Over the past few weeks, I’ve been feeling overwhelmed, so I’m relying on notes for this video. Today, I want to follow up on my previous video about Ubisoft and the “Stop Killing Games” campaign initiated by Ross Scott. Six months ago, Ubisoft’s executive made a controversial statement suggesting that people should become comfortable with not owning games. This sparked outrage, particularly among those who value the right to repair and ownership.
The issue at hand is Ubisoft’s game, “The Crew.” It was sold as a game you purchase and own, not as a service. However, when Ubisoft shut down the server, even the single-player mode became unplayable. This infuriated many players who had paid for the game, expecting to continue playing it offline. Ross Scott’s initiative aims to address this problem, but it’s still in its early stages in the EU.
Thor, a popular YouTube game developer, criticised this initiative, arguing it is too vague and burdensome for developers. He believes it should specifically target single-player games that don’t require server support. Thor’s criticisms include concerns about the impact on developers, licensing agreements, and the lack of understanding among politicians about the gaming industry. While some have relentlessly attacked him for his views, I think it’s essential to engage with his arguments in good faith.
Thor’s concerns are valid. Requiring developers to design games that can run without a server, even when the publisher shuts it down, is a significant burden. Additionally, some code and assets used in games are licensed and cannot be provided to customers. Politicians often lack the technical knowledge needed to create effective legislation, and retroactively applying such laws would be disastrous.
The initiative is not a draft bill but more of a preliminary idea. In the US, similar initiatives can take years to become law, undergoing numerous amendments. This initiative is essentially a rough draft and will evolve over time. It won’t require retroactive updates to games, and future laws will likely have a delayed implementation date.
Live service games, where players pay a monthly fee, are different from games sold as purchases. The problem arises when games like “The Crew” are sold as purchases but function like live service games. Consumers expect to own and play these games even if the server shuts down. The lack of honesty in advertising is a significant issue.
Thor’s point about licensing agreements is crucial. Developers may have licenses for code or assets that expire, making it impossible to provide these to customers permanently. This should be transparently communicated to consumers. If a game won’t work after a specific date due to licensing issues, it should be clearly stated upfront.
Providing server binaries or open-sourcing the code could be a solution, but it’s not always feasible due to modern infrastructure complexities. Developers would need to rethink how they design games to comply with such laws. While this may create extra work, it’s necessary to restore true ownership to consumers.
Customer support for running personal servers would be a challenge. Even if developers provide the necessary code, they would still face numerous support requests. However, most consumers would likely find solutions on their own or through community resources.
The initiative should differentiate between live service games and games sold as purchases. The core issue is possession. Games sold as possessions should remain playable even if the server shuts down. Misleading terms in contracts should not redefine the concept of purchase.
Engaging with Thor’s criticisms is essential for effective activism. Unlike some corporate lobbyists, Thor is raising genuine concerns. Understanding the intricacies of game development and modern infrastructure is crucial for crafting legislation that doesn’t suck. Politicians and industry lobbyists often lack this understanding, leading to poorly designed laws.
In conclusion, while I support the initiative’s goal of preserving game ownership, it’s vital to address the concerns raised by developers like Thor. Engaging in constructive dialogue and refining the initiative will lead to better legislation that balances consumer rights and developer capabilities. Let’s work together to create a fair and transparent gaming industry.