It's utterly disturbing how, for a bunch of months now, the same candidates constantly bring up issues that this campaign explicitly isn't concerned about and has been determined to be overreaching and impossible to address.
Stuff like preserving licensed music, keeping a game for sale forever or retroactively changing already existing licenses.

Are these just expressions of mental blockades or are you guys just ragebaiting?

Because like it or not, it is relevant when talking about game preservation or whatever SKG seems to want to be. Considering the movement over the last month has been a bullying a single person for a different stance that other devs have had.

Everything has legal red tape which many people signing don't seem to understand.
Or nothing will come of it or they won't even enforce it.

In my case, as I have explained in the past: I think SKG is tilting at windmills, and these are questions which the initiative needs to answer in order to have any legal foothold. Because "leaving it to discussion" is at best, dangerous. They need to define their terms in clear wording, even if it kills the initiative by doing so.

Unless they want words minced, and the initiative crumpled into a ball and tossed aside by publishers and other interested parties by carefully influenced legal wording.

I'm also not certain that SKG has thought about the far reaching consequences outside the gaming sphere this could implicate, which would interest further parties and/or opposition.

Plus there's that whole small issue of SKG explicitly not applying retroactively, which makes me wonder why those of us on GOG should even care.

Oh yeah, that is very easy.
The solution is called money. A lot of money.
And because inflation and stuff, prolonging a licence won't become cheaper. Even less because licence givers will come up with "you made soooooo muuuuch money with the game".
For a game that most likely already is burning money, when we talk about keeping up online services for very few people who are either to few to pay for the stuff or who are not even charged.
So you would stay with new sales, when sales are already dwindling to zero and ingame sales don't bring in enough to even keep the server hamsters feed.

And there are so many things to pay for, at last when you got something in a real world setting.
People (yeah, you have to pay to have know people in a game), music, landmarks, brands, real vehicles, guns and every other fucking item, that does exist in the real world.
And when talking about music, if you gave somebody the job to create music for your game, it might got a date too.

Just for you to understand.
If you want to do a game about world war 2.
You pay money to several US companies to even got their tanks and planes in and you do so to for Russian stuff too.
Not sure about german, italian and japanese stuff.

So happy paying while your cashflow is already negative.

Why is this so hard to understand?

It wouldn't apply retroactively to games released before the theoretical legislation passes.

After the theoretical legislation gets passed, devs would have to allocate funds at the start or end of their project to leave the game in a playable state. The traditional way was to have a single player mode developed from the get-go; it was a non-issue before all this live-service MMO/MP-only model gained traction. Or if going the latter route, devpubs should allocate funds to provide the server model to players when they close up shop to let people self-host on their own PCs or elsewhere.

In other words they simply wouldn't do something anymore or they would find an excuse for higher prices.


But how far are you going back with this one?
How old is Neverwinter Nights (the first one)? Granted, you can "play" it offline - without saving data...

But the point is, Server based online games are very old...



You do know that those kinds of contracts about certain assets could still do their thing here?
That licence givers could still retract their licence or sue the company behind the game, because they are still the contract partner, if players do shit with the licenced assets?
Not to speak about software licences for software used in those games, not only on the client but on the server side.
And these days those software could even run on a subscription model.

So company gives away stuff for self hosting, but isn't paying any licence fees for the included server software anymore.
I can totally see where that is going...

It will only lead to a point where publishers or simply money givers will think even more often if they give money to a dev.

And here we are only on PC.

Not to speak about Android or IOS where new versions regulary kill old software.

Yes, just bundle the extra costs in the budgeting into the product's price. It's not a big deal. Besides colossal failures like Concord, most guys will make their money back very early in the product's lifespan. Cool, the theoretical legislation wouldn't apply retroactively. It'd only be for games going forward.

If they had plenty of exclusive time to profit off their IP and it's nearing the end of its life, then we presume they've extracted most of the value they could from it already and that's why they're retiring the game in the first place. If there was still value to extract from it that they didn't, then that's not my problem. I'm a consumer. I don't give a shit how faceless businesses' negative cashflow or lost business because I don't work for them.

As mentioned earlier, I don't play these games. But if I was, I wouldn't be crying if 1-2 senior developers earning $120K USD/yr costs their company $10-20K USD and a month just to make the server models available. It's chump change for companies that are still releasing big MMOs/MP-only games.

Other industries already budget capex to retire their physical assets when they reach end-of-life and it's written off as the cost of doing business. It's not a new concept or a big ask.

My question was how far we are going back with your "the traditional way was to have a single player mode developed from the get-go".
Neverwinter as an MMO is 35 years old...
Ultima Online a bit less then 30.
Calling a SP mode game the "traditional" way is very far fetched...



And I see, you give a shit about law.
That was my impression with this SKG from the get-go to be honest.
You guys don't care how contracts between companies work.
You guys don't care that devs would break contracts by just giving away certain stuff - with the possibility going to jail.
You don't care that contracts for IP stuff does include "don't do certain things with our stuff" and that the devs would be still the ones being dragged to court, when "consumers" do that with their stuff after they gave it away for free.

It is just "I want".

Btw, retire physical stuff usually comes hand in hand with tax write-offs, when we talking about big things or the purchase of new stuff comes with tax write-offs.
2 Devs reworking the whole server based structure (good luck with only 2 devs and a month btw) do not.


And you will give a shit, when prices go up or games simply not being produced.


And if you don't play this games, why do you care at all.
SKG is basically ONLY about those games.

Racedriver Grid is written in their "List", the actual SKG gives a shit about if MP is still available or not, as long as the game is still available.
RUSE is wirtten in their "List" but SKG gives a shit about if a game is pulled from sale, it just has to be available for the customers who bought it.
SKG gives a shit how this game is available for you.
As long as Steam stays alive, they are perfectly fine with every game that has to call Valves servers for every startup.
Funny enough they claim games to be in danger because some smaller devs cook their own Steam Like DRM - because that might die.
I like that humor.

SKG is basically about "Keep the DRM servers and game servers alive forever or at last give us the files to do our own DRM/server".
They don't care about any DRM or required online connection or servers - as long as it stays alive.

Whole SKG does ONLY a matter for service games or online (MP or MMO or whatever) games.
And to the few Single Player always on games out there, that are not service / MP on their own.

What GoG does with its Installers is far beyond anything SKG is asking for - what makes my understand pulling any support for it by GoG. Why should they support something that is basically asking to preserve Steam forever and ever.

All they are asking for won't change anything for you, if you don't play service games or server based online games anyway.

This is really funny, I give you that. I will answer seriously because there is a chance you actually believe this stuff. As a consumer, when we buy a product, we need to have the product available to us. Is a scam and con and a fraud, if someone will get your money then say that he can't give the product because he doesn't have the rights to sell it.

It was explained to death that SKG has nothing to do with DRM, is not a movement to ban DRM from software and games. Build your own movement to ban DRM and I will be the first to support you.

Incidentally if you want to know, if SKG is successful then stores like Steam will need to have a death plan if they ever shut down the store in the future, to remove the DRM if that happens to allow buyers access to their games. Regardless of what the publisher will do. That is because Steam sold the games to you. At the moment if Steam shuts down we lose all games even if those games will be availble on other platforms.

But getting back to your confusion about DRM, let me tell you why SKG can't do nothing about it. Is because the rights of developers to protect their intellectual freedom from theft. No one can take this commercial right they have.

You write half a comment about "why you people don't think about developers?" and then the second half "why SKG doesn't fight to destroy the developers?".

I had a good laugh about it

DRM is not, has never been, and never will be about intellectual property protection. DRM only affects legit customers, never pirate builds. So-called "thieves" do not care about DRM, because it can not affect them.

From day one, DRM has always been only about customer lock-in. This is why the initial big push was not from developers and publishers, but from a well-known games store.

But beside server based games, SKG is not needed at all, because ALL THOSE GAMES ARE STILL AVAILABLE FOR THE CUSTUMERS.
And SKG was NEVER about keeping online parts of the game alive, if the game got an offline mode anyway.
Again, the first idea from the SKG side about The Crew was to rip out the online dependencies and turn it into a pure SP game.
Yet NOWADAYS SKG people claim Dying Light is in danger because the Devs might turn of the MP servers of that game.
A game that is mostly a SP game.
NOWADAYS SKG people claim old Fifas have been lost, while at best the online modes have been deactivated and they have been pulled from sale.
They are perfectly fine playable for customers.
They are perfectly in line with what all those people singt.


Despite a few server based games, you keep what you buy (and well, if you were unfortunate enough to use a discontinued store)
And to be honest, you don't buy, you rent.

I think that is what you foregt all the time when you talk about buying a product.
Your rent.
You pay a fee for an unlimited rent.
At last on Steam, Epic or Uplay.

And talking about software, not games but software for work, this model has been said to be ok by politics and courts so far.

And about the DRM.
That is what I wrote. SKG is pro DRM, als long as the DRM servers are alive.
Yet, you write on your own that if a store goes down, it will take everything with it.

At the same time, according to SKG Steam does not need a deathplan. Steam is a store, not a Dev, not a publisher.
When Steam goes down, the owners of the games have to take it to their hand.
Like it has been done with the old Prey, when Triton died. Long time after everyone who got it got it again on Steam.

And everyone with more then 2 working braincells knows, if Steam goes down, there will be no plan, no "download everything", no offline patch or whatever.

Btw, DRM IS the main killswitch for games. Without DRM it won't be possible to kill any game.
Steam is the largest killswitch for games ever created, that will annihilate decades of games.
Yet, SKG is not even talking about it. Even worse, Steam wouldn't even be effected by the SKG initiative. Because (again) Steam is a Store. And that one is about Devs and Publishers.
Even if they started to claim it will be about stores. That is not what you signed.
And that is not how stuff works between stores, customers and companies that sell stuff in that stores.
Even more because Steam never owned the products they sell. They get a fee from the sales price to supply the platform where the sale is done.
That is how they will argue - and that is how it will work.
Steam is simply not your local grocery store.

As GoG shows, you can perfectly survive without DRM.
Even more, if you search for pirated games. Do you think you will get GoG installers or do you thing you will get a reworked Steam copy.
It is the later.
Yes, some shady sites use GoG installers, but when it comes to releasegroups, they simply ignore GoG, even when the game is released at the same time.
So much about DRM and "protection".
They never cared about DRM, they never will. To crack DRM is just a sports for them.
DRM only affects the legal customer but it never did anything about piracy (well, maybe for a few days).



Btw, the laugh is at my end...

is true that the purpose of a store like steam or epic games is to try to lock you in. They want this and is intended. But you can't deny and you can't prove in front of anyone that DRMs doesn't protect games, from theft with more or less success depending of the technology. For example The Crew had a very successful DRM that was never "defeated".

I agree with you that the way some of these DRMs work will influence the game in a bad way, because they are aggressively trying to prevent tampering with the software.

The only chance we could had against DRMs was to argument that they are a security and privacy risk and they are doing more than what they should do, like actively monitoring and reporting everything you do even stuff that has nothing to do with the game. That is out of the window because now governments plans are to add operating system surveillance backdoor that do exactly what we could argued is not ok.
not true, here is a list with games that are dead, partially dead or at risk, with exact explanations for each game.

https://stopkillinggames.wiki.gg/wiki/Dead_game_list

If you would have read what I already wrote, I know that list and I already called it out being bullshit.
But okay, for you from that list.

Race Driver: Grid (online services) : Dead

Race Driver Grid is perfectly playable if you own it anywhere, except its online mode. And SKG was NEVER about keeping the MP alive.
Race Driver Grid was available on GoG, before pulled from sale. It is perfectly fine preserved. If you own it on Steam, you can still play it. Perfectly preserved for SKG.
SKG was NEVER about keep it on sale forever.

Matching to that one:
Dying Light (online multiplayer) : At Risk - PvP, Co-Op and other multiplayer game modes (Be The Zombie) depend on Techland's servers and have very low playerbase.

Dying light is on GoG, it is preserved. Again, SKG was NEVER about MP part.

Even more:
FIFA series (online services) - At Risk - All FIFA titles prior to FIFA 23 no longer feature online multiplayer or services. They all retain their local play modes and are functional offline. Microtransactions, particularly those of the FUT online mode, do not transfer between titles; only unspent currency does.

Yeah, see above.

R.U.S.E : Dead - The game and it's DLC were pulled from sales overnight without communication with the developer or explanation to the fans, over the expiration of licencing rights over some of the WW2 military equipment present in the game. Still playable on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

PULLED FROM SALE! SKG was NEVER and is NOT against pulling something FROM SALE. And it is playable if you own it on Steam.

In addition to that:
Forza Horizon (online services) & Forza Horizon 2 (online services) : Dead - No longer purchasable digitally.

Even Ross himself said, that it is NOT about keeping games on sale.
An the list goes on for every Forza, because they might be pulled from sale and might loose their online mode in the future.
Which both are things SKG is NOT against.

Or in other words, that "list" is bullshitting everyone reading it who does not know what SKG is about.
Because it simply brings up a hell of cases SKG would not only do nothing about, it brings up cases where SKG would be perfectly fine with.
At last the SKG you gave your signature away for.

If they would have put every F2P or live service game on that list and all those Android living on ingame sales things and need an online connection things - so be it.
But the list would simply miss big part on names.
So somehow people decided to put stuff on the list SKG was never about, bullshitting everyone.
And if there is any curation of the list, that one is in line with bullshitting everyone.


And as a small edit.
My personal opinion.
If thy place games on that list that might in future maybe been pulled from sale or might somewhen loose their MP part.
If that is the reasoning behind many of those games.

Every single game relying on Steamworks belongs to that list.
But that is something they don't want to touch because for them Steam is great, Steam is the thing - as long as Steam steays alive.

UbiSoft Founder and CEO Yves Guillemot still no clear answers about Stop Killing Games online campaign it's hard to say if there are proofs or not.

I've (tried to) read your posts but your writing "style" is hard to understand. I suggest focus on a single concept and use only the necessary words needed to present your argument.

Open the list again and take a couple of games from the Dead category. Which there are 358 at the moment.

Your theory that Ross in particular likes DRM shows you have never watched any of his videos. Is fascinating to watch people build opinions in their head based on false information. If even 1% of the energy in raging could had been used to actually understand the issue.