Boy, it was frustrating to see Thor completely misrepresent the position of the campaign. It wasn't "vague enough to also include live service games"; it purposely includes them.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 65 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

He's showing his true colors here. either doubling down so his initial reaction doesn't make him seem foolish, or he really has a soft spot for mega corporations due to his ties with Blizzard.

Ross wrote a response to Thor's in the comments of this video, but it's a bit buried. I'll include Thor's for context as well:

Thor:

I'm aware of the process for an initiative to be turned into legislature much farther down the road after many edits. If people want me to back it then the technical and monetary hurdles of applying the request need to be included in the conversation. As written this initiative would put a massive undue burden on developers both in AAA and Indie to the extent of killing off Live Service games. It's entirely too vague on what the problem is and currently opens a conversation that causes more problems instead of fixing the one it wants to.

If we want to hit the niche and terrible business practice of incorrectly advertising live service games or always online single player only games then call that out directly. Not just "videogames" as stated in the initiative. Specifically call out the practice we want to shut down. It's a much more correct conversation to have, defeats the actual issue, and stops all this splash damage that I can't agree with.

Ross's response:

@PirateSoftware I actually wasn't planning to write to you further since you said you didn't want to talk about it with me and I'll still respect that if you'd like. But since you brought up what I said again I'll at least give my side of that then leave you alone:

I'm 100% cynical, I can't turn it off. I wasn't trying to appeal to legislators when I said that, I doubt they'll even watch my videos. I was trying to appeal to people who are are kind of doomer and think this is hopeless from the get-go. I wanted to lay out the landscape as I view it that this could actually work where many initiatives have failed. Did it backfire more than it inspired people? I have no idea. I've said before I don't think I'm the ideal person to lead this, stuff like this is part of why I say that; I can't just go Polyanna on people and pretend like there aren't huge obstacles and these are normally rough odds, so that was meant as inspirational. You clearly weren't the target audience, but you're in complete opposition to the movement also.

I'm literally not a part of the initiative in any official capacity. I won't be the one talking to officials in Brussels if this passes. The ECI could completely distance itself from me if that was necessary.

In my eyes, what I was doing there was the equivalent of forecasting the weather. You think it's manipulation, but I don't control the weather. I can choose when I fly a kite based on my forecast however.

It was also kind of half-joke on the absurdity of the system we're in that I consider these critical factors that determine our success or not. So yes, I meant what I said, but I also acknowledge it's kind of ludicrous that these are perhaps highly relevant factors towards getting anything done in a democracy.

Anyway, I got the impression this whole issue was kind of thrust upon you by your fans, you clearly hate the initiative, so as far as I'm concerned people should stop bothering you about it since you don't like it.

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 62 points 3 months ago (8 children)

It's entirely too vague on what the problem is

How is it vague? If I buy a game, it should be playable for all eternity. Just like how I can pop in Super Mario on NES and play it just like how it was in the 80s.

Or how I can still play Half Life deathmatch more than 25 years after its release.

[–] proton_lynx@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I agree. Louis brought a good point when he talked about Gran Turismo licensed content (like Ferrari cars and etc), that some companies have licenses that will expire for content in the game. But you know what? THAT'S NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM. You buy a game, you should be able to run it until the end of time.

[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

How is it vague?

It's vague in all the legal ways:

First of all which kinds of games it applies to. It obviously can't work for games that have a technical server requirement, ... world of warcraft, but actually EVE online. The guys who run that game, get experimental hardware that's usually military only (or at least they did in the past). The server is not something, you could run even if you wanted to. Drawing the legal boundary between what "could be" single player offline (e.g. the crew, far cry, hitman), wasn't done.
It's not clear how it should apply to in terms of company scale. The new messenger legislation that was passed, made space for the EU parliament / system to declare and name, individually, who counts as a company that is is big enough, so that they have to open their messenger system to others for interoperability. It's not clear if the law has to apply to everyone, and every game, or just e.g. companies above 20 million revenue or something.
It's not clear what happens if a company goes bankrupt, and the system isn't immediately ready to keep working.

And a few more.

That being said, I think Thor's stance on this is silly. All of that is part of the discussion that is now starting. He could raise good points and get them included, but I guess that's not happening.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 months ago

He’s showing his true colors here. either doubling down so his initial reaction doesn’t make him seem foolish, or he really has a soft spot for mega corporations due to his ties with Blizzard.

I don't think he have any soft spot for mega corp, is just online figures/influencers can't never be wrong type of thing.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 11 points 3 months ago

If we want to hit the niche and terrible business practice of incorrectly advertising live service games or always online single player only games then call that out directly. Not just "videogames" as stated in the initiative.

Spoken like an idealist. Video games is probably the biggest thing that will gain traction. Sure, it would be great to tackle the entire issue, but the people making this initiative aren't using other software that does that shit. Saying "care about all the people" dilutes the issue.

Hard disagree with Thor on this one.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

... to the extent of killing off live service games.

I mean... Nothing of value was lost? In my opinion, so far, the only decent live service game to have ever come out is still Warframe. Everything else that cane after is either a pale imitation or straight up cow milking garbage.

We could certainly do with a lot less "live service".

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've been a big fan of Thor since his first shorts boom, but this take is a massive fucking L from him that I'm very sad to see.

[–] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Honestly him calling Ross a “greasy used car salesman” really hurt to see. I didn’t take Thor as the type to insult someone like that simply for disagreeing with him.

Kind of makes me wonder if his whole nice guy thing is an act. Either way it calls into question the person I assumed he was.

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've heard reference to that and Thor backpedaling calling it 'car salesman logic' or something. Do you know where the clip is?

[–] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

It was on stream, so hopefully someone recorded it and uploads it.

In this video though, at the very end, this guy shows another clip that I haven’t been able to find of Thor reacting to one of Ross’ comments and… well I can’t think of a better word than melting down tbh.

load more comments (49 replies)