Please, stop making these random negative assumptions.
Ross listed all the effort he did for promotion in his latest video.
And the campaign already reached 450K+ signatures before it.

Exactly. Even if you left all the online DRM in (needed to fulfil SKG's "we want all DRM'd MT's & lootboxes preserved" requirement), a lot of MT-saturated / pay2win games still wouldn't function the same as Ross keeps falsely assuming. Example - for many overly monetized games a lot of other stuff comes into play like server-side Optimised Matchmaking Engagement (where match-making services simply aren't designed to match based on skill, but rather are increasingly geared towards deliberate mismatching in a way that drives MT spending by presenting the opportunity for the weaker player to "pay2win" themselves a pre-match bonus inside the lobby tailored vs the person's equipment that they're being matched against) or "Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment" (the more MT's you buy, the more the game subtly tweaks the game's AI (in a 'cheaty' way) to reinforce the belief "it was a good buy" thus driving further MT purchases). Publishers have already patented all this stuff (and much more).

You can't preserve any 'game' stuffed full of this crap (in any way you'd even want to) without rewriting half the game's code (not just unlock / enemy AI code deeply intertwined with user behaviour monitoring feedback, deeper-than-ever client-server monetization mechanics netcode, server-side anti-cheat, etc). The SKG claim "Publishers and developers are free to do with their game as they please during the lifespan of the product, we're not telling them how to make their game" has always been a false empty promise as what's required in order to actually work is to force developers to design and code their backend with TWO code branches - one hyper-monetized one (that publishers want tied to their own servers & logistics whilst game is supported), and another post End of Life preservation friendly version (that SKG somehow wants fully working without using any publisher assets), then swap them out on the last day of support. So of course they are going to have to "tell them how to make their game" right from the early design phase and requiring up to 50% more work on the backend during development definitely isn't as simple as SKG naively keep downplaying.

And even if it had passed, that they planned to "grandfather" all +100,000 pre-existing 60 years worth of gaming history means every game made between 1970-2030 would have been been ignored by SKG absolutely no different to today, which is pretty much the opposite of what Game Preservationists / DRM-Free gamers are trying to do, ie, preserve existing games (and gaming history), not toss half a century's worth of gaming history away with "At least we can now 'preserve' future pay2win micro-transactions on DRM'd community servers instead!" In fact certain online competitive 'communities' actually actively oppose removing all DRM and all online-dependencies from games. Why? Because the first thing they'd do is turn around and demand online-only, server-side anti-cheat be put back in to avoid "their game" getting killed by cheaters as those 'simple' community servers they're demanding would lack the effective but expensive annually licensed anti-cheat stuff (EAC, Denuvo Anti-Cheat, etc) that people think will continue to be paid for with "magic beans" after the publisher EOL...

So it's no wonder that support fell flat after people thought the actual logistics through a little deeper beyond the Youtube surface gloss and saw that many who signed this solely on the back of "Give me my 'The Crew' back" never really were serious about Game Preservation, they just wanted their still unpreservable always-online game service to be playable under new management then celebrate the pretence of "preserving" it, and that almost nothing outside the post-2030 online-only multi-player scene would actually benefit from this in any way vs today's situation. Literally 100% of all +100,000 pre-existing games + 99.9% of future single-player games that don't have their own online MP servers and / or won't get delisted wouldn't be positively affected by SKG in any way vs today.

Precisely. The entire fault here is with the consumer. I agree with what you said before: that if you buy a game that relies on always-online content servers, knowing what it is, that you don't really own it and it will get de-activated one day, and accepting that, then that's fair enough. You're accepting those terms and paying for what you know is going to be a temporary experience.

But to buy into that, then start whining 20 years down the line that government legislators aren't sending in the cavalry to save your doomed game from its inevitable shut-down is just ... idiotic.

Games like The Crew being shut down don't affect me (and many others who post here), because I don't buy those sorts of games. On the contrary, I am quite happy to see The Crew getting shut down, because it is the natural and inevitable end for all DRMed games that are designed that way - it serves as a reminder as to the perils of DRM and perhaps as a wake-up call to the wider gaming community.

I am not remotely interested in 'end-of-life plans' for video games, because no game should ever be designed in such a way that it would experience an 'end of life'. The very phrase 'end-of-life' is vile - it invokes planned obsolescence, which is the epitome of the stripping of consumer ownership.

A youtube vid that barely anyone watched, you know who did profit from that vid and drama Charle. Also all those signatures after how many years of doing this, most of the vid was talking about pirate software the biggest waste of time in all this.

It reminds me of Pidgin, which used to be a popular multi-client chat programme, when multiple clients existed.

The 3.0 release of it has been in development for a very long time, and the lead developer was putting out "state of the bird" videos, but instead of reducing scope or deciding on exact stopping point, they've been scope creeping for years; for a program meant to escape 17+ years of tech debt over the previous one.
And instead of directly stating, "I'm looking for volunteers, takers?", they instead went, "progress is slow, and things are getting in the way in my life." (After a nearly two hour presentation that they wasted their time editing, preparing, and making.)

All for a paltry [checks] less than 500 views per video.

I mean it probably doesn't help that he's hosting the project on Mercurial instead of a VCS for humans.

That's my point, in his last vid instead of finding a solution/next steps. He says he's stepping away here is what may happen. The bulk is to Pirate software, if one person was able to derail the entire movement clearly Ross didn't spend enough time trying to explain what his movement is for. Even then when any amount of question is pushed he fumbles to explain.

Ross did as much as he could with the reach that he has. Even from the outset he said that thinks that he's not the right person to lead this initiative, but no one is willing to step up.

It's really baffling that I was easily able to convince non-gamers to sign the petition, with me just saying: "Currently there are games published that rely on on-line servers to run and once those said servers go off-line the game is inoperable. I can still run games form the 90's, but the current ones sometime in the future, not so much. The are currently no laws to protect consumers form this practice, and the petition has been launched to change that in the future." The answer? "Sure, I'll sign."

It's the publishers' fault mostly and our ignorance in part that we are bit by bit geting used to the way things are. Let the publishers deal with the new laws.

If you don't care about games being preserved, that's fine, the new laws won't affect you in any way, but I don't get why you're wasting your time arguing with those that want this to happen.

Then it was doomed from the start, if he wasn't the right person then he should have worked with others to have someone push the movement.

How many non-gamers did you convince? Do they normally sign things? People will sign alot of stuff without knowing what it is.

There is alot involved in publishing Ross and others in the movement would be pulled into it. You don't ask for such massive legal change and expect to not be involved. As others have mentioned Ross is fine with DRM that isn'r preservation as others have mentioned here.

We on here care for it hence why we buy on gog. If you have an issue leave this forum. You're wasting time instead of voicing elsewhere.

A movement that has such an ultra-narrow focus (only caring about the tiny minority of games with their own online servers plus rare single player delistings), isn't actually doing much to preserve anything in the big picture of things outside of a few genres more susceptible (racing & online multi-player games), and people need to stop gas-lighting that "this is the only shot we have at 'game preservation' and if you don't sign this then you must be against game preservation"...

The reason we can play so many 90's games today isn't because we sat there relying on the charm & charisma of a Youtuber with a goatee hoping to convince a few geriatric, technologically challenged, non-gaming boomer lawmakers to produce some legal solution without taking some of the sweet billions that publishers will throw at them via lobbying to water it down, then further hoping that smaller developers will always remain in business to be able to sue for not complying. The reason we can play so many 90's games today is because we actually removed the damn DRM one way (official patches / DRM-Free re-releases) or another (NoCD's, source-ports, emulators, etc) and the rest naturally fell into place.

Take a step back and look at smoking, gambling, etc, industries. The most you'll ever get in most countries is advertising regulations (eg, banning casinos from advertising during children's hour on TV, bans on cigarette advertising of sports events, health warnings on packs, etc). Few governments ban what people dislike even when health hazards are involved. Same is true here - governments will not tell them how to make games a certain way (eg, run on 3rd party servers that don't even exist during development), all they will do is force how they advertise what they're selling, ie, show a prominent "This game is an online-only service that may become unplayable after a certain time period" banner at point of purchase, so those who keep buying always-online games can't keep feigning ignorance. The rest is one giant distraction arguing against doing the one that actually preserve 99% of games - take the DRM out and modders will figure out the rest.

Having game reliant on connection to the on-line server is the more aggressive form of DRM and with this initiative the target is the worst scenario of all - when the game is inoperable after the server goes off-line. With forms of DRM that don't require such connection there is hope in the future. Besides, DRM itself is probably tough to defeat legal-wise, whereas going after games that have been bought as one-time purchase and disabled later you can connect this to the consumer law (Louis Rossmann comes to mind, and what he's trying to challenge).

Will this solve every issue that we currently have with the gaming industry? No, the goal is to start to do something that could turn things to be better and to address the worst case scenario - games getting destroyed on purpose. If we could be successful with this one, perhaps we could improve the situation further.

I do support GOG in its mission as well, so I don't know why I should leave this forum. I thought this would be actually the place where people would support initiatives that try to improve how things are in the gaming industry.

Which is why we should simply not accept such design practices and not purchase those games in the first place. It's the most simple solution and very easy to implement. Each and every one of us can do it.

Because many of the people in the DRM-free community completely reject the use of always-online content servers as a design practice. I am not convinced that the SKG initiative would 'improve how things are in the gaming industry'. The way I see it, if the initiative were successful, it would further legitimize and green-light a highly obnoxious video game design practice. It would send a message that: "it's ok to use always-online content servers, as long as the server is kept running indefinitely."

I don't agree that would lead to an improvement and there is a risk that sending such a message could lead to those nefarious design practices becoming more accepted and widespread. The only acceptable outcome is for such design practices to be utterly rejected by the gaming community, and that isn't going to be served by making the practice 'more palatable'.

Ultimately, we seem to be coming from two very different (and not very compatible) perspectives on what would be in the interest of the gaming community.

So just taking the movement at their word so like most, figured there isn't an actual plan. You wonder why most didn't sign. Also there is a solution its called dedicated servers. Let consumers host their own once official once shutdown I echo what everyone said basing all this on the crew is the biggest mistake for the movement.

DRM protects consumers how? Because that has only ever benefited dev/publishers and nothing more.

It would be impossible to convince everyon to us gog, because most newer game release on Steam over it, because unlike gog Steam could care less what drm they add to the game. So outside of popularity, its why most still use steam over any other story.

The issue Ross and others have is online games, which is something that will never be solved. If they can't maintain servers let users host it problem solved.

No it wouldn't, Heniken was also suppose to endorse it so your saying people who like the beer brand would suddenly support what Ross is doing?

GOG didn't support it because they are against DRM end of story.

How does DRM supports consumers, answer that? There have been several none of which ever benefited consumers. If you want DRM fine GOG and others won't support it.

If you can't see what SKG is trying to do in the future, then what is the point of the movement? Every movement has some sort of end goal in mind, seems like Ross neither have a clue. If you want better laws, seek actual legal advice.

The problem is this hurts the game industry. I don't mean the soulless, too-big-to-fail-until-they're-not publishers and studios. I mean the little guy. THe 2 man team that made your favorite indie game, or the solo dev who puts out games in his spare time. It hurts iintermediate studios whith limited budgets and actively makes games worse when they have to decide between spending money on developing this cool new feature or planning how to make the game work forever for prats who can't be satisfied that they got their money's worth by playing it several times through while it was active.

You'll get time limited licenses that will force you to repurchase every year or two to have continued access to the games because the company can't guarantee it will be online and doesn't want to run afoul of customers with perpetual licenses. That means instead of lifetime access, they'd rather sell you a limited access that cuts off. If you think that wouldn't be coming to avoid most of these legal pitfalls without having to comply with any of the rules, you're insane. That's as vast legal difference between a perpetual license that they've already told you they can terminate at any time with no written warning, and a limited license that expires on XX/XX/XXXX.

I'm sorry, I'ds really rather the games indsustry not get worse so that a few morons can feel good about playing their car game that got shut down.