Hello.

This is probably the final update to
the Stop Killing Games campaign,

though I'm coming at you a
little bit like a time traveler would.

It'll make sense in a minute.

As a refresher, Stop Killing Games
is a consumer movement

to stop publishers from
effectively destroying video games

they have already sold to customers.

Now, we've gone
about this in many ways,

but it's easiest to divide this
up by things we've already done

and things we can still do,

because there's about a
dozen things we've already done.

Yeah, in fact, here's a list
if you want to pause this.

Going over this again
would be a video in itself.

I'll talk more about some
of this towards the end.

So, that just leaves
things we can still do,

which are only two items.

One is for the UK to
sign a government petition

to bring this issue
before Parliament.

Though, keeping it real, I'm not
terribly optimistic about this one,

since the government response
has been a mess by every definition.

It's a long and boring story,

but the short version is
it's hit a bureaucratic roadblock

and will stay stuck unless
it gets more signatures.

But the one that has a lot of power,

so much so I think it could
change the course of gaming history,

is the European Citizens' Initiative.

Now, I said I'm approaching
this like a time traveler

because with the trajectory we're on,
these are both going to fail.

So, I figure, why wait until
they actually do to tell people?

Both the petitions end in July,

the Citizens' Initiative
in particular on July 31st.

This video probably
won't change the timeline,

it's just a last-ditch attempt
to wake people up on it.

The European Citizens' Initiative
failing kind of stings.

Again, this one is crazy powerful,

but the hurdle we
just couldn't get past

was that it requires 1 million signatures
from citizens of EU countries,

and we've only made
it just under halfway.

That's really too bad,
because I have high confidence

this would have solved the problem
of publishers destroying video games.

Now, why do I say that?

Well, what a lot of people don't
realize is that in the EU especially,

it's almost a state of lawlessness

regarding the practice
of game destruction.

Okay, I don't want to put people to
sleep here, but the quick legal argument

is that the vast majority of games
with an online requirement

say they can be terminated
at any time for any reason.

Or Blizzard likes to
say any or no reason.

But uh-oh, according to
the EU Commission,

That might be a violation
of directive 93/13/EEC,

which protects consumers against
unfair terms and consumer contracts.

So, if that term is unfair,

that means that part of
the contract is null and void.

And if it's null and void,

then what does the law say about
how long your purchase lasts?

Well, it doesn't.

That's the whole mess.

So, if there are no legal guidelines,

what are consumer expectations
for how long video games last?

Well, indefinitely.

Even the average online
multiplayer video games from the '90s

can still work today if you didn't
change the hardware or software.

So, the law wasn't
written for this situation,

the industry's terms might
possibly be illegal,

and traditional expectations are
games last indefinitely.

Now, of course, publishers
can't support games indefinitely,

but by not giving expiration
dates or end-of-life plans,

that might be the situation
they've put themselves in.

I cannot emphasize enough
what a mess this is.

If you were an impartial judge
just trying to interpret the law,

you'd have a headache.

I don't know what you would do.

You'd probably tell the EU Commission
they need to make a law on this

because this is a glaring omission.

So being in the middle
of this quagmire right now,

if we had rolled up
with a million signatures

demanding that the EU give us
basic consumer rights for video games,

that would have been
the easy way out for regulators,

because then they
would have a mandate.

That's what I meant about my half-joke
slide about politicians liking easy wins.

This situation is such a mess that
trying to settle this under existing law

is more work than creating
laws under a consumer mandate.

And thanks to the action we pushed
at consumer protection agencies,

doing nothing is no longer
an option for multiple countries.

We've made sure of that.

But none of that matters
because the Initiative is failing.

Now, my original
thought was that ironically,

it's difficult to get gamers
to care about games,

because a whole lot of people are
cruising at maximum apathy these days.

But I think it's more than that.

For most of the past year,
the Initiative has bounced back and forth

between being the third and second
most popular active Initiative in the EU.

The only ones that topped it
were far more serious social issues.

So that says to me the problem isn't
getting gamers to care about games.

It's getting people to
care about anything.

And frankly, that is a checkmate move.

If people can't care enough to write their
name on a form to protect their rights

and stop things they care
about from being destroyed,

then yeah, I can't do much with that.

I am not a Care Bear that can
shoot light out of my stomach

to make people give a damn.

Plus, it's hard to know
how many people don't care

and how many never knew
about the Initiative in the first place.

It's certainly not
for a lack of trying.

I have tried to push
this everywhere I can,

though I'm an amateur at all of this.

I have a medium-sized YouTube channel
for making comedy videos involving gaming.

That's it for my advantages.

Now, I've tried to leverage
this to push the Initiative,

get as much help as possible,

but I've never been great
at marketing and networking,

you know, stuff you
need on a campaign.

Yeah, in fact, I never
wanted to do any of this.

I've been beating the drum on the problem
of game destruction going on 10 years now,

but the problem only got
worse and worse

and nobody was doing
a damn thing about it.

So, when the opportunity to do
something finally presented itself,

in the form of the biggest game
shutdown from a European company,

I pounced on it as hard as I could.

So, I've hated doing almost
every aspect of this campaign

and will be very happy for it to end,

but I would have hated myself even more
if nobody stepped up to do anything.

So, in light of that, I think
our exposure has been phenomenal.

We've gotten a lot of support or
just fair coverage from major YouTubers.

SomeOrdinaryGamers, YongYea,

Louis Rossmann has
been a bro especially,

GamersNexus, Linus Tech Tips,
GameLinked, Philip DeFranco,

Asmongold, BlackPanthaa,

Second Wind, including
Yahtzee and TheOtherFrost,

Spawn Wave, Civvie 11, MandaloreGames,
Bellular News, Digital Foundry,

JoshStrifeHayes, Tech Tangents…

Honestly, it goes on and on.

I'm leaving out a lot of people,
my apologies on that.

We've gotten game news
outlet coverage.

PC Gamer, IGN, Rock Paper Shotgun,
Kotaku, TechSpot, Eurogamer,

PCGamesN, Destructoid, Game Rant...

There's more.

And regular news outlets:

Metro, Euronews, Variety, Forbes…

Also many non-English outlets for
France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary…

There's a lot.

And some developers.

Running with Scissors,
Landfall Games,

MolleIndustria Games,
Orteil, Those Awesome Guys,

and developers of emulators like
Dolphin, PCSX2, and PPSSPP,

and some more indie developers
I may have lost track of, I'm sorry.

And this last one is hearsay,
but it's my favorite if true.

Developers from Ubisoft Ivory Tower,

the people who made The Crew,

which is the game we used to get all
this action rolling in the first place.

Yeah, it turns out a lot of developers

who spend years of their
lives working on something

don't like seeing it
destroyed by publishers.

Who'd have thought?

And I've been saying yes to almost
all offers for interviews, questioning,

or any kind of outreach
opportunities that came our way.

I honestly don't know how many interviews
I've done on this issue at this point.

It's easily dozens, though
not all of them were on video.

One was even for BBC Radio.

And then there would be
the spontaneous offers

that would pop up
throughout the entire campaign,

like working with members
of European Parliament

to push through questions
to the EU Commission.

Having meetings with the BEUC as
another route to the EU Commission,

meetings with
representatives from GOG.

That one was looking promising

until they fired the representatives
we were talking with, then backpedalled.

That sucked.

Meetings with
representatives from Heineken.

Yeah, I didn't see that one coming.

Heineken of all companies
supports the Initiative

because it ties in well with some
gamer lounge campaign they have going.

That one was going to
be a huge boost for us,

but they ended up having to
postpone it a year, which is too late.

I've had meetings with FUTO, EFGAMP…

Probably the funniest of these was
another member of European Parliament

who is also on the Committee
on Culture and Education.

Their staff reached out to me,
set appointments, cancelled,

then kept having to
reschedule three times.

And this is all on top of the day-to-day
outreach, organizing,

and just basic communication
with god knows how many people.

Again, I've hated doing this
because I have to fight all my instincts

not to bother people.

I hate being a pest,

but you kind of have to do
some of that when campaigning.

At this point, I've written a couple
thousand emails connected to the campaign,

trying to do outreach, research,
and just keeping things together.

I haven't done that much on Twitter

because I don't have
much of a presence there.

Same goes for Reddit.

Yeah, Reddit.

I received so many reports of promotions
of the Initiative being deleted,

and some of the ones that stayed up

are some of the most hostile
to the Initiative that I've seen.

Yeah, isn't Reddit just a
wonderful place to be nowadays?

We did get a Discord launched where
people could independently organize,

so I wouldn't be bottlenecking anything
if others had better ideas on what to do.

I believe currently they're trying to
contact TV stations about this in Europe,

something I never would
have had a clue how to do.

That's exactly the sort of thing
I was hoping would emerge.

Yeah, I really want to emphasize that
from the second the Initiative launched,

nothing had to go through me.

It's been there,
in public, this entire time,

with easy multilingual guides
at StopKillingGames.com.

We blazed a trail to make it
easy for others to act on this.

But that wasn't enough.

So it feels like I've
been running a rickshaw

carrying people to the
destination to save games,

except it's breaking down halfway.

The work on this has never stopped.

I never wanted my involvement
on the campaign to last this long.

I kept hoping after launch,

somebody with more reach
and better at campaigning

could just point people
to the destination and get it done.

But no, I've had to keep
hauling that rickshaw!

Not every week, but there have
been many weeks on the campaign

where I've been working
12 to 14 hours a day

to keep things moving
to get signatures.

And the only way I was
even able to do that

was to burn some of my savings
and put everything else on hold.

I've been kind of stupid about this,
because it's our only shot.

Again, this is an amateur effort.

That means there's
no staff and no salary.

So, if I need help with something
and ask a volunteer to help with it

and they disappear on me,

well, then they disappear on me,
and I need to do it myself.

Or if I can't, then I need to hunt down
someone else to help with it

and hope they don't disappear on me.

Meanwhile, my channel has been suffering,
as my viewers can tell you.

I'm stretched too thin.

Now, I have been maybe fairly criticized
for not running a fundraiser for this.

There are reasons for that.

The first is until recently, I didn't
know where we would spend it.

People would say "Buy ads," but the
Initiative could be considered political,

and YouTube doesn't allow
political ads in a lot of EU countries,

and neither does Twitch!

Good luck reaching gamers
without YouTube or Twitch.

So, taking money with
no plan, that's a grift.

And another reason is I am one of the
worst people to manage that sort of thing.

Financial paperwork is
an Achilles' heel of mine

and seems to take me 10 times
more effort than anything else.

I mean I can do accounting,
budgeting, math, that's not a problem.

No, I mean having knowledge of all
the obscure forms you need to fill out,

what all the tax laws that apply are,

what all the specialized terminology is,
and just all the hidden rules.

Now, you might say,

"Just hire an international tax
accountant for multiple countries."

Okay, there goes a
third of our funding then.

So, what are we even doing?

I cannot emphasize how much I struggle
with financial business crap like that.

So, the thought of me
putting together a fundraiser

for what might be
considered a political fund

that needs to adhere to
laws in multiple countries,

and if I make a mistake,
that could be considered a crime?

Oh, no. No.

That's like asking somebody
with severe dyslexia

to write a book report on
War and Peace.

I am the wrong person for that job.

But I've still been trying,

to the best of my ability, anyway.

I didn't discover this
until late in the process

that even though general ads were out,

sponsored messages were
still an option for some countries.

And some mysterious benefactors
emerged offering to pay them directly.

But that means I needed to find all
these channels and broker all these deals.

So as a last-ditch effort,

I've been looking through hundreds of
targeted non-English gaming channels

trying to find good
candidates for this,

then work with bilingual
liaisons for each language,

then try to put together a contract

and figure out what a good offer is
for the amount of views we expect.

I am so out of my depth
on this, but I'm still trying.

At this point, I've browsed through
more clickbait AI-generated thumbnails

than I have the
entire rest of my life.

I honestly can't decide which part
of the campaign I've hated the most.

Acting as an advertising broker, not
knowing our budget or what's a good offer,

or trying to research laws
governing this practice that don't exist,

except I didn't know that at the time.

So, how are these
sponsored ads going?

Are they going to
get us the signatures?

As of recording this, I don't know.

It's a Hail Mary pass as it is.

I'm just going to assume it won't,

and I'm completely spent on
ideas on how to get more signatures.

I did everything I possibly could
to make this campaign work.

It wasn't enough.

Or rather, I did everything
that made sense to me.

I did receive a lot of suggestions of
things I do not think would have worked.

A bunch of people told me to
make short-form videos on this.

I tried that.

They got a fraction of my usual views.

I've been told, "Make more videos
on my channel saying the same thing."

But lots of views on my channel doesn't
help if it's all the same audience,

because people can only sign once.

We have to reach new audiences.

I've been told "Become
a full-time streamer."

Um, I might consider it
if I thought it would work, but I don't.

I've been told I should
have made a bigger deal

about countries crossing
minimum thresholds.

Well, I didn't want to celebrate that
because that's an arbitrary number.

They're the minimums.

All that really matters
is that 1 million number,

and we're a long ways away.

Now, another suggestion has
been to make a plea to big gamers,

like PewDiePie, Jacksepticeye,
MoistCr1TiKaL, Markiplier,

anyone like that.

Well, yeah, I think that
might be a great idea.

Our biggest obstacle in the campaign
has always been getting enough exposure,

and they have exposure.

I think any one of them could end this
with one video and change gaming history.

Problem is, I have no idea
how to reach any of them.

Plus, I can understand if
they might shy away from this.

First, they're probably busy people.

But second,

they may not want the kind of heat
that comes with changing gaming history,

even if it's for the better.

And third, if they back this,

then a million people might
mob them to back something else,

and then there's no end to it.

So, I actually can understand
some people wanting to sit this out.

I mean, yeah, it really sucks that
we can't get enough attention

on this badly needed
change in the games industry,

but I'm not shocked either.

Honestly, I'm already punching
way, way above my weight class on this.

My main promotion video for it
got a little under 250,000 views,

and about 15% of my audience is from
EU countries who are eligible to sign.

So, that means I shouldn't
have expected much more than

30 to 40,000 signatures
from my audience,

and we're over 10 times that.

It's almost like a lot of people out there
don't like having their games destroyed.

Anyway, most of the criticism I've
seen for how I've run this campaign

kind of comes down to

"Be more popular."

Yeah, sure.

Maybe everybody else
knows how to do that.

I don't.

I kind of view that critique as similar to
"don't be poor" financial advice.

And that's from people
who support the campaign.

For all the support and fair
coverage we've received,

there's been some opposition, too.

Though, I want to say 80,

maybe even 90% of people
who are against the Initiative

are against it because they
think it's doing something it's not.

For example, the number
one criticism about the Initiative

that we've never been able to shake

is that it's unworkable

because you can't expect
publishers to support games forever.

Yeah, we know.

That's why we've
never asked for that.

I must have said this
a hundred times now.

It was written on the
website from day one!

But this keeps coming
up over and over again.

See, that's the thing.

As soon as you say three words
on requiring end-of-life plans,

gamers especially will
jump to some conclusion,

and I never know where
they're going to land.

Ironically, non-gamers tend to be much
better at understanding the Initiative

because they're not coming with
a whole bag full of assumptions.

A couple other criticisms are
how this would violate copyright law

by forcing publishers to give
up their intellectual property.

No, it wouldn't.

Some of you may
want to pause this part.

Or how this won't work because
of end-user license agreements.

That's also not a problem.

Or how this isn't possible

because publishers already have
agreements with other companies

and don't have the rights
to distribute that code.

We're aware of that.

Yes, the Initiative is still possible.

Those are the ones I've
seen most organically.

Beyond that, there is a clear
patient zero where others come from.

Okay, I really don't
want to do this next part,

but it's become a liability for
the campaign for me not to.

Our biggest critic by far is YouTuber
and streamer Pirate Software,

who goes by Thor.

If your only exposure to
Stop Killing Games has been this video,

then you've been misinformed.

This video is by someone who
does not understand the campaign,

has been trying to stop it,

and has been making
up what it is about.

I am not saying that lightly.

I will prove it in a minute.

Now, you might be thinking,

"Okay, so some YouTuber got something
wrong on the internet. So what?"

See, that was my thinking, too.

The problem is how incredibly
influential this YouTuber has been.

Remember that list of
coverage on the campaign?

Well, best I can tell,

Thor's coverage has been bigger
than literally anyone else on those lists,

except Asmongold.

And the only video Asmongold
had on this bigger than Thor's

was about Thor's video.

So, for all practical purposes,

Thor here has been the number
one voice on the campaign,

and he's been lying about what it is.

That's a bit loaded, though.

In this case, I'm using
the second definition of lie.

I have no evidence it's the first.

This video came out right as
we were building momentum,

then, except for one
boost in Germany,

the signatures started
drying up like clockwork.

This put me in kind of
a no-win scenario, too,

because if I ignored it,

then a lot of people are going to
get misinformed about the campaign.

But if I did a response video, which is
not something I wanted to do anyway,

then it might look
like drama farming,

which could understandably turn
off a lot of people from the campaign,

because it's not about that at all.

So, I quickly made this video

trying to clear up all misconceptions
and concerns about the Initiative,

with timestamps for
everyone's questions,

hoping the truth would
eventually come out.

I can see now that was a mistake.

I should have just embraced the drama.

To this day,

I'm still getting frequent
comments and emails

about the same falsehoods
about the campaign

that originated in this video.

Well, now I have nothing to lose.

If we don't get the signatures,
then none of this matters anyway.

So, if this campaign is failing
because of me not talking about this,

then I'll at least correct
history here on the way down.

I'll get this over with

and go over what I think are the biggest
points of Pirate Software's videos.

I'm not going to go over
everything, because collectively,

Thor has made hours of video
on both me and the movement.

I'd be here forever.

Believe me, I could
address smaller things, too,

and kind of already have.

All right, let's start.

Okay, point number one:

Thor does not understand
what Stop Killing Games is.

Here it is in his words.

So for those who don't understand,

the Stop Killing Games Initiatives

is basically, "We don't
want singleplayer games…"

No!

"…to have DRM that the
developers can turn off,

and thus render the singleplayer
games inactive anymore."

That's the—this is what
they want to change.

They need to be specific that they're
talking about singleplayer games

that do not need a
server to support them.

No.

And as much as they want it
to be about specifically games

where it is a singleplayer game
that has always online functionality,

it would impact every live
service game that exists

instead of just
targeting singleplayer…

Ugh…

…always online games.

No, that's not what it is.

Stop Killing Games
includes singleplayer games,

but nothing about
it is specific to them.

He completely made that up, and I have
no idea where he got that impression.

This is what I mean.

It's harder for gamers
to understand this

because they come with
so many assumptions.

It's like that saying about
doctors being the worst patients.

So, let's clear this up.

It's the first line on the website.

" 'Stop Killing Games' is a consumer
movement started to challenge the legality

of publishers destroying video
games they have sold to customers."

But the movement includes
all this stuff from earlier

and he was mostly
talking about the Initiative.

Well, the short
version is the Initiative

is about requiring publishers
to have end-of-life plans

for games they've sold
to customers in the future.

So when they shut them down,

customers can continue
running them without their support.

The long version depends on what
kind of transaction is being made.

As you can see, it's not
easy to explain in a soundbite.

But if you notice,

we don't make a distinction between
singleplayer and multiplayer games.

That's because the
law doesn't either.

So why make this even harder?

Both the movement and the law are
making distinctions on how games are sold.

Also, that part he said about it
affecting all live service games?

Yes and no.

It would affect most live
service games in the future,

but the Initiative is not retroactive.

So, that's one thing
Thor doesn't understand,

but he also seems
to think this is about

converting multiplayer
games to singleplayer.

Once again, he made that up.

And I have no idea
why he thought that.

Transitioning an entire
multiplayer server-side game

into a singleplayer video game,

which means rebalancing the
entire experience around singleplayer,

rebuilding everything
in the entire game.

How are you going to do
that with Final Fantasy XIV?

You just going to make
all the raids soloable?

Imagine the day that
World of Warcraft shuts down

and suddenly you have to
make it a singleplayer game

for every individual that
ever bought the game.

That's what they're asking for.

No!

Because they would have to sunset

live service games as a
singleplayer experience.

The idea that suddenly you
need to make every single

live service game
playable singleplayer offline.

No, dude.

Uh, correct!

No.

This one is particularly
baffling to me,

because I've heard most
counterarguments before,

but until Thor,
I've never heard this one.

That we want the industry to convert all
multiplayer games into singleplayer ones.

I keep saying it: you never know
where gamers are going to take this!

Nowhere in there does it
say that it's directly targeting

always online singleplayer games.

Oh, he's so close.

He's so close to getting it!

It is vague.

And because of that…

Argh…

He never has that lightbulb moment!

Well, he is correct in that statement.

It's almost as if that's not
what the Initiative is asking for.

But those were his streams
with a smaller audience.

What does he say in his big YouTube
video with over a million views

that he had time to research?

If we're trying to kill off
the practice of developers

putting together a live service game,

pitching it as a
singleplayer experience,

and then taking away
support in the future…

Ergh…

Now he's changed it again,

and is making up how it's about
singleplayer games are advertised.

What is he doing?

It needs to be specific about the
business practice it's trying to defeat,

which is specifically
companies that are doing this

under the guise of it
being a singleplayer game,

but adding online only
functionality that is not necessary

and doesn't add any
gameplay elements.

That's the problem.

No, that's not it at all!

And there are some people that will say,
"Well, just make it all singleplayer."

Like you?

Well, I've explained that that doesn't
make any sense in the first place.

If you're making it all singleplayer,
you'd have to carve off all of that,

and it's developer time and money.

These are two different ideologies,

and that's okay to have
two different ideologies.

I just won't agree with it.

But those aren't the ideologies!

Nothing in the Initiative is asking
to convert games to singleplayer!

Nowhere in there
does it say that it's

directly targeting always
online singleplayer games.

Yeah! So why does
he keep bringing it up?

This is a total red herring!

If we don't like the idea of live
service games as a whole, I get it.

Don't play live service games then.

Don't agree to those terms.

No!

He's getting a new thing wrong now!

We're not against them existing.

We're against them being destroyed
with no recourse for the customer.

Just use logic!

If we didn't like
them in the first place,

why would we care if
they're being destroyed?

He says he gets it, but he doesn't!

Let's talk about the actual
bad business practices.

In the case that a studio is
making a live service game

and they sell it to you as a product,

they say that you are purchasing
the game or you are buying the game

when in reality, you're
actually purchasing

or buying a license to that game?

I think that we should
be fighting about that.

The Initiative is not trying
to call that out specifically.

It's trying to say that all games need
to stay in a functionable playable state.

Yes!
Which is not calling out the language

that is being used to
manipulate the player.

Call that out specifically.

Okay, I don't know if
he's doing this intentionally.

I'll be charitable
and assume he's not,

but this is some serious obfuscation.

He's complaining that the Initiative
isn't focused on another topic he made up.

I mean, what is that logic?

Hey, the Initiative doesn't
address how Capcom

changed the look of Dante in
the Devil May Cry reboot either.

That may as well be
what he's saying there.

I am not aware of a game on
the planet with a license agreement

that says you are
not buying a license.

Our problem is not with
licenses failing to inform people.

Blizzard says they can take
away your purchase for no reason.

That sounds pretty clear to me.

Our problem is those terms are so
hostile to consumers and the medium

that they should be
taken off the table entirely.

This needs regulation.

Forget video games.

If you look at basic commerce
for hundreds of years,

when you paid money, you
either got to keep what you paid for,

or if it was a service, you were
told when your access ends.

The vast majority of online-only
games do neither of those.

The games industry is trying
to upend basic commerce.

I think you have to go back to feudalism
before neither of those things are true.

Why even have consumer
laws if you have no rights?

If you try to tell me that
every studio needs to run their

live service game indefinitely or
not want to run one at all,

then no one's going to run them.

Oh no!

He wheeled out that line about publishers
having to support the game forever!

He was literally
watching the video earlier

where it says it won't
do that in big letters!

That wasn't enough!

We just can't stop gamers from
going there even when we spell it out!

I admit guys, this part hurts:

to see the biggest voice on this issue
get it wrong again and again and again,

then put that same
wrong information on blast

to a far bigger audience
than we can reach.

It hurts.

He doesn't get it!

He doesn't understand
what we're asking for.

Now, to be fair, it sounded like he
was getting a little closer in this video.

Yeah, despite being called 2,

it's at least the 4th
video he did on this.

You want that to stay in a
functional playable state?

That means the devs have to
release either server binaries

or somehow carve off the game
to be a singleplayer experience now.

That's better,

but he's still talking about converting
to singleplayer right to the end.

He never completely got it.

Eh…

So, Pirate Software did
not understand the Initiative.

Maybe he still doesn't.

That means the majority of his
critique is about things it would not do,

like kill all MMOs.

If that passes, enjoy never playing
an MMO again for the rest of your life

and taking it away from every
other person that plays MMOs.

It really wouldn't.

And I've explained why in that video,

but the short version is

companies would have to stop
liking money for that to happen.

Lots of money.

But his number one criticism is
that he thinks the Initiative is vague.

…incredibly vague…

…too vague…

…very vague…

…damn vague…

It's vague. It's vague.

That is vague.

Too vague.

…vaguely written…

…vague…

…incredibly vague…

…vaguely worded…

…vague… vague… vague…

This is vague.

This goes on.

Well, from Thor's perspective,
his logic is pretty sound for this part.

But the thing about logic is it's
only as good as your assumed truths.

And he's said multiple times now

that he thinks the Initiative is
only about singleplayer games.

So since he's expecting
the thing he made up,

but that's not what the
Initiative is asking for,

he thinks it's vague,

because for him it is.

Nowhere in there does it
say that it's directly targeting

always online singleplayer games.

It is vague.

Yeah, in fact, if we look at
that long definition again,

let's add a subsection just for Thor:

singleplayer games
with an online DRM check.

Those would already fall
under this broader category.

So Thor is expecting this.

Again, I don't know why,

but instead, he's seeing an
Initiative that covers all of this.

That's why he calls
it vague 50 times.

The thought that we
want what we're asking for

and not the thing he made up
seems to have never entered his head.

The Initiative is trying to
stop the destruction of games.

That's the whole point.

It covers the types of
games most in need of saving.

If we only covered
this tiny subsection,

that would save maybe 1% or
less of games that get destroyed.

This would do almost nothing.

I'm not saying there isn't one,

but I literally can't think of a
game that meets this criteria.

Every game I know of with
singleplayer content that's been destroyed

has been designed to
run server-side, not locally.

Older ones like that tend
to have the DRM cracked,

which is not an ideal solution,
but that does stop game destruction.

And newer ones with Denuvo or something
tend to have it removed by end-of-life.

So, I say less than 1%,
but this might save 0% of games.

I'm not sure.

The Initiative is
actually not that vague.

Though, to be fair, some people
did get hung up on this part:

"A reasonably playable
or functional state."

True, that is not 100% specific.

There are reasons for that.

You know how in law, police can stop
a suspect with "reasonable" suspicion,

or a jury finds someone guilty
beyond all "reasonable" doubt?

That's because the number of
situations you face are so varied

that the law has to inject some
common sense somewhere.

It's the same with games.

A multi-million dollar MMO is a different
animal from a budget arena shooter.

It won't work making
highly specific laws.

That's one half of it.

The other half of it is this sentence
is an olive branch to publishers.

I've heard complaints
this isn't specific enough.

Okay, but you know what
the alternative to this would be?

Here, I'll show you.

The game must be fully functional

and contain 100% of
all features as advertised.

So, as a publisher, which
requirement would you rather meet?

More importantly,

this sentence shows the EU Commission
that we're acting in good faith

and trying to find a balance.

I think some of the people
asking for this to be more specific

may not realize what
they're asking for.

I know some won't believe this,

but a hell of a lot of thought went
into the wording of the Initiative.

I think it's almost perfect.

See, the Initiative isn't
even a proposed bill.

It's a negotiation.

Our side says we want games to be
functional when publishers end support,

so they need end-of-life plans.

The industry's position is going
to be against whatever we write,

and claim they need no
regulation whatsoever.

Then the EU Commission gets to
decide who is more in the right here.

The Citizens' Initiative is the
opening offer in these negotiations.

Trust me, the industry worth
hundreds of billions of dollars

will make its position
known to the EU.

We don't have to make
their case for them.

So for this negotiation,
simple is good.

That's why we're straight and
to the point for what we want.

Then the industry
will argue against that,

then the EU Commission
might look for compromises.

You don't start a negotiation
with a bunch of compromises

because then it will get so watered
down you won't save anything.

Oh, and that long definition list

are actually logical extensions of the
simpler language used in the Initiative.

It's actually kind of slick.

Plus, there's a character
limit on these things.

The EU Commission doesn't want you trying
to cover 50 edge cases at this phase.

All right, so, Pirate Software
did not understand the Initiative.

But point two: he also did not
make it easy for the truth to get out.

I had never heard
of him prior to all this,

but during the campaign,
I had dozens of people contacting me

telling me how wise
and reasonable he is,

how he's really pro-consumer,
and represents developers,

and I should really talk to him.

Great, let's do it!

So, this was my
first encounter of him:

Oh shit, now, this is
actually really dumb.

It's used car salesman garbage.

This is shit.

It's shit.

Not only do I not want to back this,

I'm going to actively
tell people not to.

That is awful.

That is a horrible goddamn direction.

That's—that's awful, dude.

No. Eat my entire ass.

That—the level of stupid
that I just had to receive

was like sitting on
Twitter for 12 hours.

This shit sucks.

That's a really stupid-ass move.

That's an incredibly stupid-ass move.

I think this is ass.

This is complete garbage.

All of this can eat shit then.

I dropped the mask entirely.

I have no qualms about that.

They can eat my entire ass.

The whole thing.

That sounds stupid as shit.

[laughs]

Oh yeah, I can see
why people like him.

It's like listening to Mr. Rogers.

As you can imagine,
we've been less than thrilled

that Thor here has become the
dominant voice of the campaign,

especially when he
doesn't understand it.

Though, I did find the
"used car salesman" part amusing,

since if people could read my mind,

they would understand how much I dread
anything resembling sales or marketing,

or just trying to push things on
people who aren't interested in them.

I'm not exaggerating when I said
I've hated having to run this campaign.

This is the most uneducated take
I have ever seen in games.

Now, as for that one, I do have
a bachelor's in criminal justice,

which might explain why I'm coming at this
from very different angles than he is.

You know, focusing
on people having rights

and checking what
consumer law actually says

rather than what's most
convenient for publishers?

Though I think I know where
that comment is coming from,

because I've gotten it before.

Here's what I think is happening.

Online only games
have a client and a server,

but a lot also have middleware

that developers don't have
permission to distribute to customers,

or depend on microservice
they have no control over.

And the server software isn't even
designed to run on a customer system.

You can't just cut out the middleware
and remove the microservices

because they're
integrated too deeply.

That would still leave the game
bricked and could take months to fix

and be a lot of work.

So, I think some devs think
we're saying all they need to do

is just release the server
binaries at end-of-life,

and yay, everything is solved.

And that's why they
think we're ignorant.

Well, for some games that could work,
but not ones like these.

Plus, that's not what we're saying.

First off, we're not even mandating
the methodology because again,

doing that could run
afoul of copyright law.

Second, this whole diagram is
looking at a game that exists right now

and was never designed
to have an end-of-life plan.

Those might not be salvageable.

So, what we're saying is
let's take a game in the future.

No code has been written yet,
it's still just a design document.

Okay, so we have the
client portion as usual,

then we have the server logic.

Now, we'll bring in our usual
middleware and microservice vendors.

Nope!

Stop, stop.

Now, the EU says we can't just brick
customer purchases like we've been doing

if we want to sell our games there.

So, that means we can't keep making all
these same deals the way we have been.

Now, we need to
renegotiate with the vendors

to allow for an end-of-life
build with their software

or redesign things to
make the microservices

easier to sever at end-of-life.

And vendors probably will renegotiate,

otherwise they'll start losing sales

to everyone who wants
to sell games in the EU.

But say a vendor refuses anyway.

Then we need to go with vendor B,

who will offer EU compliant solutions

because they will be happy to take money
away from their competitor, vendor A.

Or maybe we need to abandon
one of the microservices altogether,

and come up with an
in-house alternative

that is compatible
with an end-of-life plan.

And if the server can't
run on consumer hardware,

well, maybe now we code it
in a way that's more versatile,

and can be compiled to run a
stripped down version with less features

for the customer
machine at end-of-life.

Or hey, if that's not
doable, then we scrap that,

but still give customers some
form of server software at end-of-life

because now we've planned for this,

and inform them it requires
specialized hardware

and they're on their
own for getting it working.

And these are all just suggestions.

The publisher would get to
decide how they want to comply.

Thor is not alone in developers
trashing what I just said.

I don't know why,

but some of the nastiest insults
I've received on the entire campaign

have been when I try to explain
this is what we're asking for.

This part in particular
triggers some people to no end.

That—that video
made me actually mad.

Like, like real mad.

Not like—like fake memes
mad, like, actually mad.

Like, I'm actually mad.

Upsetting people is
not our goal, by the way.

We actually want this transition
to be as easy as possible

for publishers and developers.

However, we are
stubbornly against proposals

that won't stop commercial
games being destroyed

because that's the whole point.

Anyway, you heard
Thor's comments for me.

In light of that, I think
I've been pretty diplomatic.

I am just trying to get
this Initiative passed.

If that means I have to get
insulted all along the way…

Okay…

So, with that in mind,
I reached out to him,

not expecting to change his mind,

but to at least clarify things
since he got so much wrong.

If you're going to hate us, at least
hate us for what we're actually doing,

not for things that
are made up about us.

I got a message from Ross.

"There were many other
misunderstandings in your video.

It's clear that you hate the Initiative,
and I doubt I would change that."

That is correct.

"I would encourage you to at
least hate it for what it accurately is."

I do.

He says that so confidently!

Oh yeah, you knocked it out of the park,
you understood everything(!)

"In other words,
the customer is told explicitly

that their access ends
at the time of payment.

Most live service games do not do
this, which could run afoul of EU law."

"Most" is patently incorrect.

"Patently incorrect."

Okay, for those who don't know
much about live service games,

that's like saying
the Earth isn't round.

He says verifiably false
things so confidently!

If his viewers don't know any better,

how can I blame anyone for believing
what he says about the Initiative

when he talks like that?

It's incredible!

And he does not wish to discuss this
with me or anyone else in the Initiative.

Why not?

"Would you consider reaching
out and talking to Ross about it?"

No. And the reason why is because
I found his entire statement over—

over the YouTube
incredibly disingenuous.

Yes, this issue which has
bothered me since I was a teenager

and I've spent 10 years on
trying to push back against

is me being disingenuous.

Where is this coming from?

Well, it comes from a slide I had in
my promotional video, the half-joke slide.

He hated this, and I think he may
have a rather privileged view of politics.

You want to put together legislation
because it's the right thing to do.

We did!

Not because you can convince legal
representatives to do it no matter what.

It's both!

These are not mutually
exclusive things!

The idea that we're going to go
through this because it's an easy win,

but not the right win?

No, dude.

Oh, god.

So, he misunderstood the Initiative,
and misunderstood our intentions.

And in his words, this is why he refuses
to have a dialogue with the movement.

So, now I have to address it.

Let's keep it basic.

He calls me disingenuous, implying
I don't believe what I'm pushing for,

that this is some sort of con.

That's uncharitable to
the point of being silly.

Besides video evidence
going back 10 years,

this is not a hard concept to grasp.

I hate seeing creative
works needlessly destroyed

when people are trying to save them,

and video games are where
I see that happen the most.

Of course I believe in
what I'm advocating for!

Maybe start from there.

I'm a little surprised
that didn't sink in.

The idea of getting it
to pass with an easy win

instead of pass because it's good

is a problem to me.

Absolute problem.

That's not how politics works.

Do you think things pass
because they're good ideas?

Tell that to people who
still have lead in their water!

A lot of gamers are
jaded with good cause.

The industry has been shaking
them down every which way.

The perception that it's
hopeless to protect our rights

against billion-dollar
conglomerates is often correct.

If I told people this would pass
just because it's a good idea,

I wouldn't believe me.

This slide is a half-joke,

but it's also some totally
cynical reasons that are often true

to let people know we have a chance
and this isn't utterly hopeless.

Do you think I or most people
in the movement give a damn

why politicians might
pass something good?

What we care about is that
they pass something good.

We don't need them
to be true believers,

we need them to pass good law!

This is as soft as it
possibly gets in politics.

I think most politicians
would find this slide funny.

It sounds like he's offended

I have a low opinion
of the political process.

Well, I'm the one
in the trenches here.

I'm not sure if he's upset
at me or just upset at reality.

Yeah, I am too.

Anyway, he went on to
delete my reply to him.

Thankfully, someone
backed it up and I figured,

"Okay, he hates this.
It was thrust upon him by his viewers.

I'll just leave him be."

Well, that was a mistake on my part

because then he went on to make
more videos about me and the movement,

now reaching over a million views,

still broadcasting the
wrong information on us.

I guess I'm being petty here,
but this is alien thinking to me.

Why would you call someone out,

then run away from a
conversation with them

when they say there's
a misunderstanding,

but then go on to make
more videos calling them out?

Sir, that is not
gentlemanly behavior.

All right, I know this is going on
too long, so I'll get to the final point.

Thor misunderstood the Initiative,
misunderstood our intentions,

and misinformed a lot
of people about both.

But the irony is

I think he would have hated it
even more if he did understand it,

because first, he doesn't
see any of this as a problem.

Gaming isn't in need of saving.

No, it's not a form of
planned obsolescence,

it's called "the game no longer
being profitable and we turned it off."

No games are being destroyed here,
these are live service games.

Yeah, you heard him,
no games are being destroyed(!)

Does he just say anything?

Is that why he's popular?

More to the point, and what I
wish he included in his main video

is he supports games being destroyed.

A very strange demand

from people in the gaming industry

where live service
games should live forever,

whether in the hands of
the developer or otherwise,

and I can't get behind that shit.

I think live service games
getting sunsetted is fine.

I've always thought that.

And that's okay.

There's nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing
wrong with that at all.

I have no problems with
the end of a video game.

See, I wish he started his big
YouTube video with that message

instead of deleting it.

Instead, he presented
himself as pro-preservation

and not wanting the medium to die out.

It's incredibly important to
me that we keep making games

and that the next generation
has the tools to do so

so that our medium doesn't
die out and it never will.

And that's the whole
intention of all of this.

So, he doesn't want games to die out,
except he's fine with that.

I think there's some cognitive
dissonance going on there.

And he's against killing singleplayer
games that only have a DRM check…

Okay.

…but then says people who buy singleplayer
games with more than a DRM check

are stupid and he doesn't play those.

I don't buy games that are single—
that are always online singleplayer games.

I refuse to play those,
because it's stupid.

That's some tough talk
coming from a fan of Diablo IV.

It's actually really freaking
good, dude, the game's fantastic.

Uh, itemization is great.

Systems design is great.

Storyline has been fantastic.

The characters are good.

The voice acting is great.

So, is he saying he wouldn't have played
Diablo IV's singleplayer campaign

if it didn't have forced
multiplayer also?

Even though he's praising it
and appears to be playing solo?

Or is he saying that people that just
wanted to play Diablo IV singleplayer

are stupid?

I admit I got lost
on his stance there,

but what's more clear to me
is we're not on the same side.

Here's a list of some popular games

that are all at risk of being
destroyed at some time in the future.

The Stop Killing Games movement sees
any of these being destroyed as a problem,

and they're exactly the kinds of
games that would start being protected

if the Initiative passed.

Now, a lot of these do
have singleplayer campaigns,

but I believe they all require
more than a simple DRM check.

He says over and over that his problem
with the Initiative is the wording,

and it's vague,

but there is no wording he would
like that also saves games like these,

because he's on the
opposite side of this.

If he's totally fine with games
like these being disabled forever,

well, guess what?

That's the position of the industry

causing this entire
problem in the first place!

And that's the final point:

Thor says he disagrees

with how we're going about
trying to end game destruction,

but he also disagrees
with the goal itself.

No, wait.

I want to be fair.

He's only against 99% of it,
minus that tiny provision he made up.

So once you understand that,

then of course it makes sense that he's
against the Stop Killing Games movement,

because we're trying
to stop killing games!

Now, if you're in Thor's camp

and think killing all these games is fine,
and are as things should be,

okay!

Then it's just a values clash.

And yeah, you'll
hate the Initiative, too.

I'm not trying to
tell you otherwise!

But if you think you might have
been misled about what the Initiative is,

hey, maybe look at it again.

Tell others about it.

Help undo some of the damage.

There is still time.

It closes July 31st.

Thor lying about what
the campaign is about—

remember, second definition—

has caused more damage to it
than anything else I'm aware of.

Now, I've heard some people say,

"No, it caused a Streisand effect
and led to more coverage."

Well, if you look at the signature rate,
it suggests the opposite.

I've also been told a big streamer,

like in that group I
mentioned earlier,

you know, the kind that are
so big they could end this,

avoided talking about Stop Killing Games
because of Thor's take on it.

Remember, at the time he did this,

Pirate Software was a
well-respected developer

looked up to by the internet community
for having good takes on gaming.

And I was and still am
the weirdo with no credentials

other than not wanting
games destroyed.

So, with Thor being seen as
the smartest guy in the room

and firmly against the Initiative,

I think that led some internet
figures to not want to touch this,

lest they be seen like a
fool in the eyes of Thor.

Now, as I understand it,
that risk may have lowered since then,

but it doesn't really matter
if nobody else talks about it

because he was there to kill the
momentum when we needed it the most,

and we never got it back.

Okay, that's it on him.

I did not enjoy having
to do that segment,

but I've had to do a lot of things
on this campaign I don't like.

Believe it or not, my goal was
not to tarnish Thor's reputation.

That's incidental.

I don't care.

He can be hailed as a national hero.

Whatever.

The goal was to expose the damage
done to the campaign to try and fix it.

I do think he's someone

who would have defended the divine
right of kings hundreds of years ago,

but I don't wish him ill will.

On the contrary, I hope he
finds some peace of mind.

Now, you might be thinking,

"Is this campaign really so fragile
that one big streamer can sink it

just by misrepresenting it?"

Oh, yeah.

It totally is.

It's been an uphill battle
almost every step of the way.

It sinks or swims to the
whims of what big streamers do.

It kind of reminds
me of the Greek gods.

That part about easy wins,
that's for the politicians, not us.

Ours are hard as nails.

There are reasons
it took me nine years

before I was ever able to
actually do anything on this.

It's a miracle it's
gotten as far as it has.

Now, I've seen people ask,

"If the Initiative fails,
then what's next?"

I have tried to explain this before.

There is no next.

What's next was a year and a half ago
with all those other things we've tried.

We're at the final phase now.

The European Citizens' Initiative is our
last possible chance to change anything.

See, there are things governments
and consumer groups are doing,

and then there are things that us,
the general public, are doing.

After July, I see nothing left for us.

So, does that mean
Stop Killing Games has failed?

Well, no.

Nobody knows yet.

We won't know the answer to
that for a long time, maybe years.

Government moves slowly.

The Initiative will be what's failed,
not everything else.

Without the Initiative,

we still have about five
other chances for this to work.

We have the consumer agencies
in France, Germany, and Australia,

and possibly help from the
BEUC and the UFC-Que Choisir,

though those are iffier,

but all their work is underway.

It's out of our hands now.

Now, I've heard some say,

"What if we launch
the Initiative again?"

Well, someone else
can try that, not me.

I tried my absolute damnedest riding
off the publicity of The Crew's shutdown

and barely got halfway.

It took a chunk out of my life
with almost nothing to show for it.

No way am I going to spearhead
something like this again.

I saw this as my only shot,

I took it to the best of my ability,

that wasn't good enough.

I have no reason to think that
doing it again would be successful.

On the contrary, I think
it would do far worse.

Now, that doesn't
mean I'm being defeatist.

I will continue saying yes to almost any
opportunity that emerges until July 31st.

I have some skepticism,

but I am still available for
Stop Killing Games until then.

Though, remember, you don't
have to go through me at all.

You just have to send
people to the Initiative.

After that, uh, no, I'm done.

In fact, I think some people might be
surprised just how done I am after July.

It's not that I will have changed
my mind on game destruction,

it's just that there's
nothing left after that,

so, I don't want to waste
even more of my life on this.

I've paid my dues.

My income's dropped
significantly since I started this

because I haven't had time
to make more fun videos,

which people would rather watch,

and I don't blame them one bit.

So besides being sick
of running this thing,

I have to make up for
lost time so I can pay rent.

Plus, believe it or not,

I want time to actually play games and
not just fight to keep them all the time.

I'll still do the bare
minimum if it helps.

For example, Germany's consumer
agency contacted me at one point

because they wanted more information on
The Crew's EULA for their investigation.

So, I assisted with that.

That was surprising, because I
have no authority on that at all,

and I would have thought they
would have had better sources than me.

But yeah, I can do pilot light
activity like that if it really helps.

Just no more campaigning.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not
against people doing more after July.

I just think your odds
will be horrendous,

and I don't want to dump
my time into doomed causes.

If the law on game destruction in
the EU and Australia

was as locked down as
it is in the United States,

I never would have even
started this campaign.

Now, I've said this Initiative
resulted in almost nothing.

Well, we did get a little bit.

For me personally, I got the feeling
of knowing I did everything I could,

so I won't have any
more nagging doubts like,

"Oh, if only I had tried harder, I
could have saved video games."

No, I can close the book on that.

So, I'll be able to look at
myself in the mirror after this.

That's a plus for me and
anyone else who tried their best.

About the only other thing I
think the Initiative accomplished

was we inadvertently saved two games.

This is hearsay again, but
according to an insider at the company,

Ubisoft announced offline modes for
The Crew 2 and Motorfest,

because they were afraid the
European Citizens' Initiative would pass,

and thought this might
kill some of the momentum.

Ironically, I don't think they
needed to have bothered.

We were already losing momentum
when they announced that,

because, well, you know why.

But, not killing games
is the whole point of this.

And I guarantee you Ubisoft had
no end-of-life plans for those games

prior to this movement.

They were absolutely slated to die.

Now, if I could have picked
any two online games to save,

I can't say those would
have been my choices,

but that is something tangible
that the Initiative changed.

Assuming Ubisoft isn't lying.

At the time of this video,
they still haven't delivered on it yet.

So, is that it?

Is that all the Initiative
accomplished?

Well, without the signatures,
sadly, yes, I think so.

Now, some people might say,

"No, we did more than that.
We shifted the narrative."

So what?

My only goal with this was to
stop games from being destroyed.

All the talk in the world
won't fix that without action.

Without the Initiative,

any victory we get is going to come
from one of these five paths we opened up.

Speaking of which, what
should we expect from that?

I honestly don't know.

I give all of these coin toss odds.

I do think it is highly, highly likely

Ubisoft is going to get fined for
something by more than one agency.

Don't take my word for it.

German channel
WBS Legal thinks the same.

The problem in their eyes

is that Ubisoft shut down The Crew
with only three months notice,

and they should have
provided more like two years.

Yeah, hear me now, quote me later.

If all that comes from Stop Killing
Games is companies in the EU

need to give two years notice
before they shut down a game,

then I will consider
it an abject failure.

It won't save games.

That wasn't our goal.

It'll piss off companies.

Everybody loses.

But that's the risk of making
this work under existing law

rather than proposing
sensible law under the Initiative.

Fingers crossed the agencies
make a better decision than that.

Now, since this is a wrap-up video
and I don't know what the outcome will be,

I might as well
present both scenarios.

First, if we win and have a clear victory
through one of these avenues,

oh boy.

If I think I have threats and hate mail
now, I bet I haven't seen anything yet.

I'd like to say whatever happens
because of these avenues,

we didn't write them and
never had any authority here.

All we could do was
report the problem.

The European Citizens' Initiative is
what was written by the movement

and that's what's failing.

Now, for people who want my
head over this, I doubt they'll care,

but I wanted to point that out.

I'll say right now,
the transition could be bumpy.

It all depends on how
hard the industry fights it.

And yes, it's possible it could end
some games on death row prematurely.

So games that were
designed to die could still die,

but after that, almost all games
would start being protected.

Because I know there's some clown

that's going to find one example
of a game shutting down early

and then use that as proof
that enforcing the law is bad,

even though the industry
was going to kill it anyway.

That's the logic I'm expecting.

So there could be bumps, but give it three
to five years and it will smooth out,

become an industry standard,

and then you'll have
people who were against it

claiming they were for it all along.

Hey, remember how there
were people speaking out

against letting customers
refund games before 2014,

and they're kind of quiet now?

I do.

I think it'll be a lot like that.

So, that's if we win.

If we lose,

in other words, all five of
these avenues get shot down,

well, then things are going to be
almost exactly like they are right now.

Except then there will be no
pretending we have consumer rights.

If you're a gamer,
it will be codified into law

that you are consumer chattel who
doesn't deserve to keep what you buy.

Or if you're renting,
informed of how long you get to rent.

So, cool.

The games industry brought back
one of feudalism's greatest hits.

Now, even that reality I consider
preferable to what's going on now,

because then we at least
know we're legally screwed.

Besides the obvious,

what drove me crazy about this issue
and the reason I started this campaign

was because in many countries,
no laws were ever passed on this.

Nobody voted on this.

Companies just started
taking away your purchases,

nobody stopped them,

and it slowly got normalized.

It's felt like a coup.

So, the idea that hundreds of
games were being destroyed

just because we're letting it happen

drove me up the wall.

If we're screwed,
let's be told that to our faces,

and not have contradicting
laws pretending we have rights.

Yeah, that's the one thing I can
promise this campaign will deliver,

which is answers.

There will be no more
frog boiling after this.

Either the frog hops out
of the pot, or it's dead.

Now, even if we lose 100%,

it's not like I'll change
my mind on thinking

destroying creative works when
people want to save them is wrong.

I'll probably drift even farther towards
trying to save game worlds at least.

I made a video
about this sort of thing.

I'm optimistic about
technology assisting

with being able to extract environments
from games and port them in the future.

So hopefully we can
salvage more from the ashes

that are getting burned down in games.

So, that's Stop Killing Games.

If you're depending on
me to save the Initiative,

then I think it's going to fail.

"Skill issue," as they say.

My only closing thoughts on this
is that this is all just so stupid.

It's stupid that we didn't have
clear laws on this to begin with,

that this practice continued for
decades without clear laws on it,

that it was going to continue
without our intervention,

that it takes so much work and so
many people to even report a violation,

that me, a chump YouTuber,
was the one spearheading this,

that it was easily derailed
by a bigger YouTuber

convincing gamers that having
their games destroyed is a good thing.

It's all so stupid.

I've heard some people say before
that we're on the worst timeline.

No, things could be so much worse.

I think some people have no idea.

But if you were to say we're
on the dumbest timeline,

I don't know if I could
argue against that.

See ya.

[Subtitles by Erasmus Magnus]