Clearing up that SKG would damage live service games and impact developers negatively.
No you will not silence me with personal attacks.
Fight the argument I am presenting.
Part 1:
Watch the stream here:
Join the community here:
#Pants #StopKillingGames #PirateSoftware
– Edited by Sunder
May I suggest a different video thumbnail? I think this video is quite important and might be overlooked for having a less serious thumbnail.
How can you keep missing the point? At a certain point, it starts to feel intentional…
"The game is already dead, there's no point to making servers available."
That's not for you to decide. I don't like nor play sports games, that doesn't mean that others can't like or play them, regardless of how many people want to play it.
You can upload 10 more videos, won't change the fact that you're wrong
Good analysis
A opinion being wrong does not happen often, but this guy here shows that it is possible. Pirate software really does not know what he's talking about. You are quite the disingenuous guy.
I made the similar comment in Louis Rossman video, and I think it is worth pasting here as well.
I think the effect of this regulation if it goes through – everything that used to be multiplayer with 1-time purchase model will become subscription based. So from here we might get 2 outcomes:
1. much more games will be consolidated into subscription services like ea play, gamepass and geforce exp
2. Every game with both modes will start a separate subscription specifically to avoid this regulation.
So in the current wording I do see a world where corporations will provide a worst solution to this issue and we will lose the ability to buy games at last.
One example that comes to mind is abundance crossovers, large 4×4 and pickup trucks. The reason behind it is that the government passed a lot of eco-friendly legislation and car companies didn't want to invest into modifying their factories on a large scale. Solution – scale back every manufacturing of cars which fall under the legislation and promote big car types which weren't included to single-family consumers HARD.
As a result – we got bigger, more dangerous cars everywhere and carbon footprint didn't go down as it was expected to.
Looks like people become stupid AF for last 5 years if you need to explain yourself in two videos.
Information about why this is bad idea and it should be re-worked explained well with the first video.
I think all will agree with this thing if it will be about 2 specific cases as example: removing Crew from library and removing access from DLC content because of disable server in AC series by Ubisoft should be illegal.
Where we live ? in 2D ? Why can't we help the European Union with that document to make it more specific.
Let me summarise it for you: "You pay us and we get to choose IF and for how long you get access to the game. If it hurts us we should be able to take away both your money (so we don't lose money *womp womp*) AND access to the game because it may hurt our games that are already dying because we are sh*t at making said games."
I disagree with your opinion on this subject and I think it mostly results from not fully understanding what Ross Scott and Stop Killing Games initiative is trying to accomplish (as his last video does not explain it well and you never mentioned watching the earlier ones), but thanks for explaining your point of view in a clear way.
"We WANT to have anti-consumer policies backed by solid laws so we can steal your money and keep our profit when games start dying. DON'T support the initiative or you hate devs." You somehow managed to make the worst take possible, shame on you and on your greed.
I might be over simplifying but in my opinion any game with an upfront cost should have a stand alone option as you have bought the game, any game that is free to play, shop funded or has a seasonal or subscription cost and has NO upfront cost should be exempt from requiring to stay live as you are technically renting time to play you haven’t bought the game.
this whole thing is just people being incapable of letting things die. it's reactionary behaviour. most of the time people stopped caring about games that are getting closed years ago, UNTIL they heard about them being closed. all of a sudden its the most important game to them. it's dumb. e.g. one day, WoW will die and be turned off. people that are currently commenting "hurr durr wow is dead" on warcraft posts, will then be up in arms to keep it running.
The way this guy misinterprets everything and completely ignores all the valid comments and even deletes a lot of them makes me think he's either working on a live service game himself or already getting money from a live service game. There is no way anyone can be this dumb.. No one wants devs to give up the source code to their game.. that's ridiculous, people simple wants to be able to play a game after the dev decides that we no longer can't, because they want us to buy their new game. So how do you solve this without giving up the source code? Simple add a LAN option or even single player option to your game. Problem solved, game is playable no matter what the dev does.
Stop being a shill
Hi Jason, or Thor, or Pirate Software, whichever you prefer, as well as anyone else with the intestinal fortitude to read this. I've seen your content all over the internet, and in general i like your content. Its very informative, fun, and gives a peek into the world that I don't know about in developing games. I understand, but disagree with your stance on this subject for a couple of reasons. I will pretense this with the fact that I'm coming into this discussion with the lens of: I'm not a developer and don't know what's going on under the hood of most games outside of some consumer friendly modding programs for certain games, about 30 years of being a consumer of video games, and I am trying to be as understanding of the things that I don't understand as I can.
Tl;dr: In my eyes, giving out the server binaries is the bottom of the barrel last resort and only for the dev team that doesn't give a shit about their game's EOL plans and is easily preventable if you actually make an end of life plan for the game instead of nothing at all. The goal for preservation isn't to preserve the game at its height, that's impossible, its trying to preserve the ability to play it at all, end of story. Finally, this is an important issue to talk about, so I think its dumb that people are telling you not to weigh in on it, but by that same token, I feel its kinda messed up how in that same breath, you deleted Ross's comment trying to engage in a convo about it. I don't know why it happened, I just know it happened.
I know calling that paragraph "tl;dr" was wild but here we are, Now here's 6 more paragraphs saying the same thing, but longer.
The main point made in this video against SKG was that its dangerous to force developers to give up server binaries, and painted a clear picture why. I argue nothing against this picture and portrayal, but my main argument is against the fact that giving up server binaries are the only way to save GaaS from being destroyed. Lets say that this scenario plays out against a GaaS provider with this in initiative in play from the start. For the sake of using a name for ease, lets say this game was Destiny. Because Bungie in this scenario took into account that they need to have SOMETHING to make the game work after their support, they've already been working on a solution to cover their asses without having to give up code on the game: a single player campaign mode that's just the story quests linked together, crucible which is just packaged the same as a halo game in terms of how to access it, and a horde mode with peer to peer connection/LAN (Admittedly this is something I'm ignorant in as far as if peer to peer works with zero support at EOL. So if I'm wrong in how I think this would still work, let me know) and total offline functionality for those modes. Basically they just format it to work like a normal Halo game when you start it up. Because this was something that was in the plan from the beginning in this scenario, the financial impact is something that is accounted for from the start and not sprung on them at the last minute when their game was already close to death, further aggravating a bad financial situation (this is why if something does go through with this initiative, the only way that this could fairly happen is if its just a future requirement and shouldn't effect games retroactively as anyone in the know would see that as unreasonable). More importantly, then there's no reason for this bot attack to happen, because their asses are already covered and don't have to release server binaries for others to potentially profit from. Sure, this example works for Destiny because that style of game lends itself to converting to a normal game pretty nicely. The point is that there are ways to make games like this work without giving out source code or server binaries or anything like that if they just own up to the fact that these games are currently about to hang via gallows and do something with it so that consumers aren't just screwed out of their $60+. Yeah it takes work, but that what's owed when you take money under the guise of it being a product.
You bring up a point where GaaS devs need to tell players that they're leasing, licensing, or renting the game and not purchasing the game. I think that this argument should actually be taken a step further and that GaaS devs need to redefine what exactly the service is that they're providing, because a "buying a game" has a preconceived notion of ownership that the average uninformed consumer has no reason to think that buying a GaaS is any different from a game as a product. One could very easily make the argument that because of this murkiness in how GaaS is being portrayed to the average consumer, it is a form of fraud, but we're getting off topic here.
Your arguments against how this helps preserve games comes off as dismissive, I guess due to the tone, but I understand the points you make. However I do think an effort should still be made to try to preserve the games regardless. It is possible to round up enough people to play a full game of Apex after its gone under, therefore I think an effort should at least be made, however unlikely it may end up paying off. You want a reason to save the no name MMO's? How about a masterclass in how to not make your game? Boom, I think that's good enough of a reason to keep em around. if nothing else, the audio, the maps, the ideas, interactions, color choices, there are hundreds of reasons I find a game to be interesting, be it in failure or success. Is learning from our past not a good enough reason to keep what could be conceivable as mistakes in video games? People still bring up the burning of the Library of Alexandria and all the knowledge and literature that was lost forever because of it.
I do find the example of League of Legends to be interesting because I feel like LoL is one of the few games like this that is still totally savable, Riot has the resources to make the game run independently from if they support it or not, unless I'm mistaken, they're currently running like 3 other teams producing other games as well as their normal development for League itself. I think its either totally naïve or disingenuous to think that its impossible for a studio pulling in as much money as riot to not be able to come up with an appropriate solution to the issue of their game dying because they don't view it as financially viable anymore. If only there was a massive 15 year window in which they could have come up with literally ANY EOL solution whatsoever. not to mention that the game does have functional built in bots already, so its not totally unreasonable to believe that it can be made to work with zero support because of that. But as you've said, it would be a shadow of its former self, but sometimes that's all that needs to remain for someone else to pick up the mantle and make it work again, ethical or not. Is playing abandonware ethical?
Most people seem to forget that overall the discussion is a conversation about how something like SKG should be conducted and how it impacts everyone in the industry. In that regard, I think its foolish that people want you to stay quiet on the subject, I think its just people who disagree but don't know how to put what they feel to words the way they want to, so its easier to try to silence who they don't want to hear from instead. From that thought though; I do think its very disappointing that you wont even talk to Ross about any of this, but your point and stance were made clear, so no point in pushing it.
I apologize if my comment comes of as ignorant, the truth is just that I'm ignorant when it comes to a lot of things, like what's possible in game dev as far as updating/creating. I feel pretty strongly in favor for SKG as a movement, so in general, I just want these games which people have paid a lot of money for to not just disappear randomly, that sucks, and if I was someone involved in the creation of these games, especially if was art related, I'd be livid that my work was being dumpstered like that. My closing is this, I have questions for anyone who would be in the know.
1: How long would you think it would take to make a game which is totally dead at end of life to became a game that can be played after support ends in a satisfying way? trailing off that, how much money would you think it would take?
2: Were EOL solutions ever brought up at any point when creating a GaaS? like at all?
3: What have you contributed, if anything, to a game? (art, music, coding, voice acting, mocap, foley, nothing, whatever)
I appreciate debate and multiple opinions.
However I feel like you are dodging the big issue that consumers have problem with and mainly debate details or edge cases/opinions. Most people don't want to disallow live service games, thats not why this initiative exists. It is because they WANT to be able to play these online games.
Its like people want to make murder illegal and your argument is that since cops needs to be able to defend themself then we shouldnt have a law against murder.
Of course there are details that needs to be hammered out but something definitely needs to change when it comes to digital ownership.
Some notes.
Games that realistically can be played locally should be possible after service end. Ex Diablo 4, Last Epoch have multiplayer yet can be played locally.
For WoW. I have ran a wow server on my laptop, Blizzard should be able to keep it running for a extremely long time for low cost. With the income they have they have to save some to keep it running even with only 50 players in the whole world left. It doesn't matter if its a low player count. If they shut down the server, people should be allowed run non profit (donations ok) servers. Legal disputes is handled normal way.
I think there should be a parameter for how successful the game is. If a live service game launches and there is no success, the company should be allowed to shut it down. Exact threshold as in player count over a certain amount of time or similar will have to be defined.
Developers will have to take all of this into account when developing a game. In some cases they will not make it multiplayer and thats ok, pretty sure there are others that will.
Just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean that they have to keep being said way. And sometimes you have to backtrack a lot to progress down a new path, and it will not feel good, until you are much further on the new road.
Regarding the bot/exploits argument: A company doesn't lose its IP over said thing just because the game isn't in a playable state, see wow classic private servers, blizzard still sued the hell out of them, this is an issue already. But this could make it worse, yes, but its a separate issue, its already an issue right now. And if you want to do bad faith arguments against this like: "But small indie companies cannot afford to sue them!", its still a separate issue, and yes that too is an issue that needs addressing. You dont use a hammer on a screw regardless of whenever or not the screw ends up in there.
Social games such as apex, lan parties exist, friend groups exist. Groups of people might enjoy a blast from the past once decade which is not often enough for a company bear the cost of the servers 24/7.
Companies being able to kill sold products is a problem, the current proposed solution might not be the correct one, but that doesn't make this a non-problem.
And some bad faith arguments:
– laws are a response to something bad happening, how fast do you think this would have been a law if it was due to fridges no longer working due to companies selling a newer model. (The crew shutdown with the announcement of new The crew game)
– Using effectively "but this is the way we develop now a days" as an argument for not changing the way we develop these days is silly.
– "Fight the argument I am presenting.", there's no way, you havnt heard about Luis's response, i might be out of the loop but i have seen none of his counter arguments addressed.
Thanks for making this video, Thor! You've put a lot of great evidence forward and, even though I'm not an EU citizen, you would make me think twice about this initiative. I've heard the word "lazy" tossed around so much with game developers lately, but my time in QA showed me how overworked those people can be as well as how passionate they are as well. You are an avid player and developer and it shines in your critiques of the industry and player base. Really appreciate you!
Fighting games and community efforts like fightcade are a perfect example as to why the "if the game is dead, why bother preserving it" is such a demonstrably ridiculous mindset. Nobody is saying community servers will revive an entire playerbase, we just need the absolute minimum amount to fill a match lobby or to do a raid or whatever.
And in today's day and age it's absolutely trivial to gather a bunch of passionate people in a discord server to have fun together playing "dead" videogames.
Also, using TF2 as an example as to why giving the community access to servers is exploitable is ridiculous. Bots and cheaters started flooding servers after years of utter neglect by Valve and the release of a horrible update that made community servers harder to access. And guess what, most bots/cheaters would flock towards Valve's neglected and automated servers because community servers were just better equipped and monitored to kick them out of matches.
A community that's passionate enough to run their own servers won't sabotage the game they love when it's still alive and will actively filter bad actors, it's insane to claim otherwise.
I think you are a bit BIAS:ed NGL. Having games function offline and singleplayer and LAN should be a requirement if the game devs shut it down.
Ultra rare pirate software L
To quote a wise man "I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it."
FOSS is the ideal everyone should strive for. Next best thing is at least distributing the tools required to make the game work without relying on the infrastructure existing elsewhere, or even an internet connection. i.e the server.
I exist on the complete opposite extreme as you do. All software should be free and open source.
I think everything you said should not be even a thing. It's not about what shape this initiave has to take, it's all about how your property (the game you bought), is stolen from you after the developers or publishers pull the plug.
Get the iniative through, then argue about how it is best shaped into protecting the industry (Both the creators AND consumers).
I have a question about live service games needing to be licences and not products. Wouldn't it be possible to sell the game as a product but have terms applied to the access to the servers and through that keep the ability to ban people?
I didn’t know hacking conventions were a thing!!! And it’s called DEFCON that’s awesome
While I agree that forcing developers to give out any data shouldn't be happening, I also believe that if the community does find a way to keep a discontinued games going, there should be protections in the law against them being shut down. If a developer has stopped service for a live-service game, don't give them the power to shut down fanatic hobbyists from allowing them to keep playing with the product they have bought.
You are leaning into scenarios that are possible but not the target of the initiative, nowhere in this initiative does it state that a bankrupt company has to publish source code to keep a game running, it's bankrupt. Bankruptcy rules do then apply. When a car company goes bust, you will lose access to repairs, maintenance and eventually access to the car once it is broken beyond repair by other companies, there are already laws covering this in full.
This is not the scenario this initiative is aiming at.
The actual state of the industry is that companies unilaterally decide to shut down your game, not because they are broke, but usually to sell you version 2.
They break your car which is running perfectly fine, so you are forced to buy a new one without telling you this in advance.
Lastly, whether a community driven game is still fun to play or not, is not up for decision by you or the manufacturer. If I want to play WoW alone without friends or other people, it is my choice and not an argument to shut down a game based on argumentative playing preferences.
I like you a lot, but your thought process is flawed in this one.
It still doesn't solve the issue at hand. Devs of can still make games. Aggressively monetize it. Then just announce "End of Service". Leaving the player with NOTHING and the devs get to run away. It is Anti-consumer.
Your point of view is only from the dev/company , but, in EU, company doesn't have the right to do what they want, they hae to obey what consumers needs/want.
For example, EU made Apple change their port, made websites ask for cookies and all that stuff, it's a cultural difference that US citizen can't understand
The real conversation in EU is about the fact that, a solo game, like The Crew ( wich is what spawn this convo) , shouldn't be inacessible after some time cause it's "online only" and the company stop the exploitation.
As I understand it, lots of games are Lives Services for security/profit/player rentention and , once again, in EU it's not comonly accepted that you should give your right to a company, even for security of the copmpany ( in France, where I'm from, it's already illegal for some service, banks have to relinquish all your infos ON DEMAND)
I'm sorry for the poor english, but it's not my first language , I just wanted to make sure to give a point of view from a EU citizen, where, once again, our vision of the world is totaly different
PS: I'm pretty sure that Lives Services games wouldn't be so popular if their was alternatives, multiplayer game exepted
I don't / can't understand what exactly he is trying to say and what exactly is the problem.
Lets say we have a game that can only be played online. Overtime, playerbase declines due to various reasons to a point where company believes it is no longer profitable to pay for server host money. It is at this point where that initiative comes into play, saying, okay, you want to kill the servers? Do so. But, then, let us create private servers so we can continue playing and possibly continue developing the game WE PAYED for.
I do not understand how the practice above affects either live service games or developers? For them that game was already dead and was being swept under the rug.
I don't get it. Is it the idea that these private servers can make money off of the game? That can be worked out where perhaps they are not able to monetize the game other than just meeting server costs or a percentage of the money goes to the original developer of the game (which while looks right, is a bit problematic too actually).
There can be so many different solutions. But your claim seems… unfounded, to put it lightly.
5:08 Preservation of a game, from my perspective, is the ability to still play as much of the game as possible, rather than having no access to it at all. Taking an example of a dead MMORPG, it would be nice to play a copy of my character still available to me or allow me to create new ones all over again. In my case, I don't care I couldn't run the dungeons anymore, but at least I can explore the open world, I can fiddle with my characters and all the cosmetics I have bought. In this extremely bare minimum form, this is still miles better than no longer having access to the game, like at all.
Just let the people monetize their server, but true fans can also run up a server and restrict access to fans or go complete baller and open it to the interwebs. If people make money in their group to finance the server, let them go.
maybe instead of releasing binaries just archive it and maybe release it after some long time, lets say 5 years. this should discourage the kind of attack you are describing while keeping the game preserved for the future. granted you wouldn't be able to host your servers for 5 years but i think thats a reasonable trade-off
Your take is just a defence to protect developers in an oversaturated industry that goes strongly against consumers. You're throwing out so many examples that have no reason to be made for one reason and one reason only: private servers for games already exist.
You're acting like this initiative is going to be responsible for the start of some cyber crime-spree when in actuality, it's mitigating the crimes that game corporations are committing to this day – robbery.
Will all these supposed scenarios happen if the initiative goes through? Yes.
Will all these scenarios happen if the initiative doesn't go through? YES.
You might be one to provide a lot of insight into the development side of things, but your stance on this situation is full of holes and it doesn't help that you're promoting anti-consumerism from the side that robs consumers. You're literally just fearmongering to mislead consumers into believing that they shouldn't own their own video games. Your take is purely in support of bad developers who just want to milk customers.
If a live service game is bad, it will inevitably die early, that's what happens in the real world when you deliver a bad product to consumers. The only difference is, in the real world, the manufacturer doesn't come to your doorstep and take it back from you.
If a live service game is good, it will also inevitably die, all games eventually do. It will die out for whatever reason, and people should be able to preserve that. The ONLY reason to be against this is because of the shitty games industry in it's current state, wanting to bury every good product and force feed everyone bad products to ensure that THEY survive regardless of how much they tarnish the industry.
We are consumers, and we have no obligation to be a charity to shitty organisations and shitty devs. If you want our money, make it worth it or find somewhere else to steal from people. This initiative will do far more good than the 1% of bad that you're shovelling down your viewers throats.
Final Fantasy 14 is a subscription model, it is up front that you pay for a month, you get a month.
Live service games are something you buy, and then your purchase dies at an indeterminate date, typically ten years.
If anyone is being disingenuous, it's you.
And there is nothing stopping these games from being playable in an offline mode, or over lan, or private server.
I see you making the argument that a private server can be monetized, yet not only is that rare in gaming communities, other people can just make free to play private servers.
You are so up your own ass and full of shit I'm amazed you can still breathe.
L take IMO.
Just because a multiplayer portion of a game is dead there should still be an option to player singleplayer, coop or even multiplayer matches with the boys, even if we have to host a server locally. We're still gaming the old Quake games , the (very) old NFS titles, COD 1 & 2 (not MW), or even the old Battlefield titles. Not possible with most current titles.
It's like saying you have to throw a car away because there are only 5 people driving the same model.
Game dev gets thanked by other game devs for speaking out against people wanting to own what they buy.
Mate, should a company brick your car, if they go out of business, or just feels like they dont want to support it? No, ofcourse not.
You expect what you buy to be yours and to function, not this license shit all you game devs want to sell us.
Nobody would play on a monetized private server.
Someone else would make another private server that would be free.
I don't get your argument at all. If the devs publicly released server binaries, that means anyone can make a private server. Why would players go to a monetized server?
You cannot preserve game who change every season update, you get some classic servers but is not the same
Pirate in the name but simping for big studios. can't make this shit up
Thor speedruns my loss of respect for him…
Crazy paranoia talk about "Muh precious server binaries", while not addressing the elephant in the room, namely that consumers get screwed over once a studio decides to shut down a game. What a corporate shill. Discustin!
I don't understand how this dude thinks: "Online games are good and this will allow others to take them away" Bitch this is already happening! look at law breakers or OW1, both had a community and got shutdown by devs for bs reasons all though we paid for them, that it is straight up stealing no argument can justify that. As for the whole server binaries bs: we live in the age of Cloud, the company could allow players to run and maintain a cloud server that they have controlled access to, something similar to battlefield 4 servers where you can rent them and set them up however you like without having access to the code
How about you finish your own game, before trying to take the highroad on something you clearly don't understand. 6 Years of development on an unfinished game, with over half a year since last substantial update.
This guy really doesn't seem like a developer even he is trying so hard.
Maybe present yourself as a streamer in the future.
Another shiteater who don't want to users own their game
Hi Thor!
I very rarely comment on anything, but right now I feel like I need to give my opinion, as I'm affected by this.
Generally you can spend money on live service games, and the moment they shut down, not only your time invested,
but all your money invested is down the drain.
And not only that, but everything is pretty much lost with a game like this, as art.
All the music, textures, world, characters, mechanics. Everything.
And I think that is pretty much a crime that we can't do anything to preserve all of this.
Some real examples from my side for why this is bad, and some solutions:
I've played league of legends for around 5k hours in my life – They could release a client where people could play p2p, or at least on LAN against bots.
I'm currently playing Final Fantasy XIV, I'm around 1,2k hours – They can make pretty much everything (at least normal and story content I think) doable offline and solo, and they are proving this since ShB with the trust system.
Not only was it immersive for me to play trial bosses with AI story characters, but it opens up the possibility of: why not do this for everything?
FFXIV gets even more weight here as it is what I would call an industry peak in a lot of ways, especially music.
Around 800 hours in Warframe, doable solo, it even uses p2p connections to this day.
As much of a polarizing opinion it is, Hoyoverse gacha games (and probably other I did not play) are here too.
More than 4-500 hours from me, huge worlds and beautiful soundtracks would be gone.
Should I even mention Warcraft 3 Reforged, which pretty much retroactively ruined a 20 year old classic? (around 2k hours)
And the final one would be Battleforge, which was sort of revived, but for how long? (around 500 hours)
Notice I did not even start talking about spent money on these, just some basic stuff.
Digital licenses should not be the future, especially not for fake-liveservice games, that are 100% perfectly working without any servers whatsoever.
Oh and I won't even go in-depth with the newest tactics of 70+ EUR game vs 15EUR subscription service,.
I hope you can see that many of the players invested in this do not see an opportunity to undermine other peoples work,
they just want to fire up their usual games whenever, without the fear of losing them.
My problem here is that this doesn't act or feel like leasing in games. It would be like if I paid for a house outright in a one time payment, but the fine print of the contract states that the original owner of the land can evict me at any time if they want to use the land for another project at any point in the future. If the company wants to avoid the players owning the game. Then they shouldn't sell the game. Make it a free to play game where you can then pay to access further content. But for right now they want to argue that buying the game isn't owning it. Then pirating is not stealing. Because I am not illegally taking ownership of this product as I can never own it
DotA, dota2 , cs 1.6, cs 2 , tf2 allow you to make ur own servers . ur arguments just stupid
Hope you have fun at defcon. I dont think the solution is more text at point of sale also wont most studios just do that to protect themselves? Making the situation worse not better.
I also think thors take on its on it not being about game preservation is odd like its jot a perfect example of what it was like in its peak so its not worth preserving. Thor has a great brain and like idk i want to see him brain storm better solutions. Feels like hes on the defence and maybe missing why people see this as important for consumers.
Also also Using tf2 bots issue as an example is weird too because that was caused by leaked code for servers but tf2 always had servers you or i could run even though source code wasnt readilly available and was written that way. The game originally didnt even have mm servers it was all community servers and the game would stay functional if mm stayed down.