[01:36]user 1: This guy doesn't understand that that petition is literally impossible [01:37]maverag: why is it imposible oh wise person [01:37]user 1: The initiatives alone literally cover why it wouldn't even work [01:38]user 2: devs can't be forced to pay for servers in case they decide to shutdown their games and they have no obligation to provide a scuffed version that makes a game playable offline [01:38]user 2: simple as [01:39]maverag: ok so you miss read it or miss understood it [01:39]user 1: To make the game playable you'd have to give up engine source code for a lot of situations [01:39]maverag: actualy not at all what is being asked [01:39]user 1: On top of that dedicated servers would bring segregation [01:39]user 2: that's the only thing that is possible to get tho, and that will never happen [01:39]user 1: Then you need to consider anticheats [01:40]user 1: Which is why a lot of games get yoinked [01:40]user 1: And DRM [01:41]user 1: Some games would require the dev to maintain the server i.e league of legends as the majority of the game sits on their server [01:41]user 1: The technical aspect would need to be a concern too [01:42]user 1: Ain't gonna matter if what you have can't even run it [01:42]user 1: What I will say is the micro transaction part [01:43]user 1: Something should be given back if a game, especially new goes off the grid. [01:43]user 1: Live service games these days are criminal for this [01:44]maverag: drm is removable by the dev 2. anti-cheats can be ran by community servers it has been done already 3. no game would require the dev's if the dev's release a server toolkit. 4. this would only affect new games so this can all be done with proper development. 5. this wouldn't change how games are ran while they are being developed for only after support is droped. [01:45]maverag: please watch the video and the related videos in full [01:45]user 2: Just give an example of a game and we'll tell you why it either a) wouldn't work or b) is already possible even without this petition [01:46]user 1: Drm is removable by the dev BUT DRMs purpose is protect their digital rights [01:46]user 1: To give you a server toolkit still means they gotta give you engine source code [01:47]maverag: why are you even arguing against this? do you like not owning games or having them shut down? [01:48]user 2: You don't own the games regardless, you buy the right to play it. This was always and will always be the case. [01:48]user 1: If you really cared about that you'd be against Xbox game pass [01:48]maverag: I AM [01:48]user 1: This. Even on old consoles. [01:49]maverag: i buy physical games when and where possible [01:49]user 2: You still don't own them. [01:49]user 2: You own the CD where a copy of this game is on, but nothing more. [01:49]user 1: It won't even matter. Anything past a 360 needs internal to offload from disk [01:49]user 1: On top of that again [01:49]user 1: DRM [01:50]user 1: And incompatible code to new hardware [01:50]user 1: And lost code [01:51]user 2: I don't argue against more customer rights, I argue against customers demanding stuff they never have and never will have a right to in the first place. [01:51]user 1: This [01:51]user 1: Especially when the community is also a large part of why a lot of these games die [01:52]user 1: The newer ones [01:53]maverag: im not going to convince you but i will ask you to not stop others from signing this [01:53]user 1: This wouldn't be anything but another law that subsequently screws over the industry because it's realistically not feasible [01:54]user 2: I couldn't care less if this petition dies or suddenly pops off to millions of signatures. So no, I have no intention of "stopping" someone from signing it. [01:54]user 1: Me too [01:55]user 1: By all means others do as they want. [01:57]maverag: also just read https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq [01:58]user 1: Just off the first FAQ alone is it in the wrong [01:59]user 1: It's highly game dependent additionally [01:59]user 1: And most games that plan to exist beyond means already give the tools in preparation [01:59]maverag: this is the point [01:59]user 1: This would especially hurt games where competitive integrity matters. [01:59]maverag: its to make devs plan to do this more [02:00]maverag: WHY? [02:00]user 1: It isn't about doing it more it's if it needs to be done in the first place [02:00]user 1: It's not always feasible [02:00]user 2: Yea because forcing the common consumers opinion down the devs throat always resulted in better games. [02:00]maverag: look at sup com they are still competative and exclusively ran by fans [02:01]user 2: ^ never heard of it [02:01]user 1: What is sup com? [02:01]maverag: supreme comander [02:01]user 2: By all respect, that looks like a game that has lived its long live and deserves to rest [02:02]user 1: That's a strategy game. [02:02]maverag: the old WoW classic servers as well before they got shut down [02:02]user 1: That's not a game where competitive integrity matters [02:02]maverag: cod fan servers [02:02]user 1: The games that fit what I'm talking are games like League, Valorant, CoD, etc [02:03]user 1: Bad example as those never host large amounts of people [02:03]maverag: the mw2 fan servers that were shut down despite the fact that they had less cheaters than the main servers [02:03]user 1: And it's only the old titles that don't have to worry about stuff like live texture streaming 02:04]user 1: Current cod wouldn't even be able to do this because of the shit of online features to make stuff on the consumer easier [02:05]maverag: also all these arguments about competativeness is bollocks as you cant be competative on a SHUT DOWN GAME [02:05]maverag: so why care [02:05]user 2: That mostly attributes to the fact that people that go out of their way to find an unoffical 3rd party version of something probably don't look for them with the intention to cheat [02:05]user 1: Because this would make a cheating hellscape [02:06]maverag: no it wouldnt [02:06]user 1: And then it would be limited as you need money to host servers at large quantities [02:06]maverag: again why large quantitys [02:06]maverag: why not small servers [02:07]user 2: So does this stem from a selfish PoV that only wants to run a small server for friends JUST IN CASE you decide you wanna play it again 20 years later, and not to have big servers that play like the original game? [02:07]user 1: Also this would be a legal nightmare [02:07]user 1: As StarCraft did that and oh boy [02:08]user 1: Blizzard caused so much issue [02:09]user 2: I just see no point (and legal ground) in this whatsoever [02:10]user 2: Live service games like League, MMOs, stuff like Valorant etc will NEVER function once their official service ends, that's simply their nature of being world-wide online multiplayer games [02:10]user 1: Additionally it does kinda mess with revenue when it's in concern of actual moral reasoning and not greed [02:10]user 2: offline games will always be playable [02:11]user 1: MMOs get buy with dedicated servers but it's only old old MMOs that will never be updated again [02:11]maverag: no not at all i haven't ben personally affected by this YET but i dont want to fall in love with a game and a community in the future to have it ripped away from me [02:11]user 2: That will always be a thing we have to live with [02:12]user 1: To be fair the vast majority of the time the games that failed and went offline were games either that ran for almost decades or games that had very obvious signs of dying [02:12]user 2: Even if the devs give you the tools, once the official support ends, the game will never give you the same vibe when playing on a 3rd party server afterwards [02:12]user 1: Take hylerscape and that one EA game like destiny for example [02:13]user 1: They had clear cut signs of dying before even being purchased [02:15]user 2: Also, it simply isn't necessary to burden devs with this since if theres a demand for private servers for a game at all, someone will do one. It doesn't need official dev tools to do it, just someone with coding knowledge, if that even.