Want to be elitist… but one time when I was a kid I started tossing all my empty water bottles in the closet. Cut to 3 months later and there’s 200+ spilling out 🙃
Never said I wasn’t excited friend, I would love to have another romp through my childhood. I complain because I love this game, and would like to see it how I remember. If it comes out with the brown filter over it, it’s whatever, it’s oblivion it will get modded back.
But I daresay there’s much worse things we could be doing online than griping about an old favorite, harmless fun I’d say.
Sometimes you think you say the right thing, but you didn’t, and you’ll have to live with the consequences. This is a major part of the Witcher games, that your actions have possibly unforeseen consequences that you’ll have to live with.
Accept that Triss has made her choice. If you don’t want to be with Yen, then don’t be with anyone, that’s completely fine.
It means that the publisher needs to provide the player with the server executable, which is a one time expense for them to prepare, rather than continually paying for humans and machines to keep a server running on their end.
What the petition is strictly asking for is to leave the game playable. If that means the game requires multiplayer, then there should be some way to play multiplayer without the server on the other end. I’d certainly prefer that they just make the server executable available. I personally don’t care what the architecture is. People have gotten pirate MMO servers running. Even if it’s something the layman won’t know how to do, we need to have the option to run the server ourselves.
Many games have mixed experiences, some multiplayer, some single player. Take COD, for example, it has a SP campaign, but most people play it for the MP experience. if they disable the MP experience, the game is technically playable since the SP campaign still exists.
This petition seems to focus on “phoning home”:
An increasing number of publishers are selling videogames that are required to connect through the internet to the game publisher, or “phone home” to function. While this is not a problem in itself, when support ends for these types of games, very often publishers simply sever the connection necessary for the game to function, proceed to destroy all working copies of the game, and implement extensive measures to prevent the customer from repairing the game in any way.
This sounds very much like it’s focusing on preserving the SP experience and forcing publishers to remove any artificial limitations on that experience once they stop supporting the game. Nothing in the petition sounds like it’s talking about multiplayer functions.
Here’s the part about being “playable”:
The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.
So they’re explicitly not asking for the publishers to provide anything new (i.e. the game server), it’s only asking for limitations to be removed (i.e. phoning home).
This is still an important petition, but it doesn’t seem to say what you’re arguing it’s saying.
In a game like an MMO or most free to play games, multiplayer is all that exists. The game as it exists on your computer doesn’t even have everything that it needs to function. It’s asking for the game to continue functioning. As for CoD, the petition is not allowed to be prescriptive, so it would be to the government to determine specifically what must happen. In most cases, the shortest path to honoring what this petition asks for is to provide the server code, but I agree that plenty of games make that distinction very blurry.
Right, but the petition explicitly says it’s not expecting any additional resources.
neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it
If that was the intent, the petition should have been more clear, saying it expects any resources not part of the downloaded game but necessary for the full experience to be made available once the game is discontinued, perhaps specifically calling out server code.
If this turns into a bill, I fully expect online content to be excluded since that would require more than just removing the “phone home” bit of games.
Once they discontinue it, they dust their hands clean and their work here is done. That’s all that means. Releasing whatever they have to do to allow it to continue to operate is up to and including the moment that it’s supported. Discontinuing support and leaving people with something they can’t play is what the petition is asking to fix. If they did the work to make The Crew playable after the server was shut down, then they are still not providing any additional resources once they discontinue it; that work would have been done in advance. Once again, the petition can’t ask for how they’d like the problem to be legally solved or how the government should define the rules. In the video that typically comes attached to this with a more verbose problem statement and what we should expect as consumers, you can buy a digital horse, but turning the game off removes your ability to access the horse you paid for, so it’s asking to retain the ability to use everything you bought. That’s more than just a phone home if your game client doesn’t contain the multiplayer mode where you would use the horse (or CoD mulitplayer skin).
I’m not in the EU, so I’m really not familiar with this process, and I’m guessing a number of EU citizens also aren’t familiar. If there’s any related information, it would be good to link it.
Pardon me. That’s an assumption on my part that the people in this community are the types that are so ingrained in this stuff that you’ve seen that video, and a link to this petition, a dozen times at this point. This is a campaign organized by Ross Scott at Accursed Farms. The main video pitch is here, and the super short version is here. And here’s the video that came along with the launch of the EU petition.
Awesome, thanks! This is literally the first time I’ve seen this petition, so I appreciate the extra info. I also wasn’t sure if it was part of Stop Killing Games or a separate initiative (looks like it’s at the 26min mark of the first video).
I’m in the US (looks like Ross Scott is too?) so I obviously can’t sign it, but I am very much interested on the outcome since it’ll likely impact me. If it’s strictly limited to SP games, that’s a lot less interesting since that can easily be region locked (so it would just be the same as piracy for me), but if it also forces release of server code, then I’m getting something I couldn’t before.
For US people, there’s still hope. It looks like Louis Rossmann is pissed off about this as well, but from a regular software perspective (Odyssee and YouTube), so he might try something similar to what he did with Right to Repair. He has a bit wider reach and probably a very different audience, and maybe he can help get something going in the US.
Thanks for the links, I’ll see what I can do to spread the word.
I don’t really follow Ross Scott outside of this campaign, but I believe he’s a US citizen married to a Polish woman, living in Poland. It sounds like it would take an act of Congress to change things here in the US. My e-mails to my representatives have gone functionally unanswered, which doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.
Yes, but it can start at the state legislature, which is a lot easier. But you need a lobbying campaign to get anywhere. Louis Rossmann has made some progress this way by banding together with farmers, and while it’s painful and expensive, it does work.
So if we’re going to do something in the US, we need a lobbiest, a lawyer (to draft a bill), and a lot of people to show up and give testimony. But we only need to win in one state, and then it gets a lot easier. So:
Pick a state with good consumer protections and a market segment that’s somewhat rated to what you want (video games probably won’t work, but other software could)
Work with pissed off companies to put together a lobby
Find a few reps that care (e.g. the reps for those companies’ districts), and get them to sponsor your bill
Appeal to regular people saying this is a stepping stone to what they actually want
Get people to annoy their reps, show up to hearings, etc in support of the bill
Get the bill to the floor (crazy amount of effort)
If the bill passes, start the process over in the next state, which should go smoother
Once you have legal precedent, repeat the process with a small expansion to the thing you actually care about. This should be a lot easier, because you’re just expanding the same rights to more types of customers.
It’s much more of a long shot, but it does seem possible.
The whole triss vs yen thing was lazy fanservice added by CDPR. If you read the books, it’s clear Geralt is destined to be with Yen. The books make this abundantly clear. It also makes it crystal clear that Geralt thinks of Triss like a little sister, not romantically. There was absolutely no reason to have that in the book. It’s straight up stupid fanservice and made the game into kind of a meme in my opinion.
I really don’t care about the book. If anything his relationship with Yen feels like pondering to the book audience without much of a setup or explanation in-game
I mean… The game has numerous book references. It expects you to have read then. Half the characters and references are from the books. So not sure why it’s the yen part that specifically bugs you :-)
As far as I understand the games aren’t book cannon right? Then let the books not be game cannon. It is unreasonable for the books to be required reading between witcher 2 and 3 or even to expect the audience to know to read them.
A never before seen character from the books showing up in the game doesn’t bother me because they’re new and they’re explored as if they’re new characters. Yen bugs me because she’s a new character to me but as soon as they meet in Skelliga, her and Geralt get back together as if nothing has changed since the books. On the other hand Triss is an established character who has a history with Geralt that I know of, but now both are giving each other the cold shoulder without explanation.
In terms of Triss and Yen the books don’t give context to the status quo. They become the status quo.
The books are canon for the games, yes. The games are not canon. Idk what else to say. I played W2 and 3 originally without having read the books. It didn’t seem weird in W3 because W2 was spent looking for her the entire game. And it gave clues about their history. After having read the books W3 makes even more sense since I understood more about the characters. There is nothing unreasonable about how they did that game. The game is totally fine without having read the books. But I am telling you that it makes more sense if you did.
Witcher 2 was spent looking for Triss not Yennefer.
The books are canon for the games, yes
And I said maybe they shouldn’t be because warping the game story to fit the books is what I’m complaining about in the first place.
If you were fine with how w3 handled Yen before reading the books good for you. But it was not at all clear for me and that’s all I said. Sorry for being brash but it is obnoxious to then get comments preaching about how Yennefer is objectively right for Geralt and Triss is just fan service and the game itself favoring Yen would make sense if only I were to read the books
Witcher 2. The game. Assasins of kings. Letho captures Triss at the end of act 1 to get away and Geralt can recue her on act 3. Yennefer is only ever mentioned in name. Please look things up before condescending
Bruh yennefer is mentioned multiple times. You’re also looking for her. What I’m saying is not wrong. I’m gonna stop responding to you because you seem to clearly have no desire to engage in good faith conversation. I was not being condescending . You’re clearly looking to pick a fight. Goodbye.
bin.pol.social
Gorące