Saw people talking in comments at several places now, expressing animosity towards them to say the least, always presented as something that everyone seems to know about.
Saw people talking in comments at several places now, expressing animosity towards them to say the least, always presented as something that everyone seems to know about.
The Stop Killing games campaign is an EU petition to prevent game developers from making games that people bought unplayable, for example by turning off the servers of always-online games.
Pirate Software is a youtuber and game developer who made several videos criticizing the campaign. He thinks it’s unreasonable to expect game developers to do this and also asserts that people who purchase games don’t own them. His videos supposedly had a measurable negative impact on the petition, which at this point looks like it might fail. Combined with the fact that he often acted quite rude and arrogant towards supporters of the campaign, he is now quite unpopular among them.
Beyond rude and arrogant IMO. He misunderstood and misrepresented the SKG campaign and, when called out on this, refused to engage or discuss it further.
Isn’t that a large part of what the petition is aiming for though?
To be more clear, PirateSoftware thinks the status quo of only owning a license for a game, which can be revoked at any time, is a good thing that should be kept.
Stop Killing Games would give consumers more rights, which would bring the purchase of a digital game license closer to actual ownership.
What kind of head injury does one need to sustain to come up with that conclusion
The head injury called “privilege”.
To believe that? Or to believe that PirateSoftware believes that. Because he doesn’t, and the people saying he does are being dishonest and haven’t actually seen his criticisms.
From what I’ve read, his criticisms aren’t valid because this is a petition to legislate, not legislation. He seems to think the wording of the petition is important when it isn’t, the number of signatures it gets is
Best case scenario he’s got no idea what he’s talking about, worst case, he’s deliberately muddying the water.
The petition has specific wording about how the legislation would work. He was critical not because he didn’t believe in the cause, but because he felt it wasn’t well thought out. The reality is, art takes many forms, and sometimes you can only go see a play on the one night it’s performed if you happen to buy a ticket to see it, and that’s how the creator intended it. Art is not a one-size-fits-all field, and a half-baked piece of legislation would make innovative experiences in game design illegal.
He also pointed out the very real potential attack vector for malicious actors to effectively DOS small games at launch, ruining the experience for other players, causing the game to fail and be forced to release a means for customers to self host, only for the malicious actor to then make a profit on rehosting.
Everyone involvrd wants to get rid of scummy business practices, but this initiative is short sighted in how it describes the behaviour it doesn’t like.
The wording of the petition has zero impact on any legislation that may follow.
A petition’s purpose is literally only to alert the governing body that enough people give a shit about this that they should have a discussion about it. It has no additional power beyond that.
That discussion might end up going nowhere, it might end up convincing some politicians that maybe we need some legislation in this area. What they will then do, is talk to everyone they can about coming up with legislation that’s practical and works for everyone involved.
The wording of the petition does not matter, because it has no bearing on any subsequent action whatsoever. All a petition can do is force a conversation between politicians.
Your comment is a fantastic example of how he has muddied the waters, none of what you have said is relevant at all to the petition process.
We are not a direct democracy, legislators write legislation. Petitioners don’t.
All this guy is doing is silencing people.
Again, the petition was short sighted in how it described the behavior it didn’t like. Legislators will write legislation to address the issue identified by the petition. If the petition is identifying the wrong issue, then we will end up with the wrong legislation. We need to have discussion as a community to agree on the exact behaviour we don’t like. I think that’s important, you can disagree.
The combination of ‘industry plant’ and ‘blizzard nepobaby’ are consistent accusations since his videos
The idea from pirate software is that they shouldn’t and that’s the better scenario.