I feel like that should be the default stance. One thing that gives me hope is the early access release - there’s a chance they’re approaching the game seriously and will use it to make something great.
This is about starting a conversation, so hopefully we can have a conversation. I don’t disagree with consumer protection nor do I want to protect billion dollar corporations. I just don’t think that signing petitions to create new laws isn’t the best way to go about this. Law changes come with all kinds of side effects. Anti-abortion laws have caused lots of issues that even pro-life supporters aren’t happy with. I think it’s much better to directly bring concerns to the companies that are causing the issue. I really do think it’s only a handful of corporations pulling these anti-consumer shenanigans and I think they should be called out directly.
He makes it clear that this wouldn’t affect most games, since most games aren’t sold as a service, and even those that are often do have a way to continue to run after the service ends. So this initiative is quite literally aimed at a specific style of game that he doesn’t like and fears will become more common. He’s afraid selling games as a service is too profitable and companies will start selling all games in this way even if there’s no need. To the question about “why not boycott companies selling games this way?” he explains boycotts don’t work. But when Bud Light ran a pro LGBT ad, so many bigots switched beer that Bud Light had to apologize and fire their executives. It fell from #1 beer to #3 and the parent company is now switching their flagship beer from Bud Light to Michelob. Boycotts work. The fact that gamers can’t stop themselves from buying a single game shows they don’t actually care. It’s way easier to sign a petition then it is to not play the newest Ubisoft release. If 1,000,000 people didn’t buy the newest Ubisoft game, they would change course. Helldivers said everyone would need a PSN account to play the game on PC and it got so much backlash that the company changed course in a few days. Companies absolutely listen to their customers.
This is my issue with the direction this is heading. The question is “I am a developer with an online-only game. What will happen if this initiative passes?”. The response is “Shut down your game and never make another online-only game ever again”. He spends a lot of time talking about how games are works of art that need to be preserved for the sake of humanity and the good of consumers, and then he tells devs to shutdown their game and never make another one. This isn’t preservation of games anymore than an anti-abortion law is preservation of life. Anti-abortion supporters don’t actually care about life, they care about restricting choice because they don’t think the choice is ethical. It’s like saying any company that sells a movie must ensure the purchaser can watch that movie forever and when told that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for movie theatres and streaming services to run, respond by saying “Oh well! Who cares about theatres and streaming services? Those shouldn’t exist anyways! They’re unethical and anti-consumer!” Nobody supports a company selling you a licence to watch a movie on a specific date and time…unless it’s a movie theatre. Sometimes, what sounds anti-consumer, isn’t actually anti-consumer, and a broad law could take away something that people actually like as collateral damage.
Creating a law to change how companies operate brings up a lot of issues and questions. This video explaining all the issues and questions is 40 minutes long and often says there’s no clear answers to the questions and concerns since no actual law exists yet. I honestly think that the better way of handling this is an awareness campaign (like is currently happening, keep the conversation going!) and boycott against the worst offenders, not a petition to create a new law. Even if this did get 1,000,000 signatures, I don’t think that any government would pass a law that consumers actually like. No government is keen on messing with multi-billion dollar a year industries. I do think that if 1,000,000 people told Ubisoft or EA or any company to do a specific thing with a specific game or they won’t buy it, they would make the change.
even those that are often do have a way to continue to run after the service ends
I’m going to guess you use a different definition than the rest of do if you came to this conclusion. Even still, we’ve got an enormous graveyard of games rendered nonfunctional once the servers were taken offline, and we can objectively measure those and see no way it’s going to slow down. Sony’s about to push out Concord this month. The two RTS games pushing themselves most as successors to StarCraft are both online-only. All three of these games will be completely unplayable and lost to time in just a few short years.
To the question about “why not boycott companies selling games this way?” he explains boycotts don’t work. But when Bud Light ran a pro LGBT ad, so many bigots switched beer that Bud Light had to apologize and fire their executives. It fell from #1 beer to #3 and the parent company is now switching their flagship beer from Bud Light to Michelob. Boycotts work.
I agree with you. A lot of people don’t realize the power they have in the marketplace. Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is very obfuscated. Why would they tell you clearly that the game is going to stop functioning at some point in the future if they don’t have to? It would be terrible for business. They’ll put it in their EULAs, the things you only see after you’ve already purchased the game, and declining it means you can’t use the thing you bought. It might be in some small italics text on the store page that’s difficult to find. But if you’re looking at Diablo IV next to Titan Quest II, you as the consumer have very little indication that one of those games will live forever while the other lives on borrowed time.
Plus, yes, games are art that are worth preserving.
Helldivers said everyone would need a PSN account to play the game on PC and it got so much backlash that the company changed course in a few days.
It’s worth noting that, because this game can’t exist offline, this is a change they could impose on you after you’ve already bought it.
The response is “Shut down your game and never make another online-only game ever again”. He spends a lot of time talking about how games are works of art that need to be preserved for the sake of humanity and the good of consumers, and then he tells devs to shutdown their game and never make another one.
There was a gaming VPN program called Tunngle that I would use when Hamachi would fail me. It was surely collecting untold quantities of my personal data without my knowledge. When the GDPR passed, Tunngle decided to just close up shop rather than finding another way forward. That was a casualty of consumer protections, but it doesn’t mean that consumers aren’t worth protecting. He acknowledges the very real scenario that this is a non-starter for a lot of current games’ business models, and they’ll sooner shut down than comply, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth making sure that people get what they expect to receive when they pay for a game: actual ownership.
This isn’t preservation of games anymore than…
I’m not touching that metaphor for all sorts of reasons that could derail this discussion, but yes, requiring that a game remains playable after the servers are shut down is preservation. Requiring them to put a label on it, like a surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes, describing exactly what it is they’re selling to me; that would be consumer protection. I’ll still happily take the preservation as one step further than that.
I honestly think that the better way of handling this is an awareness campaign (like is currently happening, keep the conversation going!) and boycott against the worst offenders, not a petition to create a new law.
Awareness is a huge problem, because, much like I stated earlier, games aren’t even required to inform me that I wouldn’t want to buy them, and it takes me a lot of work to find that out.
If a free market solution (which I like and prefer, by the way) was going to solve this, it would have done it by now.
Ross is right, if you don't propose an alternative and don't actually try to do anything to bring that alternative to the public, why don't you just fuck off?
Wtf are you talking about? He specifically says that he wants to have a conversation with people that will give constructive criticism, not someone that’s just complaining and not giving any solutions or alternatives to solve the problem.
Alternatives would be boycotts directed at the worst offenders and a law that ensures service games are clearly labeled so consumers can make an informed choice instead of banned outright. I’m going to get downvoted and told to fuck off because I’m wrong regardless of what I say unless it’s “I 100% support this”.
Boycotts are fickle things, sometimes gathering a following big enough to make a corporation cave, but many other times, not getting any steam at all.
And even if a boycott is successful against one company, it doesn’t mean they won’t try the same thing again, or try their usual ‘do something extreme, then walk it back to where you originally wanted it’ two-step, which is generally very effective at getting what they want. They know how to manipulate the public to their desires, they have whole divisions dedicated to that (though sometimes even they get caught unawares). If we went this route, the issue is that this tactic is done frequently enough that people would likely get boycott fatigue. “Ugh, another campaign? Another publisher screwing us? I just can’t anymore.”
At least against corporations, actual consumer protection law is a much more reliable long-term solution to an enemy that will try every tactic to avoid real, effective change in favor of the consumer.
First off, thanks for a response that isn’t filled with hate! It’s been rare when I’ve made posts about this topic. I appreciate it!
If we went this route, the issue is that this tactic is done frequently enough that people would likely get boycott fatigue. “Ugh, another campaign? Another publisher screwing us? I just can’t anymore.”
Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I’d appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer. They’ve got The Crew but what other games? If it’s really just The Crew then the issue is with Ubisoft, not the gaming industry. A big list would make it clear this is an industry wide issue that needs to be addressed.
I’m also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers. Cigarettes literally kill consumers, but total bans on them are rare. Instead, consumers are given a very clear message when buying cigarettes. It’s up to the consumer to decide if they’re alright with it. Are service games worse than cigarettes?
Now a practice doesn’t need to kill people before a law bans it. Recently there have been laws enacted so that if a company sells a subscription online they must allow for cancellation of that subscription online. Frequently, companies would require people to call a customer service line to cancel a subscription, but that could be a huge hassle to do! It’s clear that companies do this only to try and screw over customers and there’s no reason it should exist as a practice, so banning it makes sense. Are live service games the same? They definitely could be, but I also think there are legitimate reasons to sell games as a service. Instead of banning it completely, why not just ensure service games come with a clear label like cigarettes. A note that access to the game is not permanent and the company can revoke it in the future. If someone doesn’t like that, they don’t need to play it.
Ive seen two arguments against “why not just let consumers decide for themselves?” The idea that consumers don’t have a choice. All companies will eventually sell their games in this way and consumers won’t be able to avoid it even if they wanted to. I would agree if the gaming industry was a monopoly and gamers really didn’t have any choice, but that’s not the case at all. Gaming is probably one of the most competitive industries in the modern world thanks to how easy it is for anyone to make a game and sell it worldwide. Gamers have enough choice that I don’t see the “monopoly” argument as persuasive as it is in something like the right to repair movement.
The other argument seems to be “games are art and must be protected” but that leaves the realm of consumer protection and enters philosophy. There aren’t laws mandating the protection of other forms of art so I’m doubtful any government would enact such a law. Also, personally have to disagree. I’m in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever. Focus on enjoying your life, as temporary as it is, instead of being down that it is temporary. I think games can be enjoyed in the same way. Of course, if a company is purposefully making it temporary to try and make a few extra bucks, that’s shitty and should be called out, but we’ve gone back to consumer protection instead of philosophy.
But the problem is usually much larger where a game requires you to login to play even the single player component but is unable to do so with entire services going down, such as gamespy or others, more on that here:
There’s quite a few others, but I do agree with the point that there should be an aggregate for all of these, that could be presented as a universal list that hopefully stops growing in the coming years.
There’s also the problem of “going digital”. Previously you’d have at least the physical disks/mediums of the game in your possession but with the ever growing digital only culture, the moment a game gets delisted and you can no longer download it, that is it. Cult classic or not.
P.S - Nintendo seems to have liked your Buddhist idea of impermanence and has done that to Super Mario 35, existed for a total of 6 months. Personally, I would’ve liked to at least try it seeing how it hasn’t been all that long ago.
Thanks for the lists! Delistedgames seems to focus more on games that aren’t sold anymore rather than shutdown. For example, they list Grand Theft Auto IV as a delisted game because they only sell Grand Theft Auto IV: Complete Edition now.
Weird that TVTropes seems to have a better list of games that not only aren’t sold anymore but don’t work even if you bought them. It’s an interesting list. I feel bad for all the people who played Family Guy Online for the 8 months it existed in 2012!
The Kotaku list is nice too but they do note that some of the games are still playable single player. It’s only the online multiplayer that’s not going to work since the servers are shutting down. I’m not sure how I feel about that one. Is it still killing a game if single player modes still work?
Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I’d appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer.
Before Ross started this campaign, he’d been steadily creating a video series dedicated to cataloging games that are killed for the past 8 years, called Dead Game News. Here’s a link to a playlist of the series, and you can see the titles of the games that have been killed in the title of the episodes. The Crew is certainly not alone, it was chosen to be a centerpiece of the campaign because it had so many people who owned it, having a fairly high profile shutdown, and being a super clear-cut example of a publisher actively disabling a game that clearly didn’t need to be.
I’m also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers.
Instead of banning it completely,
I want to point out that outright banning live service games has never been suggested or wanted in this campaign. The proposed solution is to make it a legal requirement to have an end-of-life plan for live service games that are not subscription based. This would effectively mean the publisher/developer would need to account for the need to make the game playable after they decide to end support from the beginning of development, and make choices that would make that possible (choosing software and licenses that won’t conflict with an End-of-Life). Alternatively, they could either make it not require a central server at all, or make it subscription based.
While the game is supported, they would still be able to run it however they please, their profit model would not be banned, the only thing that changes is what happens when the game is no longer profitable enough to support.
I’m in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever.
There’s nothing wrong with that, but many people have the philosophy of preserving our history, so as to learn from it, and for future generations to experience. I personally am very grateful that I can read the thoughts of someone who lived a thousand years before me in a book, thanks to fanatical archivists who preserved it. It’s the closest any of us can come to experiencing a time machine, the very concept can fill one with awe. Nothing will last forever, but I and many others derive meaning and value from keeping history alive for future generations to learn from, to enjoy, to ponder. Us preserving things in our corner does not disturb someone else from living with impermanence, it is only there for those who wish to partake.
Unfortunately, boycotts and labels are not enough. I wish we didn’t have to involve the government in this, believe me. There are dozens of different dark patterns and malicious compliance that companies apply to trick customers into buying things. You might be someone informed enough that would not fall for those tricks, but there a lot of people that would benefit from a law that prevents companies from doing that in the first place (children, people with mental disorders like gambling addiction, etc).
I think the most realistic alternative is to just have an ‘earliest end-of-life date’ plainly visible at the time of purchase. Keeping these games online forever isn’t feasible, but shutting down something people paid for with the expectation of continuous service isn’t good either. Just make it clear how long the developers WILL support the game for, at the very minimum, and let people make their decision based on that. And mandate refunds for any live service game that doesn’t last as long as promised.
The “buy” button (or any similar verbiage) needs to go away (unless the provider intends for it to be available forever) and replaced with “rent for x years”.
All three of my dual sense controllers have stick drift , I managed to fix 2 of them by taking apart and cleaning them . The third one I’m in the process of replacing the potentiometer just haven’t had time to finish it yet . Barely had these issues on my older controllers that got so much more use.
I’ve followed this drama pretty closely in the last few days, and it’s really not all so damning as others here have found it. I could write up something longer, but I don’t want to get too far into the weeds, so I’ll leave it at a few paragraphs.
The long and short of it is that the way this video was made and posted, in combination with the general atmosphere of the internet trending towards Huge Drama™, makes this look like more than it actually is. From everything I’ve seen and heard, I’d characterize Nick’s actions as “flawed human making mistakes” — which is to say, perfectly forgivable. He’s since owned up to the more egregious things, such as his comments in the Gameumentary call, and the folks at SWG have reined in his influence recently due to things like his social media troubles. I personally feel like this was a very good call, and will likely be enough to cover the complaints raised.
It is also worth noting, though, that not all of the accusations are worth much. I really don’t know how $10 in alleged Twitter bucks is even worth mentioning, especially considering the claim later looks to have turned out to be a misunderstanding entirely.
All in all, while I believe it’s very fair to want to address these things, and it’s also fair to want to do so in a way that Patreon supporters both existing and potential can use said info to make better assessments with regard to their money, the reality is that the method and platform upon which these grievances were aired lead to a far more bitter and unproductive outcome than was necessary. I still respect Frost, and I don’t think he meant for this at all, but it still happened. Such is the nature of the web, sadly.
I already had a fairly extensive take on this last night, but the team have put together a response to the video that I feel is worth sharing, and not just because it supports my prior post.
Meh. There’s a fair amount here where it’s people admitting they don’t have the receipts and he still ran with it. It’s all fine and well to say that you’ve got receipts that you can’t share because they’d screw people, but you only get away with that if those withheld details are backing credible allegations where the quantities and people involved are known and there wasn’t a lot (if any) of that here that hasn’t already been acknowledged and remediated or resolved from the point of view of the people sticking with Second Wind if their statements on their Discord are to be believed. You don’t get to claim you have receipts that prove a terrible situation is happening while everyone involved with the situation is standing there wishing you well and saying that it’s not terrible.
At best you could charitably make a narrative out of Frost’s “proof” that supports his claim that Nick is all of Second Wind’s problems, but then you have to ask why nobody else is leaving like he has, or trying to force Nick out as he did. Frost claims that Nick is keeping everyone in the dark, but the Second Wind team have been pretty transparent on their Discord about acknowledging Nick’s issues and have claimed that they’re both aware of them and working on improving the situation, so I can’t see where Frost’s argument still has any gas after that? Hell, the Second Wind team saw Nick’s social media presence as an issue and arranged a performance improvement plan around that for him which it seems he is adhering to, so clearly they have the ability to reign him in if they wish and have done so. Where again is the issue?
Nick does seem like an ass, I feel confident saying that because I too am an ass, but this video did nothing to make me think that Second Wind is suffering because of Nick. Meanwhile Frost claims that he only has beef with Nick and doesn’t want to harm the remainder of the Second Wind crew, but that whole video is going to cause the whole Second Wind team a huge amount of damage over issues that they’ve already acknowledged and moved on from, so who is the larger ass here? These guys are both younger than I am by a fair amount and they’ve both seemingly made mistakes that I feel are on par with mistakes I have personally made in my life. I like to go with the Ted Lasso philosophy, www.youtube.com/watch?v=-udZZQB5OFU Clearly the Second Wind crew are taking a shot on giving Nick another chance, Frost should just accept that he wasn’t a good fit there, move on, be successful, and hope and pray that the people he supposedly bears no ill will over at Second Wind experience a Nick who has learned from his mistakes and manages to provide the support and success they deserve.
Frost left while nobody else did, that was what was right for him. He’s still trying to grind an axe while they’re wishing him well and allowing him to make his case on a forum they control. He’s made it clear on the Second Wind discord his leaving was because there was a disagreement about content (he thought that only larger shows should survive because it’s algorithmically better) and monetization (I somewhat agree on his point here that they should do something about the Patreon credit rolls at the end, but mostly because I don’t feel those are content, not because of what the advertisers want) and from everything he’s said there I have to say that I find Nick’s argument more compelling even if it does mean the eventual death of the endeavor as Frost seems to think it will.
I say this because the alternative is becoming the same thing that every “media company” these days ends up becoming. As a Patron of Second Wind I’d rather ride this current (maybe naive) attempt at being something not beholden to algorithms and content farming, and see it fail if it is indeed misguided, than have them become another something that can succeed by selling out like all the others have. Frost might not be wrong that they can’t monetize like they’re doing and survive, and he was definitely right to leave for his principles on that, but if the Second Wind team are happy while they’re trying (and all indications outside of Frost’s singular claims are that they’re doing less than perfect but still alright) then we should enjoy the time afforded to them in the attempt. I only ever watched Yahtzee on The Escapist (as I had been watching him before ZP was a part of The Escapist) but I watch more than half of the Second Wind content now and and enjoy it all thoroughly. I watch every Bytesized Review (and have bought or have gotten my wife to buy a handful of the games they’ve covered), every Cold Take (while that was a SW thing), every Design Delve, every Backdrop, every Unpacked, and of course every Yahtzee Tries (the videos not the livestreams) and Fully/Semi Ramblomatic…
If what Second Wind is doing right now is wrong, I don’t ever want them to be right. If Frost is right about Nick and for some reason nobody else is getting out despite that, I hope that they are at least finding joy and fulfillment in what they’re doing and I hope that Nick gets fucked for as long as he chooses not to grow from any of this. That said, unless there are other people coming forward too or leaving, it really doesn’t seem like Frost’s take is the eloquent and passionate truth he usually brings to the table, it seems like his take isn’t meshing at all with everyone else who is still a member of that going concern, and that’s fine, it happens all the time that different people read the same reality differently, but this video ain’t it if he actually cares about the Second Wind crew like he claims. That singular discordant note is enough to trash the whole of his credibility for now on this issue, because he is saying one thing and expecting me to look the other way as he’s doing exactly the opposite in the same YouTube video. It seems like a Hot Take from the guy who I came to appreciate for the other sort. I’ll probably give him another shot if he wants to keep making content, but I wish he was willing to extend the same courtesy to those he has perceived as wronging him instead of attempting to sharpen his axe on someone for their worst moments. 🤷♂️
You bring up some great points, I feel bad for not giving you a solid reply but I’ve had my second bottle of wine with my wife and am drunk.
I didn’t bring the video here to champion frost, just to let everyone see because I have seen several posts about it prior to frosts video.
I’m sure all up everyone is to blame, almost always is the case but the world will decide who is more at fault.
Either way though, Nick doesn’t make contentI’m interested in. I would rather see everyone be entirely independent and succeed or fail on their own merits
Aw come on! I loved Cold Take and hoped Second Wind was going somewhere. But yeah, in hindsight it was kinda sus how much formats they were pushing out.
This hits especially hard as I’m low on good YT creators to watch.
Huffs huge amount of copium
Maybe the Super Best Friends will get back together.
youtu.be
Aktywne