring about the gaming industry? Because that's exactly what you're NOT doing by refusing to support developers and storefronts who are doing things correctly. Campaigns such as this show the industry that people only care about and support your company/group if you're doing things "incorrectly" or "poking the bear". >The entire reason this campaign exists is because people disagree with that sentiment. If they "disagreed with that sentiment", then they wouldn't have been playing those games in the first place. Which is exactly why I called those people hypocrites ALL the way back up here: >>955106 That's also beside the point that people can disagree with something just because they disagree with it. They don't have to have any moral or logically sound reason for it, another reason why I keep returning back to the point that you people agreed to this shit and only are angry and surprised that it finally happened when you AGREED TO IT in the first place.

>>956070 >you people agreed to this shit Blatant falsehood, and your "argument" eventually devolves into "no one has any obligation to make games that don't connect to the Internet and you can't make them."

>>956070 >Because that's exactly what you're NOT doing by refusing to support developers and storefronts who are doing things correctly. I never said I'm refusing to support other developers or storefronts, I asked a specific question and now you're projecting all this shit on me. >Campaigns such as this show the industry that people only care about and support your company/group if you're doing things "incorrectly" or "poking the bear". ...yes? I understand you're saying companies will only do the bare minimum to meet expected "proper" action, but why do you think it's a bad thing to set higher standards for future games by bringing publicity to this campaign? >If they "disagreed with that sentiment", then they wouldn't have been playing those games in the first place. No, that's retarded. I've never once paid money to the company that made and hosted the servers to City of Heroes, but I found that game interesting, fun, and engaging and got to play it because it was possible to host private servers without the company's support. People can want for games to continue existing for the sake of preservation too, you know. >you people agreed to this shit and only are angry and surprised that it finally happened when you AGREED TO IT in the first place. EULAs are not always held up in a court of law, and this entire debacle may be the very reason this one isn't. You're telling me you'd rather people just get shafted than force a company to improve their at best dishonest practices?

>>956072 >I never said I'm refusing to support other developers or storefronts Then why do you guys seem pretty determined to change the subject whenever I bring that up? Numerous people going so far as to directly imply that there's not a single group that exists that doesn't take part in these issues. >I understand you're saying companies will only do the bare minimum to meet expected "proper" action, but why do you think it's a bad thing to set higher standards for future games by bringing publicity to this campaign? Because those "higher standards" can be set by not supporting and refusing to do business with companies who pull this crap, and instead giving that business and support to someone else who does deserve it for doing things correctly. That is all in addition to the fact that these companies have been raking in bad publicity for years because they were already pulling stunts such as this. And the only reason why they, not only started but, CONTINUE to pull these stunts is because of people still supporting them no matter what happens, from predatory EULA terms to games becoming literally unplayable. If you want things to change, cut these people off entirely. >No, that's retarded. Why? >People can want for games to continue existing for the sake of preservation too, you know. And if people don't want to preserve those games, what do you do then? I have dozens of old PC games sitting on my shelf that can still have played in multiplayer (Even officially), but never ever see any activity online. >EULAs are not always held up in a court of law That doesn't matter. Why are you agreeing to these games with predatory EULAs KNOWING that they're EULAs are predatory? >You're telling me you'd rather people just get shafted than force a company to improve their at best dishonest practices? You're not going to force these companies to do anything. They're going to get a slap on the wrist and go back to doing what they have always been doing. And the best part is that you know this. So what alternatives are there to the situation? Taking your business elsewhere Supporting the groups that need that support but currently are not because you're wasting all your time trying to focusing on groups who won't be properly punished for their actions. Again, why do you have to play that specific game, made by that specific company, knowing that the company is going dishonest and predatory any way that they "legally" can, INSTEAD of playing something else? Playing a different game. Supporting a different company. That's going to accomplish SO much more than running to Daddy Government and scream about how you lack the autonomy to be a responsible person so they need to step in to compensate for your lack of inhibition. Why are you so afraid of being personally responsible?

>>956081 You keep projecting things onto the people trying to argue with you that absolutely ruin whatever train of thought you're trying to get across. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to convince people of when you completely disregard points brought up and dismiss the opinions of others. You also type like a fucking spaz.

>>956094 >I really don't understand what you're trying to convince people of Let's try this. Bring up a series of "Yes/No" questions regarding the points I'm making that you're confused with or think that I'm "Losing the plot" with.

>>956134 No. I didn't say I was confused by what you're saying or that you "lost the plot" stop putting words in my mouth, nigger. I said I don't understand what you're trying to convince people of. Most people here would like to preserve games and establish better consumer practices for future games, and I would say this campaign is something that can help achieve that. You keep naysaying everyone despite this getting more news coverage and traction than most campaigns have in years and you keep assuming because people support this that means they don't support anything else.

in response to >bbbc6d What you're saying is don't support these companies period, sure, but is that really incompatible with the goal here? Isn't the possibility of being able to strike a significant blow against all the companies that pull scummy shit a net positive? You can continue to not support them AND take away their ability to permanently shut down games. The best case scenario of all of this as unlikely as it might be is that Companies may be force to give out the tools for the community to be able to run their own servers, and at that point the companies can be cut out of the equation entirely, and only the game matters.

>>956149 >Most people here would like to preserve games and establish better consumer practices for future games, and I would say this campaign is something that can help achieve that. Except those are two mutually exclusive things. The former is what people (Customers) should be doing by supporting companies and groups who create products and services with their best interests in mind, all the while not doing business with companies and groups who move against those interests. The latter is attempting to force companies and groups to bend to your will, which they won't because they have "legally" done "nothing wrong". Which is the point that I keep coming back to. >You keep naysaying everyone despite this getting more news coverage and traction than most campaigns have in years and you keep assuming because people support this that means they don't support anything else. Do you not realize the irony that in the instance of all that occurring, Ubisoft's The Crew has received far wider press coverage than it EVER did receive over the 10 years prior after it released? In addition to that fact, why should people give a damn about The Crew going offline compared to other GaaS titles as I pointed out earlier? I mean it must be such a DAMN GOOD GAME to cause this much of a "stir" across the "entire gaming community". Let's not waste time talking about some independent company's game, we need to devote all this time discussing Ubisoft and The Crew' because it must have been such an important game. I wouldn't be half surprise to see this as some marketing stunt by Ubisoft. >>956151 > What you're saying is don't support these companies period, sure, but is that really incompatible with the goal here? Yes. The goal here is to force companies through the rule of law to do certain practices, the reality of which is that they're going to tell you to pound salt. Actually look all the lawsuits over the years that have been brought against Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc. for being anti-competitive or mistreating their customers or whatever "line" they crossed. Even in the instances that they did lose, did that actually change a single thing about how the company operates? OR did they just go right back to doing almost the exact same practices that got them into trouble in the first place, but receive almost full immunity for it this time because they checked whatever box the court wanted them to? That same thing is going to happen here, which is why I said the only winning move is to not even play. Just cut them off entirely, never do business with them again, and move on to something else not associated nor connected to them. >Isn't the possibility of being able to strike a significant blow against all the companies that pull scummy shit a net positive? Anon, which government(s) is funding Ubisoft? And which government(s) are you hoping will bring a lawsuit against Ubisoft? >The best case scenario of all of this as unlikely as it might be is that Companies may be force to give out the tools for the community to be able to run their own servers, and at that point the companies can be cut out of the equation entirely, and only the game matters. Didn't you guys earlier ridicule me with a strawman that YOU described as being ''EXACTLY' that? In fact, I'll even quote the post: >>955928 >you're arguing for all of us "sensible gamers" to become hermits and reject society What you're demanding is the exact same thing as that strawman, except with extra steps. That's also beside the point that there are dozens of games out there where you do not have to jump through these hoops in order to play them. NFS World comes to mind where people have developed server emulators for that: https://soapboxrace.world/ Or TDU2: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Test_Drive_Unlimited_2#Community_servers What do you actually want? Because it sure as Hell isn't an issue over companies "killing video game".

>Half the thread got derailed by concern troll autist or probably a genuine corporate nigger When will you retards realize that he's wasting your time? Just laugh at him or tell him to fuck off, he is not genuine, he is purposefully making up shit about you so you respond and not be productive. Don't be a loser like him. To go back on topic, Ross should definitely reach out to anyone living in Asian countries and check if their laws can also make a difference. I'm sure they have some sort of consumer protection laws unlike the US.

IS HE STILL GOING? >>956233 Aw but I want to completely and utterly destroy his argument and make him spell out how retarded he is. >>The best case scenario of all of this as unlikely as it might be is that Companies may be force to give out the tools for the community to be able to run their own servers, and at that point the companies can be cut out of the equation entirely, and only the game matters. >Didn't you guys earlier ridicule me with a strawman that YOU described as being ''EXACTLY' that? In fact, I'll even quote the post: >>you're arguing for all of us "sensible gamers" to become hermits and reject society Okay how the fuck are those two even remotely similar? >>956134 Alright, I'll bite one more time, let's put all your cards on the table: 1. Do you think you are the smartest anon in this thread? 2. Do you want good games to be released in the future? 3. Do you believe in freedom of choice, even if there are shit choices? 4. Have mainstream games ever been good at any point in the last 65 years? 5. Do you understand mainstream games drive way too much of modern gaming discourse? 6. Do you think any random anons on this site have the potential to strike it rich, release a game to a non mainstream storefront, AND expect it to be a success and/or high quality? 7. If I buy a physical product, should I own it and be able to use it the way I see fit? 8. Is forcing a company to not do something anti-consumer wrong? 9. Are corpos and/or the courts liable for making the EULA with as many abusable aspects as it does? 10. Are normalfags aware of everything they agree to when they click "I accept" on the EULA? 11. Do you think normalfags have been sufficiently warned about the dangers of EULA? 12. Are people retarded for having bought games with EULA at any point in their lives? 13. Are clueless normalfags killing the industry more than companies? 14. Should people with low IQ be euthanized and/or sterilized? 15. Are normalfags mad at the EULA for a good reason? 16. Does it matter that they are only mad now instead of when it was first implemented? 17. If given the opportunity to destroy the EULA, which you've stated multiple times is bad, would you take it? 18. Do you think fixing a flaw that shouldn't exist to begin with is dodging responsibility? 19. Are contracts set in stone and unable to be legally overturned even in the supreme court or local equivalent? 20. Is a law that prevents retards from easily killing themselves at zero expense to you bad? 21. Do you think this campaign is occurring because everyone loved The Crew? 22. Do you think the campaign is founded on false assumptions of how the law works? 23. If you had the ability to erase Ross's original video and all discussion stemming from it from existence, would you do it? 24. Should these campaigns only be led by people with enough legal experience to guarantee the result they want? 25. Do you think it's impossible to make a wide flock of normalcattle think "EULA BAD"? 26. Do you think it's impossible for enough converted normalcattle to begin a consumer revolt? 27. Do you think it's impossible for a consumer revolt to succeed? 28. If consumers get any legal power, will companies take more care to cater to them to ensure profit? 29. Do you think anons support triple gAAAy and don't already pirate or play their backlog? 30. Do you think anons would immediately roll over and give their paychecks over to them if this campaign succeeds? 31. Are alternatives sufficiently visible enough to anyone who truly gives a damn, despite mainstream discussion centering on triple gAAAy? 32. If there was a way to make a thread on a site like this for every "kosher" release and discussing mainstream games was banned, do you think that site would attract a significant audience? 33. Do you think normalcattle will care about alternatives the same way they care about mainstream? 34. Do you want anons to unquestioningly embrace alternatives and sing their praises the way you do? 35. Do you think anons have dumb/nonexistant reasons for not immediately slobbing the knob of alternatives? 36. Do you think you're preaching to a choir by constantly bringing up alternatives? 37. Do you know how many anons hate buying video games to begin with? 38. Do you think it will be easy to supplant triple gAAAy with alternatives if harcore gamers just buy from them instead of big companies? 39. Should it be easy to supplant them with alternatives?

[Expand Post]

40. Should hardcore gamers have zero brand loyalty? 41. Can these shit companies be forced to change due to the government intervention? 42. Do companies copy other successful companies even without knowing the full context of the successful product? 43. If companies see zero income from a forced trend and government subsidies dry up, will they stop forcing that trend? 44. Can you simultaneously campaign to fix bad companies and support good companies? 45. Do you expect less companies to implement negative user experiences if there is not a regular show of force from their userbase? 46. Is it impossible for good companies now to become bad companies later? 47. If somebody you trusted maliciously fucked you over for their own personal gain with no warning, do you deserve sympathy? 48. Are you afraid of corpo overreach affecting your lifestyle, ability to have alternatives, or ability to play your backlog to the same extent of the government? Yes I got severely autistic over this reply, I don't care anymore I want yes/no answers where possible, plain english if you need to expand on anything.

>>956234 >Aw but I want to completely and utterly destroy his argument and make him spell out how retarded he is. He doesn't care if you destroy his arguments or not, he is trying to derail the thread by any means necessary even if he's the one being laughed at. He knows what he's doing and most of you are taking the bait.

>>956238 I think it's still worth pointing out the flaws in a poor argument, though that doesn't necessarily mean engaging with a bad actor.

but games and the game industry need to die

I'm not reading all that shit. What the fuck is going on.

>>956253 Ross of Accursed Farms, makes Freeman's Mind, and Ross's Game Dungeon. He's got really sick that companies are allow to take down the always online servers for games and make them unplayable forever, so he's using the fact Ubisoft is shutting down the crew as a launching pad to create a Campaign to have this recognized by goverments, since aside form the US there is literally no laws about this in any other countries. vid related >>954727 Srunk the size of the webm since 1920 is kinda big.

>>956263 looks like the audio went out of sync at the end there...

>>956234 >Okay how the fuck are those two even remotely similar? You want to fuck off and play your favorite games of yesteryear, with the only "difference" being that you still want to be able to play the AAA slop of yesteryear. >1. Do you think you are the smartest anon in this thread? Hell no >2. Do you want good games to be released in the future? Yes >3. Do you believe in freedom of choice, even if there are shit choices? Yes >4. Have mainstream games ever been good at any point in the last 65 years? Yes >5. Do you understand mainstream games drive way too much of modern gaming discourse? I want to say "No" given how it seems like many of the most impactful games people keep referring to or bringing up all these years later were always "Outside" of the mainstream to some degree. And it's only in the past five years that I've really seen a reverse of that. >6. Do you think any random anons on this site have the potential to strike it rich, release a game to a non mainstream storefront, AND expect it to be a success and/or high quality? Yes >7. If I buy a physical product, should I own it and be able to use it the way I see fit? As long as it doesn't violate the law/agreements made, "Yes". No, not all agreements/laws are equal and some are outright bullshit. I am not denying that. >8. Is forcing a company to not do something anti-consumer wrong? Yes >9. Are corpos and/or the courts liable for making the EULA with as many abusable aspects as it does? As long as it doesn't violate the law, no. >10. Are normalfags aware of everything they agree to when they click "I accept" on the EULA? I would have to say "Yes". Someone is probably going to call bullshit on that, but my reason for justifying it is just how often regular people joke about "ridiculous contract terms" such as selling your soul. When you get to that point, it's no longer an issue of ignorance, it's an issue of not wanting to be responsible. >11. Do you think normalfags have been sufficiently warned about the dangers of EULA? Yes >12. Are people retarded for having bought games with EULA at any point in their lives? No >13. Are clueless normalfags killing the industry more than companies? No >14. Should people with low IQ be euthanized and/or sterilized? No because who administers and oversees those tests? >15. Are normalfags mad at the EULA for a good reason? Yes >16. Does it matter that they are only mad now instead of when it was first implemented? Yes >17. If given the opportunity to destroy the EULA, which you've stated multiple times is bad, would you take it? I never said nor implied that. Even then, that's an impossibility because the agreements/contracts still exists. EULAs are no different, in function, than the "agreement" you make when you go to the store to buy food. EULAs just have more strings attached than buying a banana or milk. >18. Do you think fixing a flaw that shouldn't exist to begin with is dodging responsibility? Could you elaborate? I feel like I'm misunderstanding the question. >19. Are contracts set in stone and unable to be legally overturned even in the supreme court or local equivalent? Unless it breaks the law or both parties agree to terms that will allow them to part ways, yes. >20. Is a law that prevents retards from easily killing themselves at zero expense to you bad? Depends on what the law actually is. >21. Do you think this campaign is occurring because everyone loved The Crew? For some, yes. For the majority, no. >22. Do you think the campaign is founded on false assumptions of how the law works? Yes. At least from the American side. All I know about the EU is that they make their decisions based upon what's best for the EU (And I'm not talking about EU citizens). >23. If you had the ability to erase Ross's original video and all discussion stemming from it from existence, would you do it?

[Expand Post]

The video that he uploaded for this specific campaign five days ago, or his original "GaaS is Fraud" video from 2019 that started much of this? I have to ask because my mind immediately went to the latter, with my response being "No" because that video made me search out information to figure out what was going on. >24. Should these campaigns only be led by people with enough legal experience to guarantee the result they want? That would be preferable because then people wouldn't be wasting their time going after the wrong target, or misunderstanding how the law works, or even setting bad case precedents. Most campaigns don't go down that road however because they're lead by passionate people who have an "ideal" opinion of how the world should work (Not necessarily how it does work). >25. Do you think it's impossible to make a wide flock of normalcattle think "EULA BAD"? The problem isn't the EULA, it's the terms within the EULA. No. >26. Do you think it's impossible for enough converted normalcattle to begin a consumer revolt? No. >27. Do you think it's impossible for a consumer revolt to succeed? No. >28. If consumers get any legal power, will companies take more care to cater to them to ensure profit? Depends on the company, but I'll have to go with "No" as I don't see the attitudes of these companies changing.

>>956234 >>956270 Had to break this post into two because I passed the character limit. >29. Do you think anons support triple gAAAy and don't already pirate or play their backlog? Yes. Do I think that's most Anons? No. We're also ignoring the question of lurkers. >30. Do you think anons would immediately roll over and give their paychecks over to them if this campaign succeeds? "" >31. Are alternatives sufficiently visible enough to anyone who truly gives a damn, despite mainstream discussion centering on triple gAAAy? Yes. If not, then you ask (Which I almost never see anyone do). >32. If there was a way to make a thread on a site like this for every "kosher" release and discussing mainstream games was banned, do you think that site would attract a significant audience? No because that sounds manufactured as Hell. >33. Do you think normalcattle will care about alternatives the same way they care about mainstream? Yes, eventually. A lot of "mainstream" groups started out as alternative services. >34. Do you want anons to unquestioningly embrace alternatives and sing their praises the way you do? "Yes" to the first part, "No" to the second part. Don't be afraid to find and try alternatives, but that doesn't mean they're immune from criticism just because they're outsiders. A shit product is still a shit product. >35. Do you think anons have dumb/nonexistant reasons for not immediately slobbing the knob of alternatives? Don't care for the way you're phrasing that, but "Yes". >36. Do you think you're preaching to a choir by constantly bringing up alternatives? No. >37. Do you know how many anons hate buying video games to begin with? Uh, everyone? >38. Do you think it will be easy to supplant triple gAAAy with alternatives if harcore gamers just buy from them instead of big companies? "Easy", no. Possible and likely, yes. >39. Should it be easy to supplant them with alternatives? Yes, it should be easy. Experiences and circumstances may differ, though. >40. Should hardcore gamers have zero brand loyalty? Depends on the reason for that loyalty. If you financially benefit from that brand, then "No", be 100% loyal. If you do not however, then "Yes", only be loyal so long as the quality meets your standards and don't be afraid to "trade up" if something better comes along. That doesn't mean you be an ass about it though, as some people try to take it. It's just business. >41. Can these shit companies be forced to change due to the government intervention? No. >42. Do companies copy other successful companies even without knowing the full context of the successful product? Yes >43. If companies see zero income from a forced trend and government subsidies dry up, will they stop forcing that trend? The majority, yes. >44. Can you simultaneously campaign to fix bad companies and support good companies? No. Your resources are always limited, so you will always have to pick over doing one or the other despite how much you try to balance things out. That's not to mention other rules such as the Pareto principle making that choice even more vital. >45. Do you expect less companies to implement negative user experiences if there is not a regular show of force from their userbase? Could you rephrase that? >46. Is it impossible for good companies now to become bad companies later? No. >47. If somebody you trusted maliciously fucked you over for their own personal gain with no warning, do you deserve sympathy? Yes, the first couple times that happens. After the third, you should have learned to no longer trust them. >48. Are you afraid of corpo overreach affecting your lifestyle, ability to have alternatives, or ability to play your backlog to the same extent of the government? "No" because I can also choose which companies I do business with. That gives me more leeway than a government where I can only select a handful of the people running the country I live in.

>laws get made >offline mode is barebones demo tier full of cutscenes >corporations will ask enthusiasts to pay a franchising fee to own their own custom servers >all games are sold as subscriptions in the future The monkey paw potential is massive here

>>956430 Bot post

>>956068 >Because companies should be fully allowed to kill off their games if they want to This is the only relevant part of your argument. Are you for fraud? >I'm against laws that try to keep retards and the irresponsible "safe" because that does nothing except bounce back and screw up my life. So then any consumer protection is what you are fighting against? Does it limit itself to consumer protection? Workplace safety? construction regulations? electrical regulations? where does the line end? Do you subscribe to the ancap way of thinking? where any communal agreement is null and void because of the NAP?

>>956612 >Are you for fraud? "Fraud" implies deception or trickery done for the purposes of cheating people out of something. Nothing these companies are doing would be considered "fraud" when they detail exactly what they'll be doing on the damn box/website when you buy the game. >So then any consumer protection is what you are fighting against? "Consumer protection" had it's place in an era when the fast method of communication was through the telegraph, switchboards, and the Pony Express. Today, you can look up a near infinite amount of information providing extremely detailed instructions on how to "protect" yourself against almost anything. At this point in time, "Consumer Protection" is just an excuse for people to be irresponsible. >Does it limit itself to consumer protection? Workplace safety? construction regulations? electrical regulations? where does the line end? Spoilering because it's offtopic, but needs addressing. Funny you should bring that up because the government hasn't actually done anything to improve things like "workplace safety". If you don't believe me, look up a chart showing the amount of workplace fatalities that occured from 1930 to the present day. You'll notice that government regulations did nothing towards solving the problem as the problem already being solved. In fact, you'll actually notice the absolute latest articles about things like workplace safetey talk about how fatalities and injuries have been steadily increasing over the past two decades for reasons unexplained. That not to mention how we have increasingly common events like wilfdfirese happening thanks to government EPA regulations that did not exist until the past 50 years. It's almost like getting the government involved causes nothing but problems.

>>954427 >cope You have to go back.

>>955850 >you don't know how cops treat domestic affairs Yeah, everyone knows the solution is to bow, scrape and bend over backwards for daddy Ubisoft, and to attack anyone who doesn't. >Why do you have to play THAT specific video game When the specific benefits outweigh the drawbacks. This is the most basic step of making a logical decision and you're failing it. >"those people" are the ones who make bullshit campaigns such as this very thread No. If you had done even the simplest, most rudimentary research before pissing your pants you'd know Ross, the man behind this, is a video game preservationist fist and foremost. The average AAA fan buys a game at launch, sinks some hours into it, and then never touches it again. >For one, not participating in it And there we fucking go. The faggot screeching about how you should do nothing to improve the situation and how supporting the right companies is enough to fix things doesn't spend a dime to help devs that are good. Fuck off you hypocritical waste of space. >>956704 >Today, you can look up a near infinite amount of information providing extremely detailed instructions on how to "protect" yourself against almost anything. At this point in time, "Consumer Protection" is just an excuse for people to be irresponsible. Oh yeah, it's really easy to tell people to do their research on everything when you don't even bother with it yourself.

>>956816 >Yeah, everyone knows the solution is to bow, scrape and bend over backwards for daddy Ubisoft Why are you even playing Ubisoft games, and game by similar companies, in the first place? >When the specific benefits outweigh the drawbacks. In other words, you shouldn't have been playing The Crew, and other games like it, in the first place if you want to support the efforts of what this thread is "trying" to do. You made your decision (That playing a GaaS title that can be shut down at any time was more important than playing something else), now deal with the consequences (You lose access to that GaaS title once it shuts down) and quit bitching. >Ross, the man behind this, is a video game preservationist fist and foremost. So? >The average AAA fan buys a game at launch, sinks some hours into it, and then never touches it again. Okay, and? >The faggot screeching about how you should do nothing to improve the situation and how supporting the right companies is enough to fix things doesn't spend a dime to help devs that are good. Congratulations on lacking reading comprehension.

>>956704 >Nothing these companies are doing would be considered "fraud" when they detail exactly what they'll be doing on the damn box/website when you buy the game. I can buy a physical copy of a game that requires me to accept the eula post install that specifies whatever they want. However, because i have installed this software i am unable to return the product to the physical store. I would call this fraud if the company makes the game unplayable for whatever reason. >At this point in time, "Consumer Protection" is just an excuse for people to be irresponsible. I simply disagree. There is a reason there exists a concept of renting and i think this is specifically the purpose. You are renting the game for a one time price and that should be specified. Nowhere should the words buy be there if it is a rented product, including microtransactions. >Workplace safety. Not a burgerfag, so fuck you i guess? From my perspective workplace safety has recently been going down and there are tangible changes in the regulation causing these issues. With the latest national government the change has been drastic and will probably make the construction business more risky for companies, worse for consumers and even worse for the workers.

>>956877 >do nothing >ignore everything >things will magically get better if you simply refuse to fight back in any way, shape, or form Why are you not banned yet.

>>956877 >Why are you playing videogames? Just let them disappear forever bro lol

>>956945 How the fuck has this autistic debate lasted so long?

>>956922 >I can buy a physical copy of a game that requires me to accept the eula post install Can you actually list whatever game you're talking about? Because I'm pulling up games, that I own, from as far back as 1997, where it's even listed on the damn box that you will have to agree to the EULA in order to play the game. Forget even after the game installs to your hard drive. In fact, I found one game from 2005 where it states that the publisher can termiante the online portion of the game at any time and for any reason. And wouldn't you know it, Ubisoft did the same exact thing with The Crew both on the front and the back of the box. If you did not like those terms, then you should not have bought the game. If you're JUST started out buying software (IOW, you're five years old and can barely read), it's understandable you buying something the first couple time and not actually grasping what's going on. However since we're using this website, in which case the assumption being presented is that we're all adults who graduated from high school (Or about to), then you should not only realize this is standard and started asking questions about it, but also began having personal rules. Probably rules such as, "I will not buy a game unless I can read it's EULA before I buy it." >However, because i have installed this software i am unable to return the product to the physical store. Yes you can. Only further prooving that you guys don't read this shit and just want to be irresponsible. Here's the refund policy section from 2011's Battlefield 3: <If you do not agree to the terms of this License or the Origin Software Application License and you have not fully installed or used the Software, you may return the Software for a refund or exchange within thirty (30) days from the date of purchase to the original place of purchase by following the instructions for return available at http://warrantyinfo.ea.com Here's another one from 2012's Microsoft Flight: <By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s refund policies. See www.microsoft.com/worldwide. In the United States and Canada, call (800) MICROSOFT or see www.microsoft.com/info/nareturns.htm >There is a reason there exists a concept of renting Because people didn't think that a products is nor worth owning but still wanted to experience/use it. >You are renting the game for a one time price and that should be specified. It is. In fact, you cannot get away from the fact that companies explicitly and intricately explain what their terms for giving you access to a product are. Why do you think just before you do almost anything in the world, from reparing a piece of hardware to signing up for a job, they hand you a stack of papers that you need to read and sign? That is them explaining the terms. >Nowhere should the words buy be there if it is a rented product, including microtransactions. You know what, I agree. Things SHOULDN'T be that way. They should use "Rent" when they mean you're renting the product and "Buy" only when you wholy own the product. That being said, they don't. I know they don't, you know they don't, practically everyone else who's posting in this thread KNOW that they don't. At that point, the only question worth asking is why are you wasting your time with these companeis instead of moving onto something else and (In the instance that you really were just that ignorant) writing the entire experience off as a lesson learned and to not do that again? >>956942 I'm not sure if it's funny or rather telling that my statement that original started this entire argument has caused outright hatred from some people: >>954865 <Don't give the companies who pull this shit the time of day and instead talk about, promote, and buy other things made by other companies who are NOT pulling this shit. With some people going so far as to say that, "Doing business elsewhere with someone else," is equivalent to saying, "Just lay down like a dog and die."

>>956969 >why are you wasting your time with these companeis instead of moving onto something else Because the entire point of the campaign is to serve as a landmark case so that games (even service ones like The Crew) can still be played after the companies end support for them. The reason people are agreeing with the campaign is because they want games to be preserved, they want the practice of rendering games inoperable after end of support to end and serve as a stepping stone toward a more consumer friendly industry, and because they disagree with the EULA. Why do you not want people to voice their complaints with this in a way that makes these issues better known and has the potential to positively impact the future of gaming?

>>956978 >Because the entire point of the campaign is to serve as a landmark case so that games (even service ones like The Crew) can still be played after the companies end support for them. Except you agreed to the terms, when you bought those games, that they can shut them down. As I pointed out, they don't even hide the times and outright list them on the damn box the game comes in. >The reason people are agreeing with the campaign is because they want games to be preserved That is not the reason and you know it. >they want the practice of rendering games inoperable after end of support to end Then you don't by games that can be shut down by the publisher, nor do you support companies who create those games. >and serve as a stepping stone toward a more consumer friendly industry So you support and give attention to the companies who are doing things correctly. >and because they disagree with the EULA Then you shouldn't have bought the game. >Why do you not want people to voice their complaints with this in a way that makes these issues better known Because it's not solving the issue. These companies are not going to change their tactics just because a court tell them to. How do I know this? Because that's exactly what happened all the previous times such problems shave been brought before the courts. The company apologizes, pays whatever fine is required of them, and then goes right back to doing the same exact thing except checking off whatever box they need to make it "legal" this time. The courts are not going to solve a problem that exists because of people's lack of responsibility. You want to hurt these companies? To make these practices end? Don't buy their games. Don't support those companies. Don't even give them a smidgen of attention and bully anyone who does. Supporting developers who are doing things correctly, and these practices will die off because it isn't profitable to make games with anti-consumer predatory EULAs. Simple as that.

>>956980 How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?

>>956982 Based on all the previous times I've skipped breakfast until around noon, a little hungry two hours after I wake up and then zero feeling. Now answer this question: why are you so insistant upon buying games made by companies known for their anti-consumer practices and predatory EULAs instead of supporting companies who have none of that baggage attached to them? As a follow-up question to that in the event that you did buy, install, and even play said game knowing the terms all laid out such as that the game can be shutdown at any point in time, why should I support your cause?

>>956980 >you agreed to the terms, when you bought those games Except I didn't. You know someone can want a game to be preserved despite not having bought it during its hey day, right? >That is not the reason and you know it. How the hell would you know, are you psychic? It's why I'm supporting it. >Then you don't by games that can be shut down by the publisher, nor do you support companies who create those games. I didn't do either of those and I still want to see games preserved and allowed to exist despite company-end servers shutting down. >So you support and give attention to the companies who are doing things correctly. I do. >Then you shouldn't have bought the game. I didn't. >Because it's not solving the issue... Because that's exactly what happened all the previous times such problems shave been brought before the courts. Every time? Forgive me for not having the legal background for this but I'm confident at least some standards in the industry (and others) were the result of something similar. >>956983 >why should I support your cause? Evidently you shouldn't because you don't agree with the sentiment of game preservation. Why should you keep posting in this thread when everyone seems to think you have retarded beliefs?

>>956942 Being an idiot isn't against the rules, though if a vol really cared they could probably get him on a technicality regarding derailing.

>>956987 >You know someone can want a game to be preserved despite not having bought it during its hey day, right? Yeah, I have dozens of games like that where I want to experience the multiplayer of them but cannot. NOT because the publisher made the game broken or shutdown the online servers, mind you. It's because no one freeling and willingly plays those games. What's the "preservationists" argument at that point? Yes, it's "preserved" in the most barebones way possible, but I cannot play the damn thing because there's nothing TO play. >It's why I'm supporting it. Good for you. What about all the other people supporting it, not because they actually want to "preserve" games but because they want to "Strike a blow" against companies because they're angry and want to feel like they're doing something? >I still want to see games preserved and allowed to exist despite company-end servers shutting down. Honestly, I would like that as well, but the reality is that you cannot save everything. So what you do is that you save what and where you can. >I do. Okay, could you list them off so that I can look into supporting them as well? >Every time? Forgive me for not having the legal background for this but I'm confident at least some standards in the industry (and others) were the result of something similar. The overwhelming amount of "standards" that exist in industries are the result of market competition, not government intervention. In fact markets are lightyears ahead of any government standards, which is resulting hilarious things such as the whole "green economy" where the government has one set of standards, independent entities go miles past what the standards set, and the government's response is to outright ignore or even destroy those entities because it was never actually about "setting standards". It was only ever about control. Making a better product or service than the competition means that your competitors have to respond in one of two ways. The first is that they respond in kind by innovating in a way that makes it seem better or comparable to what you're doing. The second is to do exactly with Nintendo did with Sega, where they used the might of the U.S. government to rake Sega through the coals during the 1992 senate hearings for the purposes of removing them from the indsutry entirely, even if it included possible destroying the industry for everyone else because none of it matter except for the purposes of Nintendo remaining on top. >Why should you keep posting in this thread when everyone seems to think you have retarded beliefs? Couldn't I ask the same of you?

holy shit this sad autist is here too

>>956969 <I am still not a burgerfag. Here is an example of a game that requires internet access to Konami servers to install. A opened package is non returnable for software. >You know what, I agree. Things SHOULDN'T be that way. They should use "Rent" when they mean you're renting the product and "Buy" only when you wholy own the product. Thank you for agreeing on what they should do. Would you like to sign a petition so that they do that? With the force of government sanctions if they do not.

>>956969 >doing business with someone else THERE IS NO ONE ELSE. WITHOUT ACTIVELY DEFENDING AGAINST THIS BEHAVIOR, IT WILL BECOME THE LEGAL STANDARD. You're either a shill or too stupid to be holding this conversation, because it's fucking axiomatic to the incestuous behavior of propaganda media and government and anyone who belongs here knows this already.

>>957006 >>957003 >>956991 >>956982 >>956967 >>956942 This is what naysayers look like. They will be in every government, every nation and every discussion. Excercise restraint on anger and let him do what he needs to. A change in the law to make the practice of destroying games is what i want, hopefully the arguments on his side are poor enough for whoever reads the thread.

>>957001 >What's the "preservationists" argument at that point? That those games still exist and can be played the way they were intended. The Crew cannot. How fucking dense are you? >What about all the other people Good for them, I say. I believe it's a good cause, now stop putting words in my mouth and pretending I'm some imaginary retard that has no concept of action and reaction. >So what you do is that you save what and where you can. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THIS CAMPAIGN EXISTS? >Okay, could you list them off so that I can look into supporting them as well? No, because I don't have a list next to me. Independent developers whose work I like, generally. Years ago I also supported GOG though my interest has waned with them. >The overwhelming amount of "standards" that exist in industries are the result of market competition, not government intervention. Okay. Again, I don't have the proper background for this but the fact that some were the result of this kind of outcry supports the point I'm making. >Couldn't I ask the same of you? No? The general consensus here is that this campaign is a good idea and I'm here to help discuss it and how to spread the word. Did you want to answer the question or just repeat it to me like a sleazy cunt?

Consumer rights trump EULA, at least in Aus.

>>956068 >because that does nothing except bounce back and screw up my life. But why should I care about you? What have you ever done for me?

>>957004 >Here is an example of a game that requires internet access to Konami servers to install. A opened package is non returnable for software. Okay, let's actually take a look at that and see what's going on there. So I'm finding two URLs on the European copy of the MGS HD Collection, one to Konami's site and one to Sony's. Starting with the former, since this is a Konami game, let's look at and see what their website says (I'll be using the UK for simplicity and since I don't know where your specific copy is from). And never mind on that front as the website's terms only apply to the website: https://archive.ph/i3qem So let's go to the game's official store page. And there's no terms listed there either: https://archive.ph/udYhD What about the Sony page? Well, I cannot find the 2011 page for the "Software Usage Terms", but here's that page from 2009 and get a load of this: https://archive.is/BE497#selection-1733.0-1733.98 <You may not resell Game Software unless expressly authorised by Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Yes, you heard that right folks, since 2009, Sony has asserted that you cannot sell any of your physical European copies of games unless you receive authorization from Sony. So yeah, that video they uploaded in 2013 detailing how you transfer ownership, that's potentially fraud as the same restriction is listed in the "Software Usage Terms" in 2014: https://archive.ph/Wixa4#selection-2137.0-2141.182 I need to specify potentially because the video only exists on their American, Australian, and NZ JewTube accounts. Their PlayStation Europe account lacks the video. So they can try to argue that the video was marketing intended for other territories but not Europe. That is possibly something that you could go after Sony for because they're "Falsly advertising" the PS4. But that's starting to get beside the point that Sony did detail your "rights" as a customer and where to access those terms, which you could have looked up before you bought the game. Not saying that you had any reason to back then as practically everyone trusted the companies much more than they do today. And it's only because we've been burned so much that any of this is finally coming to light and being taken seriously. >Would you like to sign a petition so that they do that? With the force of government sanctions if they do not. No because I don't trust the government. >>957006 >THERE IS NO ONE ELSE. So none of the people I listed up here exist: >>955106 >WITHOUT ACTIVELY DEFENDING AGAINST THIS BEHAVIOR, IT WILL BECOME THE LEGAL STANDARD. It already is the "legal standard". What do you think the hundreds of lawyers at these companies do, twiddle their thumbs all day? They do nothing except read through the laws to figure out what the company technically can and cannot do for the purposes of giving the company the most preferable amount of power possible wherever they opperate. Do they have to operate this way? No, that's their choice. But YOU also have the choice of deciding if it's worth giving that company your business or giving that business to someone else. >>957014 >That those games still exist and can be played the way they were intended. There's no one playing the multiplayer, which means they're not being played as "intended". So what do you do at that point? Heck, assume this campaign succeeds and Ubisoft releases software to make private servers for the The Crew. Will people actually jump at the chance to continue playing that game, or is it just going to be a barren wasteland like so many other (Incredibly good) multiplayer games that no one ever touches because they're busy playing something else? >The Crew cannot. The Crew lists on it's box that the game cannot be played without online, and that Ubisoft can shutdown any aspect of the online whenever they want (Provided 30 days minimum notice). And you did exercise your consumer rights by choosing to buy that game knowing those terms. >WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THIS CAMPAIGN EXISTS? Because people are angry and don't know what else to do about a problem that's the result of them not bothering to read the terms of the game that they play, much more continuing to buy those games long after it's become apparent that these companies don't respect their customers and never will. >I don't have the proper background for this but the fact that some were the result of this kind of outcry supports the point I'm making. Such as? I don't want to call bullshit on that argument but you're saying that you haven't studied market history when paired with government intervention, but then assert that there must have been "something" that the governments did at some point to establish "standards". If you want an actual case of the government stepping in to limit tech company supremacy, there was the M$ anti-trust case: https://infogalactic.com/info/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. Where the final result of that was...nothing. I'm not exxagerating, literally nothing happened except M$ being required to release the Windows APIs up to 2007. >No? Then there's zero reason why either of us "shouldn't" be allowed to post in this thread to voice out opinions. Like I said, this entire argument started on my suggestion of playing something else: >>954865 And some people are so far gone that they're outright asseting that there isn't a single "non-compromised" company that exists, such as this recent post just above yours: >>957006 I did not plan nor expect to make my posts 20% of the thread. That happened as a result of YOU people losing it when I made the point that you could have been playing/supporting another company instead of a company that hates you.

>>957021 Then the campaign should be a sweep in aussie land if they can get enough of them interested in backing it.

>>957174 It'll only take one if the ACCC gets a hold of it. They're the reason Valve was forced to implement refunds (though to be fair Valve ignored the ACCC emails and lost in court because they simply didn't show so LOL).

>>956942 >>956991 >they could probably get him on a technicality regarding derailing. He's breaking rule 8 the entire time he's on this thread, he also ignores any posts that directly see through his shitty bait and refuses to engage with them.

>>957008 >A change in the law to make the practice of destroying games is what i want, hopefully the arguments on his side are poor enough for whoever reads the thread. Pretty much everyone else is calling him a retard. People should understand when not to engage with retarded trolls that crave (You)s and call him a fag/report him and move on.

Feels good to be a habitual pirate. Normalfags will do as they've always done and ruin everything for everything that isn't them while not comprehending that they're the dollars being chased in the first place. Have fun with your microtransactions, niggerfaggots.

>>957228 If this happened it meant it would be easier for me to pirate these games. I want this and I want these companies to get fucked. Your bait is shit

>>957228 Good luck trying to pirate Drive.

tldr of the long argument? Is it vote with your wallet vs use the law?

>>957244 Use the law. Ross explicitly says in some videos the vote with your wallet argument doesn't work. Here's a rundown from the website. >An increasing number of videogames are sold as goods, but designed to be completely unplayable for everyone as soon as support ends. The legality of this practice is untested worldwide, and many governments do not have clear laws regarding these actions. It is our goal to have authorities examine this behavior and hopefully end it, as it is an assault on both consumer rights and preservation of media. We are pursuing this in two ways: >1) Action on "The Crew": The videogame "The Crew", published by Ubisoft, was recently destroyed for all players and had a playerbase of at least 12 million people. Due to the game's size and France's strong consumer protection laws, this represents one of the best opportunities to hold a publisher accountable for this action. If we are successful in charges being pressed against Ubisoft, this can have a ripple effect on the videogames industry to prevent publishers from destroying more games. >2) Government Petitioning: Official government petitions have been introduced to prohibit the practice of intentionally rendering commercial videogames inoperable when support ends. Currently, petitions for the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have been launched and will soon be open for signing. Plans are also underway for the European Union, but will unfortunately be delayed due to processing times. Further government petitions may be started later with enough assistance. If you noticed the US isn't really mentioned here, that's because there's no hope for any working legal action in the US. The law is already somewhat settled and American consumer rights are meaningless anyway. He even left the US over a decade ago, he's not a bullshitter in that regard. On his podcast he's talked at length about viewing the US as a lost cause in many regards.

>>957148 I dont really understand your argument with the first quoute. Are you arguing i am unable to sell the product to another private person? Eitherway i agree that they do say some online services will not be available on the box, however i would like this practice to not be a legal practice any more. >No because I don't trust the government From what i understand you are a burger and I understand that you do not trust your government. However you do want companies to stop destroying games. like you said in >> 956969. Your arguments are "vote with your wallet" style arguments, dont buy games that the company can destroy. But if this style of regulation can come from a government that is more able to enforce the regulation, this would allow you to play games that you find interesting from companies that would destroy the games but have to allow people from another region to self-host or self-maintain the infrastructure required to do so. You could gain from this regulation passivly. Would that not allow you to have both a "wallet" power and a regulatory body forcing the same result? From my perspective it looks like a win-win situation for you if the regulation passes. Does that make sense?

>>954406 kek lofty goals, how do you plan to achieve them? what are your weapons against corporations? how will you persuade governments to take action? what kind of consequences are you demanding from companies that do not comply? are there grounds for lawsuits? why not go after Steam as well? after all, you do lose access to your purchases if you lose your account

>>957266 >spoiler He's not wrong, but Europe is anchored to the US like a tumour and we're going down with it as it collapses since our political and financial system post WW2 was created by the US and designed to be dependent on the US. That's besides TransAntlantic trade, which would affect us regardless.

>>957266 >The law is already somewhat settled and American consumer rights are meaningless anyway. That's not how it works. U.S. law is explicetly built upon the fact that people have the choice to enter into a "contract", which are the points I keep coming back to in case you haven't noticed. "Consumer Rights" exist so long as YOU practice it. That is why I keep coming back to asking why people have to play that specific game or support that specific company when the terms they provide when playing those games or supporting those companies do not benefit you at all? Ross' argument is to ignore that aspect entirely beause it is not actually about "Consumer Rights", for him it's about "Game preservation" and the reality is that people are "too stupid" to "preserve games" so the government needs to step in for the purposes of doing that. It's a crass way of putting it, but THAT is what Ross' argument actually is. >he's talked at length about viewing the US as a lost cause in many regards Okay, I did not know that. So he's a fag too who doesn't know what he's talking about. >>957271 >Are you arguing i am unable to sell the product to another private person? That's not what I'm arguing, that's what Sony is telling you your rights are as a "PlayStation customer" living in Europe. No, I do not agree with that and I think it's a bullshit rule. And I think they did slip that in there thinking that no one is every actually going to read these licenses and agreements in the first place. Companies should not be treating their customers like that, but that's beside the point that they only get away with it because of people still buy their products instead of going elsewhere. In fact, in the American Software Product License Agreement, Sony outright states: https://archive.ph/AhNYH <f you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement, do not purchase, download or use the Software. I don't know how much more expicit you can get than that. >however i would like this practice to not be a legal practice any more. I agree with that, but I don't know what else to rely do except deny these companies oxygen (Money) by going elsewhere. The fact that Ross is trying to treat Europe as the one-all-end-all for the discussion seems rather ironic now because, just looking at the Sony licenses alone, consumer have more "rights" here in the states than people do in Europe. There's nothing preventing the resale of games here as far as I can find. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Sony at least tried to have an agreement like that because Motorola has a legal agreement stating that you cannot sell devices you unlock: https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/how-lenovo-is-cheating-owners-warranty:9 >However you do want companies to stop destroying games. Yes, I would like that. >Your arguments are "vote with your wallet" style arguments, dont buy games that the company can destroy. Yes >But if this style of regulation can come from a government that is more able to enforce the regulation, this would allow you to play games that you find interesting from companies that would destroy the games But here's the part you people don't seem to grasp, why would I want to support a company who hates me? If a company is going to intentionally be scummy with their business practices and do everything within their legal right to fuck me over as a customer, I want nothing holding them back for the sole purpose that I will know to never do business with that company. All a legal rulings do is make their evil intentions less overt. No, I do not care how "good" their products are. If a company hates me for any reason, I want nothing restricting them from being able to express that. In fact, this goes right back to the "batter housewife" argument some moron attempted to throw out earlier and I threw right back: >>955850 <Why do you keep running back to your abusive husband when you know that he's going to beat you? >You could gain from this regulation passivly. No I wouldn't because these companies would still hate me at the end of the day, and still try to find new inventive ways to fuck me over. And I don't want to do business with companies who think like that. >Would that not allow you to have both a "wallet" power and a regulatory body forcing the same result? No because regulations would only make it harder for me to know which companies hate me and which don't. In fact adding to the problem, regulations also turn what would otherwise be "good companies" into "assholes" because now they have to treat their customers how the government wants customers treated (Often times, for worse).

>>957319 >just looking at the Sony licenses alone, consumer have more "rights" here in the states than people do in Europe. Stopped reading right there

>>957319 >but I don't know what else to rely do except deny these companies oxygen (Money) by going elsewhere. This is literaly one thing you can do. Share stopkillinggames.com with friends. >The fact that Ross is trying to treat Europe as the one-all-end-all for the discussion seems rather ironic now because, just looking at the Sony licenses alone, consumer have more "rights" here in the states than people do in Europe. This is incorrect. France specifically has more ownership rights when it comes to purchased softwar e than the US, and it has more recourse incase the software becomes unavailable to the purchaser. The reason the EU is so heavily focused is because of how the regulatory changes in europe changes the market in the world. Neither microusb nor miniusb would have become standards that companies would have followed without the regulations in the EU. The current wave of USB-C connectors is also because of EU regulation. Australia is another region that is heavily focused for their consumer rights aswell. >No I wouldn't because these companies would still hate me at the end of the day, and still try to find new inventive ways to fuck me over. but not by taking your game away. Holes will only be plugged when you find them. >No because regulations would only make it harder for me to know which companies hate me and which don't. Surly you would already know this? you are an informed consumer that reads hobby forums for your hobbies. You know what companies hates you, they are not shy about it. >In fact adding to the problem, regulations also turn what would otherwise be "good companies" into "assholes" because now they have to treat their customers how the government wants customers treated (Often times, for worse). By not taking your games?

>>957466 >Share stopkillinggames.com with friends. Going to the government and asking for their help is not going to solve a problem in the marketplace. They're only going to make it worse. >This is incorrect. I don't see the American software agreement: >>957319 Barring me from selling games like the agreement in the U.K. does: >>957148 >France specifically has more ownership rights when it comes to purchased softwar e than the US Then why does the French software license agreement have the same rules that the U.K. does: https://archive.ph/sitPu#selection-1741.1-1741.123 That you're not allowed to resell your games: https://archive.ph/qc9N6#selection-2063.0-2067.188 A rule that's still in place to this day: https://archive.ph/qW5Kr#selection-2299.0-2315.184 >Neither microusb nor miniusb would have become standards that companies would have followed without the regulations in the EU. The current wave of USB-C connectors is also because of EU regulation. And aren't those regulations extremely retarded as they exist for ZERO reason beyond just trying to screw with Apple? In fact, aren't they wasting their time trying convict Elon Musk of something for...REASONS: https://archive.ph/34L7l Yeah, that's the kind of government I want looking out for me. >Australia is another region that is heavily focused for their consumer rights aswell. Which is why they had a 97% compliance rate when it came to people getting the clot-shot. And why they were busy arresting people for daring to keep a gym open. >but not by taking your game away They would still find another way. Here's one way they could: you can get the software to run your own private servers, but you must pay a monthly fee to the publisher in order to have those private servers running. See, the game isn't dead, it's still "preserved". >Holes will only be plugged when you find them. Loopholes will always exist, sometimes even intentionally. Like the law in California that requires companies to treat freelancers as full-time employees, unless you work for the government or the music industry or the software industry or even the very rideshare industry that the law was designed to target: https://odysee.com/@johnstossel:7/the-end-of-freelance-how-california%27s:d >Surly you would already know this? I know which companies hate me today, however I do NOT know which companies will hate me tomorrow. Companies and people change. >You know what companies hates you, they are not shy about it. And what about the companies that "act evil" NOT because they actually want to do so but are REQUIRED to do so to meet government regulations? I ask that because I have been in that position where I had to act like "The asshole" when dealing with customers, very good customers, not because I wanted to but because I would be doing something illegal if I didn't. >By not taking your games? You don't have a single fucking clue what regulation would be put into place for the purposes of "game preservation", or even if that's what the government will care about. Hell, since the EU wants to be so much on board with the WEF, they could go so far as to say that Ubisoft is "doing the right thing" by taking away games because those servers create green-house gasses and shutting down those servers would lower the country's emissions. And jumping off of that, add that games should no longer be distributed physically so new regulation demands that all games be digital to cut down on the emissions made from manufacturing and shipping. Yes, the government can be that retarded and authoritarian.

What a whole lot of nothing this ended up being.

>>959026 Ross said it himself that this will take months, before anything may happen.

>he's still going Just post ancap memes, trying to reason with him is like teaching a goldfish to do math.

>>959026 Are you a braindead zoomer or do you just have the patience of a one? >>959045 I'm glad, I was worried something happened to him. It's become almost a morning ritual of mine to have a breakfast coffee and read his retarded stance while taking my morning shits.

>>954406 DO YOUR PART BRITS https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071/

>>959141 >Pirating media = what woke leftists do Not true at all, pirating implies you wanted to enjoy partaking in that content. Leftists want their idea of content to exist and then justify never purchasing it and it's everyone else's fault that it flopped.

>>957240 Hard for the average normalfag to have drive when it's been beat out of them. Of course the bigger issues will never really be solved in our lifetime, let alone addressed.

>>959285 He's right you know.

i already do my part by not giving any money to gaming companies and actively encouraging people to do the same and to download games for free while helping people to do so i also refuse to create content for gaming companies and i refuse to post on their forums because that would be creating content for them for free >ah yes give me your money and you too will get to be deluded that you own your games

>>959748 It's no better in the states. Cite basic statistics and suddenly you are fired because Tyrone's thick rimmed glasses wearing "ally" in management doesn't want racists working for them even though they are middle management in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes I wish the US's poz was more cut and dry like the UK instead of worrying about stepping on a social landmine and blowing your social credit up. At the end of the day every nation is just a rock we are living on, it's the people that make or break a nation. I just shitpost in public on said rock.

THERE'S AN UPDATE FOR BRITFAGS https://youtu.be/Jezi1bE4xvc https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071/

>>959185 >>959185 >It lets you sign with a throwaway email, You guys have no excuse. Even if you're not a bong, go do it. GO SIGN IT!

Here is an idea that I never see brought up: why don't people packet analyze games while they are still online? It seems like people always wait until the devs/publishers announce closure to start packet analyzing. If people packet analyze games right from the start we can have community servers long before they start announcing closures.

>>960843 The packets only tell you what has gotten transmitted, but that's only a fraction of what you need. First of all, the packets might be encrypted or at least obfuscated. Second, the packets do not contain any context, so you would still need to figure out what those numbers actually mean. Finally, you still need the server software to actually interpret the message and produce the correct response. Even if we could solve the first two problems, without the server software there is not much the data is good for. On the other hand, if we had the server software the packets would not matter much, we could just redirect them to our private server at the network level.

>>960834 An ok selling point but this is even better: >11,546 signatures >In a week >Lasts 6 months >Government responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures >At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament Condense then boost by tweeting at interested gamers with medium reach.

God I hate the ESA so fucking much, they're proof the industry cannot self-regulate. ESA says members won’t support any plan for libraries to preserve games online https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/esa-org-won-t-cooperate-game-preservation https://archive.is/3ETyk >Last week, lawyer Steve Englund was asked about the possibility of allowing libraries to preserve legacy games. In response, he said there's currently "[no] combination of limitations [ESA members] would support to provide remote access." >In 2023, the Video Game History Foundation revealed 87 percent of games released pre-2010 were currently not preserved in any capacity. Attempts previously made by the Library of Congress were halted by the ESA, which said it'd rely on publishers to take care of those efforts themselves. >Englund suggested working with Ivy League schools to set up remote access or some kind of scholarly application as an alternative. Even so, he paradoxically said that physical offices housing collections of games wouldn't entirely be satisfactory for him. >To him, the worst thing for a non-profit organization (or anywhere with an online archive) would be to put a preserved game with "few restrictions" online. That kind of remote access would be "insufficient progress" when it comes to preservation. That's just the first three paragraphs, read the whole article if you're interested. "No combination of limitations" would be sufficient. What's even the point of this? Many of the games targeted by these preservation groups cannot be purchased digitally, were made by studios that no longer exist, and can have not been in production for decades. This goes well beyond anti-piracy, this borders on iconoclasm.

>>961411 >ESA says members won’t support any plan for libraries to preserve games online That's always been the case. Personal collections have always done a far better job "preserving" history than collections belonging to institutions and governments. > In 2023, the Video Game History Foundation revealed 87 percent of games released pre-2010 were currently not preserved in any capacity. And NOT what that study said. The VGHF study was ONLY in relation to video games that you can currently buy through an online storefront. To put that in perspective, they're considering something like Xenoblade or The Last of Us as "preserved" because you can buy it right now through the eShop/PSN, but something like Madden 2001 or Atari's "Transformers'' are "not preserved" because you physically have to go out and buy the disc if you want to play them. This study is also ignoring things like the No-Intro collections.

The British government gave an official response to the UK petition since it passed 10,000 signatures. But it's basically a vague, fluff response, reiterating that consumer rights legislation exists in the UK, but companies can chose to stop supporting old digital products in most instances. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071

>>965728 Sounds like par for the course for our political system.

>>965728 It says at 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament. Can we get it there?

>>965728 Imagine not even having a Constitution and being as fucking minority in their own Capital, Jesus Fucking Christ. >>965754 If more people push it, it will slowly get there, it's nearly at 20K.

>>965780 >Constitution Considering the book of rules is nothing but a bunch of paper sheets whose use is to clean windows or to cum on them, because the White House just approved a law to apprehend anti-semites for wrong thinking and soon confiscate guns all around the country because kikes aren't bulletproof.

>>955152 I fucking hate reddit

>>965754 >this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament. >will be considered I like to be optimistic but i'm hoping they didn't throw in that little gem so they can kill any topic that is forced with a petition.

>>965805 It's a wake up call for many whenever the Constitution is used as toilet paper, Britbongs don't even get to have that as the UK government just uses their tongue.

>>965812 They probably did it to kill certain topics, but I doubt this is one of them.

>>965805 >>965820 It should be noted that those treating the Constitution as nothing more than waste paper are also the same people who are calling for it's removal. Funny how that works, isn't it?

>>965962 It's already removed. Has been for a long time.

>>965970 How?

>>965962 Same thing when defunding the police, they only work whenever the progs get their panties in a twist on their socials. >>966054 >All of social media banning anyone who doesn't give away their address and cellphone number to get track down >No-no words are out of the question, only preschooler insults approved by lefties from both reddit and tumblr But it's not a violation to the constitution because it's all within a private company, blame capitalism instead, all the dead brain seal will applaud for that and for sticking to their doctrines.

>>966133 >But it's not a violation to the constitution because it's all within a private company, Except for the fact that those "private companies" have either two options: turn over all their data to the government and receive government subsidies (Thereby making them government actors, which violates the Constitution) OR don't accept subsidies and constantly be threatened by the FBI over endless investigations that will never end (Also, a violation of the Constitution). >all the dead brain seal will applaud for that and for sticking to their doctrines. Oh, never mind, I'm talking to an idiot.

>>966054 Patriot Act being extended to 2020 for example

>>966054 Are you fucking retarded? There is no first amendment. You can be imprisoned for saying words. There is no second amendment. The NFA alone is proof of that. There is no fourth amendment. Everyone is under constant surveillance. There are no fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth amendments. Niggers stay in jail (free food and housing, paid for by the innocent) for years awaiting trial and then decades after they're on death row (free food and housing, paid for by the innocent) before execution. There are no ninth or tenth amendments. The federal government has stolen all state power (including the unconstitutional direct election of senators) and all individual power, arresting anyone for anything they do outside of the legal scope of their control. The Constitution is explicitly INCLUSIONARY. That is, government is allowed power over only what it lists. If something isn't expressly listed, government cannot control it in any way, shape, or form. No one listens to this. No one obeys. And no one holds them accountable (read: the Founding Fathers explicitly said they wanted the people to kill the government if it disobeyed).

>>966133 >But it's not a violation to the constitution because it's all within a private company 1. Kill yourself, jew. That's not an argument. 2. Kill yourself again: the government directly controls those companies and orders them to do things EXPLICITLY TO "get around" THE CONSTITUTION. If you've ever read the Talmud (you have, obviously), you'll see exactly the same behavior written there. >blame capitalism instead 1. Kill yourself a third time. 2. You have absolutely no fucking comprehension of what that word even means, except for parroting the "definition" that communists have told you your entire life. Go starve to death in Somalia if you like communism so much.

>this thread I'm beginning to see why Ross had little faith in Americans to do anything

>>966239 Exactly. What do you expect us to do? Kill the government? That's the only thing that can change the economic and legal behavior in the West. Feds and corporate heads don't give a shit about obeying anything and you know it. Moreover, they'll never BE killed, so we're stuck like this. He said the best bet is outside direct American economic influence for a reason.

>>966239 He never "had little faith in Americans to do anything", he just recognized that it's unfeasible to pursue this in America since you'd have to pay millions for lawyers to try and overturn existing legal precedent.

>967559 Fuck off

>>966239 The britbongs who got told laws and courts exist sure did better than us.

Here are some news on the campaign >The Australian petition has started If you are an aussie, or know anyone who is an aussie, give them this link https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6080 we have until Math 20th to sign it. >Brazilian Lawsuit might happen Right now Ross is gathering information on how many people have purchased The Crew. If you are a Brazilian you can email Ross at crewemails@protonmail.com to tell him if you live in Brazil and own a copy of the Crew, either from buying it or from receiving it as a gift. Maybe we could get some help from /hisparefugio/ >UK Responded to the petition After reaching 10k signatures they give a response(we are now at 20k, if we reach 100k it will be debated in Parliament) it's mostly a big nothing-burger BUT there are some lines in it that could force companies to add an expiration date on the cover of the games they sell, which would be a small victory, as companies don't want to put something like that on the cover. Right now Ross needs help from some experts in UK law to know what his options are. We might be able to do something in the UK after all, at the same time they might just fine Ubisoft 500 pounds and be done with it, which isn't worth it. If you are a citizen of the EU and have a copy of the Crew, please contact the DGCCRF. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/countries/eu Sadly I was too smart to buy the Crew and I can't help much with this.

>>968512 The britbongs should start a class action lawsuit with those laws and courts.

Update from us Britfags. The Petitions Committee have requested a revised response from the Government. Guess it wasn't just us who weren't happy with the response.

>>969750 I wonder if the committee exchanged hands with "certain people" to remove the loophole clause that Ross mentioned under the guise of providing a revised response.

>>969750 I'm both surprised and not surprised, if that makes any sense. As Ross says, the original response didn't really address most of what they asked. What does surprise me is the fact they're bothering to revise it at all.

>>969758 I want to be optimistic but this is probably the most likely explanation.

He posted an update a few hours ago.

I’m bumping this thread but also >>459434

>>970315 https://8chan.moe/b/res/459434.html#459434

>>970126 Why doesn't he just speedrun the campaign?

>>970317 Because he is busy talking with other speedrunners and TAS experts on what are the best strats. We also don't know if a normal speedrun will be accepted or if it has to be glitchless. Then there are also discussions on which version of the game is better to speedrun, since the UK, Brazilian and Australian ones have different framerates, so it's hard to calculate the exact time.

>>970324 Fucking speedrun autists, it's never simple with them.

>>967319 My pipedream is some autistic millionaire funding a campaign to do just that simply because he got fed up with customer service bullshit and getting his massive collection of vidya fucked with. One can dream.

>>967319 It'd be worth it, and would be a lot easier to organize fundraising as an organization rather than as just an individual asking for cash. Also, "legal precedent" isn't really too relevant here if you make new laws or otherwise amend the old ones, which just requires lobbying and activism. Trying to get legal precedent overturned is indeed a pain, so go for a different solution.

Good news, the petition for leafbros is finally up. You should go and sign it. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4965 Bad news is that it's being championed by Elizabeth May, who is the face of the Green Party and maybe the single most retarded MP in parliament, and I'm including Trudeau in this assessment

>>969750 Update from Britfags again. I'm a bit late but they're closing the petition early due to the upcoming general elections, and will reopen it at some point after the elections. The revised response if they are even going to give one will be at some point after elections.

On a semi-related note, Steam is honoring some refunds for Kerbal Space Program 2 in the EU based on the false advertising clauses in the continent's authoritarian laws. So that's good, at least.

>Redfall's final update adds offline mode How hard is it for these greedy kikes to just do this shit.

>>973978 >offline mode in the final update Wow. I figured they would have just killed it after how badly received it was. Still, I'll give them props for doing it at all. Especially on a game that very few people would have missed to begin with. >How hard is it Extremely by the looks of it. Only after they think they milked the cow to completion do they flip the switch that allows offline play. >>973686 >spoiler lol of course.

Any Brits here? Ross was on the radio.

>>975712 Good on Ross for having the courage to go on a live broadcast, even with a very welcoming and calm host it can be nerve-raking. I know Ross said he isn't very good for interviews, and while he was a bit scattered-brain at some points in the short interview, I think he did great probably better than if I were on the line. I am sure next time he will be even better, and who knows he might get on the Tucker Carlson web show, even if he has nothing to do with the American Justice System.

Major news, modders have gotten an offline server running for The Crew. https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=sIo4l-BpK8s This doesn't stop the campaign but it's good to know that the game at the center of all this has been preserved even when Ubisoft has shut down the servers.

>>983734 >This doesn't stop the campaign Yes it kind of does.

>>983734 >>983776 I can see how Ubisoft could say something like "Look! The game is not dead, players can easily mod it, so let's drop the issue." but a good rebuttal would be "It's should not be on the consumer to revive a game after it got killed by it's parent company. This is only getting revived, because of the massive publicity that this movement has garnered, <start mentioning how hard and almost imposible it normally is>, and there are plenty of other dead games like Dark Spore that are still dead. All we ask is for the developers to make the games work without always online when they want to end their support, like with Redfall." Most likely the politicians are not yet aware of the fact that the game is getting revived by fans, and for now that is good, if they suddenly find out that the game works, if they don't get all the details they will think that this has been all a big nothing burger.

>>983777 >It's should not be on the consumer to revive a game after it got killed by it's parent company And they can fire back that all you had to do was not buy the game in the first place. People went into The Crew knowing it was an "Online-Only" game, which Ubisoft made very apparent on the game's packaging: >>956969

>>983780 But there is no guarantee that an always online game, can not be modified by the devs to allow users to continue playing it, see Redfall. Then you have cases like Guild Wars 1 which is still kicking 19 years later, so it's not clear how long these Always Online games last. Furthermore even if the game has an End of Service, the consumer is almost never informed about it when the game is released. Ross already covered this base by saying that devs should put a "will work until DD/MM/YYYY" sticker on all Always Online games, if they don't want to support them after that. In this case consumers have been properly informed how long their product will last. Ross might not be the most intelligent person out there, but he had years of time thinking, preparing and talking with other people to cover most of his bases.

>>983785 >But there is no guarantee that an always online game, can not be modified by the devs to allow users to continue playing it That doesn't matter. You went into the game knowing that it required an online connection as Ubisoft made that fact abundantly clear at every moment possible. If being unable to play the game offline was a deal-breaker, then why did you buy and even agree to the terms Ubisoft was laying out? > so it's not clear how long these Always Online games last According to the box for The Crew, the minimum amount of time they're obligated to provide you with is 30 days between notice and eventual shutdown. > Furthermore even if the game has an End of Service, the consumer is almost never informed about it when the game is released It's on the fucking box! > Ross might not be the most intelligent person out there, but he had years of time thinking, preparing and talking with other people to cover most of his bases. I actually did watch one of those discussions he had with people over the years, with an actual lawyer in fact. And the guy told him that these companies will continue doing this because: https://invidious.perennialte.ch/watch?v=yt2ar78R28o <You agreed to these terms <You bought the game despite the terms being clearly listed If people no longer bought these games, then the practice would die off.

FYi, There is already a legal copyright exception for online games that are no longer supported by their developers.

>>983788 Could you link it?

>>983787 >That doesn't matter it matters because there is precedence of Always Online games getting an Offline mode. There is no guarantee that once a game is no longer supported by their dev it will stop working. >It's on the fucking box! Tell me where on the box it says that it will work up until a set date, such as "this game will stop working on March 31st 2024" on the game cover of the 2014 release. >https://invidious.perennialte.ch/watch?v=yt2ar78R28o If it's about American law, then yes it's pointless and Ross said so himself, this is why he is focusing on the UK, Australia, EU and Brazil as they don't have as clearly defined laws as America has. It's a very small chance for something to happen, he himself said so himself, but it's not zero. >inb4 the EULA Why can't companies just write a "you agree for the company to take possession of all your assets, and you will be sold into slavery", and be put somewhere into the EULA?

>>983790 >it matters because there is precedence of Always Online games getting an Offline mode That doesn't matter. That's just companies choosing to treat the end-life of their GaaS product differently than Ubisoft. It doesn't in any way obligate that Ubisoft follow the same practice. Taking this argument to it's inevitable conclusion, it's arguing that everyone single company should operate exactly the same and can in no way operate their business differently than any other. While that may sound preferable to the "important issue", it also ignores the reality that the same rule can operate in the opposite direction. For example, because M$ decided that you can no longer sell your used games with the XBone, that means every other device is required to prevent the sale of used games. Why is this a law? It doesn't matter. A company implemented the practice so now we all have to follow it. Doesn't matter how bullshit it is. > Tell me where on the box it says that it will work up until a set date They give a minimum of 30 days, so assume the game would have gone offline as early as May 1st 2014. > this is why he is focusing on the UK, Who just told him that companies are allowed to do this. >Why can't companies just write a "you agree for the company to take possession of all your assets, and you will be sold into slavery", and be put somewhere into the EULA? Why are you playing and buying games from such companies who make such agreements in the first place? Especially when video games are an entertainment medium.

How much do you get paid to be a whiny piece of shit?

>>983793 >That doesn't matter. It matters. I want every Always Online game to end with the user being able to play it single player or emulate the server code if he wants to play with friends. >They give a minimum of 30 days That's not enough, I want an exact date when the game gets released. >Who just told him that companies are allowed to do this. Do what? >you playing and buying I am not playing nor buying such games. I have also never owned a copy of the Crew. Now tell me, can companies write anything they want on their EULA, even if it breaks country law? Like "by playing this game, then you accept that you must do a bank robbery in your country and send the money to us, or else we will sue you"? >inb4 that's absurd Irrelevant, answer the question: Can they or can they not write anything they want and be legally binding?

>>983802 >I want every Always Online game to end with the user being able to play it single player or emulate the server code if he wants to play with friends. Okay. Are you supporting and buying the games from companies that do this to show that there is a market for that kind of business model? For example, did you buy Redfall or something similar (Because who honestly willingly gives their money to M$ anymore?) in response to such announcements being made? > That's not enough Why? You go into the game knowing that it will become unavailable as soon as 30 days from now. > Do what? See: >>965728 > I am not playing nor buying such games. I have also never owned a copy of the Crew. So there's nothing to complain about, and you're a smarter individual than Ross and half the people in this thread. >can companies write anything they want on their EULA, even if it breaks country law? Yes, they can write whatever they want. Is it actionable/enforceable? No, it is not. > Can they or can they not write anything they want and be legally binding? No

>>983808 >Are you supporting and buying the games from companies that do this to show that there is a market for that kind of business model? This is the same argument I heard for EA's Star Wars "Oh you must buy this single player game even if you don't like it, to show EA we want single player games." My answer is NO! I buy good games AND games that are not Always Online. I will not buy a shit single player game. This isn't about showing interest that you want such games, especially since single player games with multiplayer you can self hose ,were the norm and Always Online were the exception, companies know that they just want more money, no this is about not allowing them to sell games that intentionally will break down at an unidentified date. Same thing for printers, computers, tractors, and whatever else. Planned Obsolesce is shit. >You go into the game knowing that it will become unavailable as soon as 30 days from now Because the consumer is not properly informed if the game will become unavailable in 30 days, 1 year, 10 years or 50 years. Also even if it says that the company will announce you in 30 days, when they sell such a product they usually say something to the effect of "we plan to support this game for years to come, don't worry", then they go bankrupt in one year and shut everything down. >So there's nothing to complain about I do care about the industry and even if I have no interest in playing The Crew or Dark Spore, that doesn't mean that I want them to be destroyed. I am all for media preservation, even shit media as you can learn a lot from a bad game, book or movie. >Is it actionable/enforceable? No, it is not. >No Glad we can agree on this point. So if Ross and the gang were to manage to change the law in a few key countries like the UK and Australia, then it won't matter what they write in the EULA, they would still have to provide an offline version of the game. Now is this just a very small chance of happening? Yes, Ross said so himself, I am even more pessimistic, as lootboxes got hit hard by Belgium(I think) with FIFA, yet that barely stopped EA and other companies to still sell games with lootboxes. I admit it's a very low chance, but it is a chance at game preservation.

>>983812 >This is the same argument I heard for EA's Star Wars "Oh you must buy this single player game even if you don't like it, to show EA we want single player games." My answer is NO! I agree. Ultimatums like that are bullshit because it's the company feebly attempting to guilt customers for their inaction. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about companies that do such practices in earnest. I just threw Redfall out there as an example because it's the most recent instance that I know if, and why I threw in "or something similar" because you may not support M$ for perfectly legitimate reasons not related to their GaaS model but what about companies and developers who are honest and earnest? > Because the consumer is not properly informed if the game will become unavailable in 30 days How? It's listed on the box. > even if I have no interest in playing The Crew or Dark Spore, that doesn't mean that I want them to be destroyed. I am all for media preservation, even shit media as you can learn a lot from a bad game, book or movie. I agree, and that would be an ideal situation for an ideal world. However we don't live there. So the next best option is to preserve what you can (Legitimately or through piracy, doesn't matter), and not sweating about the stuff that you cannot preserve for whatever reason. >I admit it's a very low chance, but it is a chance at game preservation. Is game preservation the goal or is attacking these companies the goal? Take for instance something like Call of Duty or FIFA EA FC. All M$/EA have to do to kill Ross' entire argument is announce that the game will be playable until, say, two years from now and it will shut off, and that you can only continue playing your "content" (That they can change at any moment) if you buy next year's game that has the same restriction applied. Or Ubisoft can come out and say that players can still play The Crew after the official shutdown so long as you pay a monthly fee to Ubisoft in order to access their special server software that they retain the sole ownership and control over. See, the games are still "preserved" in the same way that World of Warcraft is still "preserved" despite being an entirely different game from when it launched in 2004, or have an expiration date blatant explaining that you're only granted a limited time access to said content before you have to pay for it again. Is that what you want?