Randrye Posted July 7 1 00:00:00,150 --> 00:00:04,246 Hello! I have a development on the "Stop Killing Games" campaign. 2 00:00:05,050 --> 00:00:09,670 Now, as I mentioned earlier, it's recently crossed the one million signature mark. 3 00:00:09,670 --> 00:00:11,537 Though I'm assuming nothing. 4 00:00:11,960 --> 00:00:15,320 In fact, I've been given stats that there was a previous initiative 5 00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:19,110 that had 250,000 of its signatures invalidated. 6 00:00:19,110 --> 00:00:21,620 And I could see us setting a new record there. 7 00:00:21,620 --> 00:00:24,287 So keep signing. That's the first thing. 8 00:00:24,800 --> 00:00:29,060 Second, for anyone who doubts how powerful this initiative can be, 9 00:00:29,060 --> 00:00:33,700 we now have a lobbying group issuing a statement about us. 10 00:00:33,700 --> 00:00:36,580 Do you think if we had no chance of changing things, 11 00:00:36,580 --> 00:00:39,600 we would have lobbyists coming out against us? 12 00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:43,010 Well, a big one is Video Games Europe. 13 00:00:43,010 --> 00:00:46,550 Best I can tell, this is essentially the voice of the industry. 14 00:00:46,550 --> 00:00:49,670 So of course they're going to be against any proposal we make, 15 00:00:49,670 --> 00:00:53,960 because they're ideologically opposed to us being able to retain our games. 16 00:00:53,960 --> 00:00:56,427 I really can't emphasize that enough. 17 00:00:56,500 --> 00:01:00,148 Even if every developer in the world was for our proposal, 18 00:01:00,390 --> 00:01:02,990 the industry would still be against it. 19 00:01:03,030 --> 00:01:06,470 Because it's not developers who make most of the big decisions. 20 00:01:06,470 --> 00:01:09,414 It's shareholders and companies worth billions. 21 00:01:09,430 --> 00:01:13,485 So with that in mind, let's go through this statement quick by our opposition here. 22 00:01:13,485 --> 00:01:15,990 "We appreciate the passion of our community. 23 00:01:15,990 --> 00:01:20,290 "However, the decision to discontinue online services is multifaceted, 24 00:01:20,290 --> 00:01:23,120 "never taken lightly, and must be an option for companies 25 00:01:23,121 --> 00:01:26,702 "when an online experience is no longer commercially viable." 26 00:01:26,702 --> 00:01:30,150 Well, I have great news for you, Video Games Europe. 27 00:01:30,150 --> 00:01:35,014 We are in no way seeking to impede your right to discontinue online services. 28 00:01:35,300 --> 00:01:38,666 We are saying you can shut down your games whenever you want. 29 00:01:38,666 --> 00:01:41,270 But you have to do that responsibly, 30 00:01:41,270 --> 00:01:45,622 in a way that doesn't take back rights you already sold to customers. 31 00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:49,190 Yeah, some people forget that companies have to sell you some rights to begin with, 32 00:01:49,190 --> 00:01:51,066 to even play the games. 33 00:01:51,700 --> 00:01:54,600 "We understand that it can be disappointing for players, 34 00:01:54,600 --> 00:01:58,415 "but when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice 35 00:01:58,415 --> 00:02:02,840 "of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws." 36 00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:07,860 Okay, well first off, I'm not a lawyer, but this guy at WBS Legal is. 37 00:02:07,860 --> 00:02:11,613 And he thinks Ubisoft probably broke the law when it shut down "The Crew", 38 00:02:11,614 --> 00:02:13,990 giving players only three months notice, 39 00:02:13,990 --> 00:02:16,500 when they should have given more like two years. 40 00:02:16,500 --> 00:02:19,540 Yeah, you know. Ubisoft? One of your members? 41 00:02:19,540 --> 00:02:23,560 So this is probably a false statement out the gate. 42 00:02:23,560 --> 00:02:26,200 But you know what? That's not even our issue. 43 00:02:26,200 --> 00:02:29,350 So I don't even care how much notice you're giving the players. 44 00:02:29,350 --> 00:02:33,333 What I care about is that you're not depriving them of their purchase. 45 00:02:33,333 --> 00:02:37,400 "Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players, 46 00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:40,300 "as the protections we put in place to secure players' data, 47 00:02:40,300 --> 00:02:43,960 "remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content, 48 00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:47,110 "would not exist and would leave rights holders liable." 49 00:02:47,110 --> 00:02:50,600 Okay, several things here. We have to break it down. 50 00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:54,730 "Private servers are not always a viable alternative option." 51 00:02:54,730 --> 00:02:59,240 So they're saying for a new game concept, which hasn't even been made yet, 52 00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:03,993 sometimes there is NO WAY they can add an end-of-life plan to the design? 53 00:03:04,666 --> 00:03:07,802 Their programmers' fingers simply can't type that? 54 00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:11,808 I would love to see them say this to a room full of developers. 55 00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:15,450 I think the industry would be surprised how viable it was 56 00:03:15,450 --> 00:03:18,470 if the law said you can't take back the limited license rights 57 00:03:18,470 --> 00:03:20,400 you already sold to the customer. 58 00:03:20,550 --> 00:03:24,160 And this next part. Yes, this part is true. 59 00:03:24,310 --> 00:03:28,470 Players will absolutely be getting a rougher and more wild experience 60 00:03:28,470 --> 00:03:30,160 playing an unsupported game. 61 00:03:30,310 --> 00:03:33,177 I happen to know a thing or two about that. 62 00:03:33,610 --> 00:03:37,266 So yes, that's the nature of anything unsupported. 63 00:03:37,810 --> 00:03:41,394 That's not a good excuse to destroy what people paid for. 64 00:03:41,455 --> 00:03:43,270 It just means they're on their own. 65 00:03:43,270 --> 00:03:45,270 But then they say this part: 66 00:03:45,270 --> 00:03:47,840 "It would leave rights holders liable." 67 00:03:47,959 --> 00:03:49,566 Okay, I am not a lawyer, 68 00:03:49,567 --> 00:03:53,750 but my first impression is, this strikes me as very not true. 69 00:03:53,750 --> 00:03:55,933 The way I read this, they're saying they are 70 00:03:55,933 --> 00:03:58,950 incapable of writing an end-user license agreement 71 00:03:58,950 --> 00:04:02,020 that absolves them of all liability on shutdown. 72 00:04:02,020 --> 00:04:06,710 Like planning for end-of-life, apparently it's just not possible. 73 00:04:06,710 --> 00:04:08,340 So me, as a layman, 74 00:04:08,341 --> 00:04:12,020 I'm wondering what's the problem with adding a line like this to the EULA? 75 00:04:12,020 --> 00:04:16,586 "Once our company ends support, we are not responsible for any and all issues 76 00:04:16,586 --> 00:04:19,333 "that arise from users continuing to operate the game 77 00:04:19,334 --> 00:04:21,960 "in a discontinued and unsupported state, 78 00:04:21,960 --> 00:04:26,833 "and absolve ourselves from any and all liability pertaining to its continued use." 79 00:04:26,833 --> 00:04:30,500 There's probably a better way to say that, but you get the idea. 80 00:04:30,500 --> 00:04:34,620 They seem to be saying a line like that is just impossible to write. 81 00:04:34,620 --> 00:04:37,564 See, I'm puzzled by this, because as a consumer, 82 00:04:37,670 --> 00:04:40,680 I've seen all kinds of things have support end, 83 00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:43,752 but I still get to keep them; I'm just on my own. 84 00:04:44,340 --> 00:04:46,140 That's a very common thing. 85 00:04:46,570 --> 00:04:49,433 I think we need a lawyer to weigh in on this. 86 00:04:49,433 --> 00:04:51,430 So if we take them at their word, 87 00:04:51,430 --> 00:04:54,520 it sounds like they're concerned about protecting customers. 88 00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:57,933 Okay, but their solution is customers must have 89 00:04:57,934 --> 00:05:00,580 their purchase taken away from them forever. 90 00:05:00,580 --> 00:05:05,390 "We have to destroy our customers' games to protect them from themselves." 91 00:05:05,390 --> 00:05:09,480 I normally don't like to use this phrase because it's thrown around too much, 92 00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:12,120 but this is beyond 'Nanny State' 93 00:05:12,120 --> 00:05:14,587 This is more like 'Terminator State'. 94 00:05:14,950 --> 00:05:17,417 Take a game like "Starsiege: Tribes". 95 00:05:17,933 --> 00:05:22,415 For all purposes, that's a game intended to run online, with other people, 96 00:05:22,415 --> 00:05:24,815 or over a network at the very least. 97 00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:29,853 It was discontinued in 2004, but you can still run it today. Online. 98 00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:34,450 This lobbying group seems to be saying that's a liability. 99 00:05:34,450 --> 00:05:37,690 "No one should have been permitted to run this game after 2004, 100 00:05:37,690 --> 00:05:40,580 "and it's a mistake that this game is still allowed to exist 101 00:05:40,580 --> 00:05:42,780 "because of the risk to consumers. 102 00:05:43,166 --> 00:05:47,870 "We would have destroyed every last copy of it back in 2004 if we could have. 103 00:05:47,870 --> 00:05:50,440 "We couldn't then, but we can now. 104 00:05:50,440 --> 00:05:53,340 "So that's our business model with new games." 105 00:05:53,490 --> 00:05:57,240 See, I take that as extremely hostile, 106 00:05:57,240 --> 00:05:59,573 to both customers and preservation. 107 00:06:00,590 --> 00:06:06,070 So my question is, why can't we allow customers to continue playing the game, 108 00:06:06,071 --> 00:06:09,046 but adding a splash screen saying something like, 109 00:06:09,047 --> 00:06:12,340 "Warning! This game is no longer supported. 110 00:06:12,340 --> 00:06:15,110 "Running it could represent a risk to your security. 111 00:06:15,110 --> 00:06:18,694 "We assume no liability for what may happen as a result." 112 00:06:18,951 --> 00:06:21,751 That strikes me as a reasonable compromise. 113 00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:26,630 "In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online only. 114 00:06:26,630 --> 00:06:30,095 "In effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice 115 00:06:30,095 --> 00:06:33,675 "by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create." 116 00:06:33,675 --> 00:06:38,135 Okay, this part is a little more complicated because every game is different. 117 00:06:38,135 --> 00:06:39,806 But when I see this, 118 00:06:39,807 --> 00:06:43,860 I'm thinking of auto manufacturers saying how they can't afford to make cars 119 00:06:43,860 --> 00:06:46,340 if they're required to include seatbelts in them. 120 00:06:46,340 --> 00:06:49,860 Because no one ever made that argument back in the 60's. 121 00:06:50,090 --> 00:06:54,890 However, I think there is a big piece being left out of the discussion here. 122 00:06:54,900 --> 00:06:58,950 A whole lot of the complexity and cost of making an online game 123 00:06:58,950 --> 00:07:01,460 comes from all the microservices involved. 124 00:07:01,460 --> 00:07:02,870 And guess what? 125 00:07:02,870 --> 00:07:06,870 We don't need the vast majority of them for an end-of-life build. 126 00:07:06,870 --> 00:07:11,385 I talked to a developer and he gave me a big list of examples we don't need. 127 00:07:11,385 --> 00:07:16,630 Payment processing, anti-cheat, analytics, voice chat. 128 00:07:16,630 --> 00:07:21,300 There's so much here that's not necessary to just run the damn game. 129 00:07:21,300 --> 00:07:23,425 In fact, I have a quote from him. 130 00:07:23,425 --> 00:07:26,390 "We are not asking for 98% of the game. 131 00:07:26,390 --> 00:07:30,834 "We're asking for the 2% of game logic for main gameplay functionality." 132 00:07:30,834 --> 00:07:35,900 Except even that's not true. We're not asking for that directly. 133 00:07:35,900 --> 00:07:39,240 We're asking for the same rights we already bought for the game, 134 00:07:39,240 --> 00:07:43,528 which they can probably fulfill by providing that 2%, as he puts it. 135 00:07:43,750 --> 00:07:47,005 So let's cut out all this extra crap 136 00:07:47,005 --> 00:07:51,750 before we start talking about how cost-prohibitive an end-of-life build is. 137 00:07:51,750 --> 00:07:56,346 Now, that does mean designing games so it's easier to turn off all these microservices 138 00:07:56,347 --> 00:07:58,020 is a very good idea. 139 00:07:58,020 --> 00:08:02,770 And that also means it may not be practical for some existing games. 140 00:08:02,770 --> 00:08:06,660 Good thing for the industry the initiative is not retroactive. 141 00:08:06,660 --> 00:08:10,980 And most publishers already have a local test environment for a game, 142 00:08:10,980 --> 00:08:13,990 which I'm told is bad practice not to. 143 00:08:13,990 --> 00:08:16,070 That's half the battle right there. 144 00:08:16,070 --> 00:08:17,510 So this statement? 145 00:08:17,740 --> 00:08:19,805 No. This one is meme-level. 146 00:08:19,805 --> 00:08:24,660 I do not believe the industry when they say this is so expensive it's not possible. 147 00:08:24,660 --> 00:08:27,380 Especially when it's been done many times before. 148 00:08:27,380 --> 00:08:29,620 This is seatbelts all over again. 149 00:08:29,620 --> 00:08:33,805 And how about getting input from big European developers NOT on this list? 150 00:08:33,805 --> 00:08:36,380 Like CD Projekt or Larian. 151 00:08:36,380 --> 00:08:40,230 "We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position with policy makers" 152 00:08:40,230 --> 00:08:41,510 Yeah, I bet you do. 153 00:08:41,510 --> 00:08:45,500 "and those who have led the European Citizens Initiative in the coming months." 154 00:08:45,500 --> 00:08:49,404 Well, they'll probably be glad to know that's actually not me. 155 00:08:49,460 --> 00:08:52,180 I am not the official spokesperson for the initiative. 156 00:08:52,180 --> 00:08:55,366 I'm ineligible. I'm more of a super-promoter. 157 00:08:56,069 --> 00:08:57,800 The reason I'm making this video 158 00:08:57,801 --> 00:09:01,220 is I want to inoculate people against these bad faith arguments. 159 00:09:01,220 --> 00:09:05,030 Remember, everything they're saying here is their excuse 160 00:09:05,030 --> 00:09:10,130 for taking away your purchase, with no time frame given, and destroying it forever. 161 00:09:10,130 --> 00:09:13,100 Is this a good enough excuse for you? 162 00:09:13,100 --> 00:09:14,540 It isn't for me. 163 00:09:14,540 --> 00:09:16,260 Especially when they're lying. 164 00:09:16,260 --> 00:09:18,710 I think that's worth taking into consideration. 165 00:09:18,710 --> 00:09:21,610 And on that note, they also released a longer statement. 166 00:09:21,610 --> 00:09:23,510 But do I really need to go over this? 167 00:09:23,510 --> 00:09:27,953 "Why providing continued support do not work for all games." 168 00:09:27,953 --> 00:09:30,420 Oh, we're back to the classics! 169 00:09:30,420 --> 00:09:33,360 Okay, so they don't even understand what we're asking for. 170 00:09:33,361 --> 00:09:35,780 You know what? I'm gonna let them figure it out. 171 00:09:35,780 --> 00:09:37,830 I played that song enough already. 172 00:09:37,830 --> 00:09:40,360 If I have to explain that a 500th time, 173 00:09:40,360 --> 00:09:44,150 I want it to at least be to someone who's not being paid to undermine us. 174 00:09:44,150 --> 00:09:47,560 Now they're going to be lobbying politicians with this, I'm assuming, 175 00:09:47,560 --> 00:09:49,540 but we can try and do our part too. 176 00:09:49,540 --> 00:09:52,870 If you're super motivated on this, and are part of the EU, 177 00:09:52,870 --> 00:09:57,260 you can contact a member of European Parliament and tell them about the initiative. 178 00:09:57,260 --> 00:09:59,254 I've been told you should target ones in the 179 00:09:59,254 --> 00:10:01,620 Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee. 180 00:10:01,620 --> 00:10:03,620 There's a link in the description below. 181 00:10:03,620 --> 00:10:05,650 Just pick one for your country. 182 00:10:05,650 --> 00:10:09,590 And I'm just relaying this next part, I have no idea myself, 183 00:10:09,590 --> 00:10:13,830 But I've been told you should maybe avoid PfE and ESN, 184 00:10:13,830 --> 00:10:18,470 as they're not known for "doing things", is how it was explained to me. 185 00:10:18,470 --> 00:10:21,880 And the last bit of advice is, a lot of email to them gets buried. 186 00:10:21,880 --> 00:10:25,460 So if you want something that stands out, this title was suggested to me. 187 00:10:25,460 --> 00:10:30,178 "1M+ sign European Citizens Initiative 'Stop Destroying Video Games': 188 00:10:30,178 --> 00:10:32,866 "Help us protect gamers' consumer rights!" 189 00:10:32,866 --> 00:10:36,898 And that's all I have on Video Games Europe lobbying against us. 190 00:10:37,066 --> 00:10:38,966 For now, I guess. 191 00:10:38,967 --> 00:10:40,950 A quick update to the last video: 192 00:10:40,950 --> 00:10:44,060 I didn't mean to scare the hell out of everyone signing. 193 00:10:44,060 --> 00:10:47,166 If you made an honest mistake filling out the initiative, 194 00:10:47,167 --> 00:10:49,590 it won't count, but don't worry. 195 00:10:49,590 --> 00:10:52,000 I don't think you'll be in any trouble with the law. 196 00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:56,280 Just don't spoof fake signatures; that's the part that's a big deal. 197 00:10:56,280 --> 00:10:59,080 Also, don't sign if you're not voting age. 198 00:10:59,633 --> 00:11:02,360 I've said this before, but it's been a while. 199 00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:04,627 There's always 50 things to cover. 200 00:11:04,730 --> 00:11:08,720 Finally, if you have made a mistake, you might be able to get it corrected. 201 00:11:08,920 --> 00:11:11,480 Get in touch with the official spokesperson, Daniel. 202 00:11:11,480 --> 00:11:13,813 His info is on the initiative page. 203 00:11:13,970 --> 00:11:15,380 All right, that's it. 204 00:11:15,380 --> 00:11:18,160 Keep signing to make sure this happens. Share this post Link to post