Here is an easy breakdown of how I feel about this initiative.
I cannot and will not support a vague and potentially dangerous start to this conversation.
Call out the specific business practices that need to be resolved, not just games in general.
Watch the stream here:
Join the community here:
#Pants #StopKillingGames #PirateSoftware
– Edited by Sunder
Mjølner could be smash the shit out from THAT Thor
From what i have seen, you aren't really open to discuss with your own community nor gamers as the only thing you have been responding to are the ones who claims that you are deleting commenta only for you to affirm you have not deleted any comments.
No response on people who are trying to tell you you are misunderstanding the situation and no response on others who are willing to have discussion with you and to be proven wrong
Only your pinned comment and responds to deleted claims is what you seem to care the most, basically you made this video to talk about your opinion and that's it
We are all entitled to our own opinions, and i respect the position you hold, even though i disagree on your position as a whole. There was a lot of valid points in your video that i, and hopefully most people, would agree with too.
What i don't respect nor understand, is the extreme stance you have taken towards the person that made this video. From what you have described and the actions you have taken towards this person (from reading your comment on this video as well as your language towards the person in the video itself), it sounds like this person has personally done you harm or disrespected you, which to my knowledge, is not the case. It seems to me, that the only thing he did to make you react in this way, is bring up the government as a means to provide some regulations in favor of the consumer in the games industry which, is not a hot take. Going through the government is how one should push for change after all.
Hopefully this is all just lost in translation, but i hope you can adress this disdain you seem to hold towards the person that made the original video, because it seems like to me that this is the core issue most people have towards your stance on this whole ordeal.
Youre being weird
I usually agree with Thor, but this is a massive L take . We have been calling out this behavior for years and yet companies still do it, look at the latest ubisoft shutting down. The Crew servers.
We get it, server shutdown eventually when players do not play a game anymore. What gamers ask is for the company to give us the means to host our own server and keep a small comunity alive, let us play the game offline or LAN and so forth, not take out money and then few years later they are like "lol ok bye thanks for the money sucka" this behavior is with piracy still exist and will keep existing. If a live service would give a disclaimer like , "oh btw just as a warning, this game will shut down in 3 years and after that you can't play it anymore" then people who buy it, will buy it knowing fully well what they get into and what they spend their money on.
Calling this behavior out is not viable anymore, we need laws that can actively hold companies accountable for this kind of behavior or they will keep doing it, gamers need to put their foot down and make companies liable for their bullshit or else it will keep happening because there are no consequences for them aside from a bit of drama on the internet.
Can we get this "Thor" guy get banned? 1 week should be enough. He is clearly violating the first rule: "Don't be a jerk" of his own guidelines.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, won't buy any of your games, have fun dealing with damage control.
that was a pretty quick "thats disgusting and i wont talk about it wont converse with you" to "okay heres my video essay on why im right"
I've liked a lot of your takes in the past, but this one I can't agree with. I think a lot of your arguments are in bad faith and you take and argue over points no one is pushing while ignoring others that make sense.
You argue over client/servers like they can't just make a server for a player to host themselves. I saw in your description you talk about monetization and how that would be carried forward or not. If the server is out there for anyone to download then you could even host it yourself and disable all that. Just make the whole store free or so you have unlimited prem currency.
All your takes pose issues that you've made without even looking at how it could be fixed or argued against imo.
American doesn't understand European politics and spends 15 minutes arguing against his own clients because of it
If any game becomes abandonware, no one should ever be stopped, DMCA'd, sued, cease and desisted, etc. for developing or trying to revive said game for general fandom, passion project, community or research purposes; either for free or donation based foundations. When a game dies, the TOS should die with it. If the company that once owned the rights to the game wants to jump back into the pool and re-work/revive the IP, fine. But until further notice, let the players/developers/modders keep it alive with no resistance. For the love of god this shouldn't be an argument.
Funny thing is, it doesn't matter how this all unfolds. People will always find a way to keep something alive that they like. Cut the hydra. You know what happens.
Rearchitect games to be more like Minecraft where you can host your own servers or fallback on hosted elsewhere? Yes please.
Make it so I can play Genshin Impact largely a single player game without the online element? Yes please.
Honestly even if they just released the server software before the game servers were shutdown that would be a big win.
Games like Myth of Soma are only playable now days because the company hosting it got hacked and the community decided to run their own servers.
We shouldn't need to hack companies to continue playing the games we love.
Im gonna have to disagree with you on this one.
You constantly complain about the initiative being too vague about what it wants as if it is a bad thing. What the initiative wants is for the online parts of a game to be kept in a usable state, its not specifically asking for the devs to keep them maintained. Keeping the online mode of a game alive is as simple as giving the ability to players to host and moderate their own servers, meaning that the people who would keep working on keeping the game alive would be doing so out of their own volition, and that way, the end of support for online servers would happen naturally, when everyone has truly stopped playing the game, while also being able to be brought back to life if people start playing the game again.
Saying people should expect live service games to die one day when they purchase them is also simplifying the issue way too much. Yes, when people purchase online games, they know that one day, it will stop receiving content, and the playerbase will eventually die out, however, a lot of corporations have taken avantage of that to simply shut down games completely to get people to buy the most recent ones, meaning that instead of the game naturally dying out once people have truly lost interest, it brutally shuts down just to squeeze out more money from the people wanting to keep playing and going to the most recent release. And this is the "best" case scenario, because when there isn't an alternative, players simply have to give up on the franchise they like because a massive corporation decided they didn't care about it anymore.
Corporations should not get to decide when they consider a game dead, because their choice is entirely dependant on how much money they are making, and not on wether people still play the game or not. Today, it is very common for live service games to release only to get shut down only a year later because "not enough people were playing it" or because "it didn't make enough money", and thinking that players that bought those game should have done so with the knowledge that this could happen sets a very bad precedent for what massive corporations give themselves the right to do.
In Ross's video, he makes it clear this initiative is meant to lead to a bunch of new laws, and it should be obvious that going against games that pretend to sell you a product when they actually sell you a license will be a priority. Pretending he simply doesn't care about that and is fighting the "wrong" fight simply because he doesn't alright say it, is disingenuous.
Games are created to be enjoyed. shutting it down purely for monetary reasons and not giving players to ability to keep it alive themselves is scummy, and should not be justified because "its live service, so you knew it would happen one day".
rare L take from Thor, but an L take nonetheless.
Not supporting the initiative because of some wording issues, when you clearly stated at the beginning, that this initiative is just a starting point of talking about this issue in details is really weird to me. I get that you don't like the details, but not supporting the whole things in a bad move in my opinion.
People trying to dismiss what Thor is saying just because they dont emotionally agree with him. Grow up people
Just have it be if a company doesnt want to deal with the game anymore. Give the game to the players and idk, program it to be a closed system but allow them to set up a server. I think thats that
I saw clips of your earlier stream going over this and the level of disrespect and unprofessionalism you showed towards not just the movement, but to Ross himself was insane. Even to your own viewers, who were making simple points and asking questions, you were incredibly demeaning towards.
I don't care about your stance on this anymore, but I do hope you apologize. Especially with how much respect Ross has been trying to show to you.
Fellow game dev here:
We're currently working on a project where we're using a proprietary library in our server architecture that we have bought a license for TO USE. This lib is expensive, but we need it because building something in-house would be even more expensive.
If we were forced by legislation to release our server code after EOL we would breach this libs license because all of a sudden we're not USING the license, we're DISTRIBUTING the license.
Buying a license to be allowed to distribute the library is out of the question, sice it's even more expensive than the already outrageous sum they make us pay for just using it and we're definitely not going to keep on paying for other people to be able to host our game after its EOL.
I get why people want this. I also want to keep playing my favourite games. But in some cases like ours the release of server binaries/code would be actually illegal for the devs. This is why a game devs perspective like thors is really important here. I'm sorry to say this, but this initiative in it's current form is garbage and needs to be rewritten/focused on what the actual problem is.
In my opinion killing live service games is not the problem. Everybody knows this will happen at some point. The problem is incorrectly marketing live service games as singleplayer experiences.
This is going to be a really unpopular take. But I've worked in software-as-a-service companies as a Software Engineer and completely agree with Thor. I think the biggest problem here is that the initiative just really isn't fleshed out and needs to distinguish between different types of game licenses/business models.
the more i watch the video the more i think he actually makes sense
talking to government with a vague language and saying "ah yes this will distract them from other laws" is stupid. the only issue i have with Thor's video is that he doesn't consider the possibility of custom servers for live service games. but other than that , i think most of his points are correct.
he's not wrong when he says we should fight problems that currently exists instead of making new ones. even showed why in particular the crew died. said he would agree with the initiative if its about single player games that have some online functionalities that got shut down. and that we should be clear on what the issue is instead of generalizing it upon all video games.
the initiative page says :
|| This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or *related features and assets* sold for videogames they operate) to *leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.* ||
how is this a good solution for anybody? if its for single player games , i understand.
but this is precisely the vague language thor is talking about. if the cost of having "related features" such as Online mode is outweighing the income. why would you as a developer be forced to keep that alive forever?
if we're saying we should have *custom servers or server-based tools then point that out instead* , because if it turns into a discussion or a law with the way this is worded , devs are gonna have to choose between "are we gonna make an online feature or all online game or not?" and then choose not to because of this so then everyone loses.
later in the page it says :
|| Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of *videogames* by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher. ||
again this doesn't specify what kind of games its talking about. a live service game will not last forever , its solely driven by constant income and once that's lost , the game is gone. i think most players for games like this , you know the ones who make their devs millionaires , already understand this.
i agree with folks in comments that there should be ways to make old games up and running via *custom servers* and server-based tools and binaries instead of changing a whole game from server/client to client-only given this HAS happened in the past and WILL continue to happen but we need to specify that in this initiative.
finally it says :
|| 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. ||
this whole part is one giant contradiction. i thought this was about preserving games and taking ownership (which i'm all for , i even go as far as saying that i had to pirate games that are no longer accessible because it IS a service issue). and if you're saying you don't expect devs to do it then why do you say they should do that? (contradiction) i agree with most of what's written in the Annex part of the page but ultimately the vagueness and contradictions are what raises questions for a Thor or a me or someone else out there who may be in the know.
ultimately while i believe Thor should've not been as harsh towards its creator , he raises some actual good points and i think when it comes to the concept of preservation and owning games the initiative also makes good points (mostly in the Annex part) and that we need to come together and realize what resolution we're actually working towards , if what's written in the Annex was the same as what's in the Objective part , we probably wouldn't have as much issues with this as we do here. also i believe we all should be able to collectively think and discuss this instead of commenting bad things to one another just because we disagree. that's all from me , sorry for the essay
What I find hilarious about Thor's claim, Studios might not be able to provide such support. But modders/crackers have shown time and time, many of those (live service) games are functionial with private servers. Revival projects are getting more traction. Blur has an active multiplayer scene while being delisted, WOW has many private servers and recently Crash On the Run was resurrected again. Not even talking about console centric features, those have a revival scene too. Pretendo and RPCN while not complete are extending life in deprecated devices.
Especially when data mining shows offline elements are present in retail versions. It clearly shows it's matter of planned obsolescence than providing a complete product.
I can put on any 2010-ish Killzone/BF/COD and have fun with it without a connection. If I like to can connect to fan provided servers.
That's the gist, I can choose and the decision is not taken for me
Ehh a game developer doesn’t want a suit against game developers to go through. I’m shocked lol
This video is a great example of what is wrong with the industry: devs being out of touch with the gaming community.
Providing access to community servers is not hard at all and you do not get any "IP". You do not own any Valve IP or Minecraft or any other game that allows you to make community servers. It should be a standard practice and this is what this legislation push is all about.
And what freaking "secret sauce code" will a company loose for a 10 yo game they decided to shut down? It's just stupid to defend it.
I think Thors take on live service games like MMOs being hard to maintain when not in the hands of big companys that you can't let the peasents is very flawd. Sure it is hard but it is not impossible warhammer online age of reckoning was pulished 2008 and shout down 2014, theirs still a bunch of fan serves of warhammer online age of reckoning running still today with updates and patching. while the cost benefits might not make sense for the big companys anymore that might not be the same for a small group of players wanting to keep their favorit game afloat with donations or subscriptions to keep the privet servers up.
Same thing for the old wow privert servers that maintained older edtions of wow until Blizz decided that the voice of the players was loud enough to warrent setting up some classic servers of their own. Strange behahior if they knew better then the players what they wanted an yet the classic servers persist almost like players was right about what game they wanted to play.
Im not saying Blizz would have to maintain classic servers indefinet but maybe let a small privet group that want to run classic server do so rather then to strike them down.
you need to calm down "piratesoftware"
The whole "the players are only buying a license, don't own the game" is EXACTLY the problem with the game industry. As a player you should just purchase and shut up so the investors can be kept happy. Your video shows to me that you are afraid Ross' initiative might work. Your whole choice of words is extremely gross. Thanks for making my stance even more clear.
The fact that the person who made this petition thinks it'd be an easy win is a red flag to me that he has no experience in political advocacy whatsoever.
Thor, this is a shit take on a subject that will have ramifications across dozens of business and industries.
I want to be given tools to play, games (and assets in them) I payed for, OFFLINE. The devs should calculate sunsetting protocols for their games like every single other aspect of it. They can dump 10s of millions into marketing, they can delegate two devs to make an offline mode with all released assets.
Problem solved.
If this issue isn't solved in gaming, car and house appliances manufacturers will follow suit. Imagine car seat heating (subscription only) features being discontinued because it's no longer profitable to maintain that service online. Or microwaves not being able to turn on in specific settings because it requires some server side authorization.
Giving up this battle here because you as a dev want to save yourself some time and money or get some browny points in the industry, opens up a flood gates of bad practices that will take an entire generation of consumers to undo.
You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between an initiative and a law. The people make the initiative, the politicians construct the law. It is not and should not be our responsibility to create a law that is correctly worded and benefits everyone.
Big L
No, you don’t need to rearchitect client-server games to make them playable, you only need to give users a way to run their own servers.
Gross and disgusting? Idk man, people just wanna play the games they paid money for…
Wow. This is the first time ive seen such a hostile comments section.
A good number of the comments dont seem to have really understood what points you wanted to make either.
i guess its to be expected if you come in and rain on a mobs parade with a different opinion.
i support this take, but I do think it would be cool to take this a step further and suggest changes or movements people can put their hopes on for positive change.
It’s laws like these that makes companies not want their games in certain regions. If this goes through a lot of games will most likely not be available in EU.
u're missing one of the most crucial problem though, currently a lot of these companies create a "live service" game, then purposefully kill the prequel so that the consumer is forced to spend extra money to buy the new thing. They also market these "live service" as a "feature" so that they can charge more money from consumer upfront, alongside having microtransactions. This is very much an abusable system by these trash companies, and i'm sure we'll start to see a lot of abuse on this system. We do know though that this initiative will hurt ur company so u do have conflict of interest.
This is such a bad take that it made me sign the petition lmao.
As a fellow programmer you should know that if you give the means to the community to run their own custom servers they will, even if the game wasn't built with that in mind (it happened to WoW to give an example, even if it was done illegally), so what excuse does have a multimillion dollar company to not give that feature to their playerbase when the official game servers shut down?
Ah yes another daft anti consumer take by Thor lmfao.
Dude you need to think more about a subject before you start spewing so much nonsense. Same with the PSN Helldivers situation.
Disappointing but no longer surprising. You're too American for this convo
IMO, the whole differentiation of buying a license or buying a game is the problem here. If I pay for a game of about 60-80 I feel like I'm buying a game, not a license to play it. Ownership is an important part of the whole gaming community, and this precedent now set by ubisoft and the fact that in (almost) EVERY terms of service you get with (almost) EVERY game that states that (almost) EVERY game purchase is a license, that means we now own nothing and we should like it.
I've already signed this initiative and am actively asking people around me to do so as well, because in this case and possible future cases, I think that when we buy games, we buy games, not a license to temporarily access a game.
And this is not a dig at the gaming communities, this is a dig for me at the clearly bad faith actors in the game development area, i. e. the AAA
Some of these comments on here are absolutely disgusting and you all should be ashamed of yourselves. Hes obviously wanting what we want but the EU initiative isnt the right direction. How about we boil it down to something that actually makes sense instead of screaming at each other over an insanely vague initiative
Deleting comments?
Since when do you have to be so low
>former blizzard employee explains why giving consumers more rights is a bad idea
Of course game dev defends abusive practices against consumers. You could release a game then revoke access to it literally the next day and that'd be completely legal because tos said so and there are zero digital consumer protection laws.
Well, I don't think Thor made any new friends today. (Except at Ubisoft maybe….)
Common Thor L take
Mister pirate man I think your stance is firmly founded on solid logic.
But I think you missed the bigger picture.
Lately, video games have gotten to the point where everything seems to have a live service aspect to it.
I do think live service games can be great and all, but that doesn’t justify its presence in every single genre of gaming.
It’s evident that these days gaming has fallen into the big boys greedy hands. I think it’s time to take their hand. No more slaps on the wrist
Ngl, that might be… the first and biggest L-Take on something i've heard from you.
Ross's deleted comment: (and how petty to delete this in the first place, seriously)
"I'll just leave some points on this:
-I'm afraid you're misunderstanding several parts of our initiative. We want as many games as possible to be left in some playable state upon shutdown, not just specifically targeted ones. The Crew was just a convenient example to take action on, it represents hundreds of games that have already been destroyed in a similar manner and hundreds more "at risk" of being destroyed. We're not looking at the advertising being the primary bad practice, but the preventable destruction of videogames themselves.
-This isn't about killing live service games (quite the opposite!), it's primarily about mandating future live service games have an end of life plan from the design phase onward. For existing games, that gets much more complicated, I plan to have a video on that later. So live service games could continue operating in the future same as now, except when they shutdown, they would be handled similarly to Knockout City, Gran Turismo Sport, Scrolls, Ryzom, Astonia, etc. as opposed to leaving the customer with absolutely nothing.
-A key component is how the game is sold and conveyed to the player. Goods are generally sold as one time purchases and you can keep them indefinitely. Services are generally sold with a clearly stated expiration date. Most "Live service" games do neither of these. They are often sold as a one-time purchase with no statement whatsoever about the duration, so customers can't make an informed decision, it's gambling how long the game lasts. Other industries would face legal charges for operating this way. This could likely be running afoul of EU law even without the ECI, that's being tested.
-The EU has laws on EULAs that ban unfair or one-sided terms. MANY existing game EULAs likely violate those. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA. The idea here is to take removal of individual ownership of a game off the table entirely.
-We're not making a distinction between preservation of multiplayer and single player and neither does the law. We fail to find reasons why a 4v4 arena game like Nosgoth should be destroyed permanently when it shuts down other than it being deliberately designed that way with no recourse for the customer.
-As for the reasons why I think this initiative could pass, that's my cynicism bleeding though. I think what we're doing is pushing a good cause that would benefit millions of people through an imperfect system where petty factors of politicians could be a large part of what determines its success or not. Democracy can be a messy process and I was acknowledging that. I'm not championing these flawed factors, but rather saying I think our odds are decent.
Finally, while your earlier comments towards me were far from civil, I don't wish you any ill will, nor do I encourage anyone to harass you. I and others still absolutely disagree with you on the necessity of saving games, but I wanted to be clear causing you trouble is not something I nor the campaign seeks at all. Personally, I think you made your stance clear, you're not going to change your mind, so people should stop bothering you about it."
Hard disagree. Live servovr and games like lol and wow should provide architecture upon end of service to run private servers. We paid for the game.
You won't support it because you think his reasons for assuming it might actually work are bad? Nice strawman argument. He could've left out his entire argumentation as to why he thinks it'll pass and it wouldn't change the validation of the effort whatsoever.
Also assuming live service games are going to get killed off if a law like this passes is absurd. The only thing that's being asked for is that the game will keep being playable when the developer gives up support for it. Servers can just be hosted by the customer, as they have been for many dead live service games in the past – just look at World of Warcraft Classic for years prior to Blizzard finally giving up and making an official version.
But guess what, most of these companies refuse to continue support for the game but they sure as hell ensure nobody else can continue the game either. Why? Lets use The Crew as an example. If the game is entirely dead, players will only be able to get a similar experience in The Crew 2 (or 3, by now). If the game were on life support, even at no cost or effort from the company, then there would still be players playing The Crew over its sequels, costing the company money. And if those players do not consider the new games better than the older ones, then I see absolutely no issue with that. If you want to earn money, make a better product or continue supporting the good one you had.
No one is saying companies should indefinitely support games when it doesn't make them money. The entire point is mute.
Let's do a little round up for everyone in the comments saying the same stuff.
1. "You're a co-founder/owner of Offbrand Games and this is a conflict of interest."
I am not a co-founder or owner of Offbrand Games nor do I gain anything of monetary or status value by pushing for liveservice games to exist.
I'm the Director of Strategy for them and a big part of my job is helping to pick which games we work with and how to best protect the developers during contract negotiations.
It's literally the reason I wanted to get into publishing and help fix the imbalance of power between publishers and devs.
I've been public about wanting to do this for literal years and we had a massive announcement about me joining up.
Quite simply, no I don't make any money for this, there is no conflict of interest, and your tinfoil hat is far too tight.
2. "Why shouldn't we have the right to the server binaries so we can keep playing these games?"
– Are you going to allow monetization of these servers or not?
If we don't allow monetization – Who would be the party that enforces non-monetization of that server?
If it's the government I feel like we're making an insane amount of red tape.
If it's the original company then this doesn't work if they shut down.
If we don't allow monetization – Who is going to pay for the hosting if the servers cannot be monetized?
If they cannot be monetized then these servers will also eventually shut down due to cost.
We don't up preserving games like this we just shift their death down the road.
If we do allow monetization – This leads to a really weird attack potential if people can monetize the servers.
– You make an awesome game that has a small community.
– I want to monetize that game and run my own servers.
– I create a shitload of bots and constant exploits to erode the game and your business.
– Your business closes and now I can monetize your work without anyone stopping me.
This isn't unlikely as we've seen mass attacks such as with TF2.
We actually see echoes of this in the mobile market already as well.
The only defense right now is DMCA or other takedown measures.
Devs legitimately have very little protections as-is and this would erode that further.
This creates an incentive for abuse where the abuser is protected as they are within their legal right to operate said "abandoned" games servers.
3. "He's just a rich ego now"
I've been an indie dev for 8 years now and most that time I made less than Federal minimum wage.
I have just gained financial success in the last year due to the community supporting me in what I do.
Now that I make more I have poured it all back into that community, charity, and animal rescue.
If I become a millionaire then I have failed. Your attacks here make no sense.
4. "He's not even offering solutions he's just yapping"
Except I have offered a solution.
Inform the customer at point of purchase that they will be getting a license to the game.
It should never be posed as a purchase or buying the game at all. Because you aren't.
You're buying a license and a big part of the problem is that players don't know what this means.
Licenses like this allow developers to ban bad actors from the service and are insanely important.
Inform the customer correctly and the grand majority of issues here fall away.
5. "He banned Ross and hates players."
No I did not. Ross is not banned on this channel.
We've been blocking and banning people who are posting hate speech, doxxing attempts, and insane false information about me.
As of now that list is over 1,000 people just from the last three days alone.
Has some splash damage happened here? Probably. Shit happens and a deleted comment is not the end of the world.
It's not that deep.
6. "It's easy to do because the FAQ said so."
It's very clearly that nobody involved in writing that FAQ actually makes games.
I've had a 20 year career in the industry spanning from QA, Engineering, IT, and Red Team.
These demands are not "simple" problems to solve and cannot be done easily even for new games.
It's not feasible to produce the requested content in this initiatives current form.
Demanding this and stating that all developers are wrong and greedy is actually absurd.
7. "This won't even effect Live Service games read the FAQ!"
I did and the FAQ does not change the potential damage done to live service games.
Under the current initiative all games would need to be made into a playable state at end of life.
This puts a massive extra financial burden on specifically live service games while incentivizing single player ones.
Why would I spend extra money building a live service distributable server for end of life?
I wouldn't.
I would just make single player or local play games as they cost less to produce under this scenario.
For those that say "Good" and dislike live service games, that's not a good position.
Your personal dislike of live service games should not control developers on what they could or should make.
Nor should it limit players in their options of what kinds of games they have access to.
8. "He won't even talk to Ross"
Correct. I think his position is disingenuous due to his comments about how this could be pushed through government.
It's a bad direction, removes validity for what the initiative is trying to do, portrays the process in an incorrect manner, and just builds sensationalism.
Thinking that kind of language is ok puts him squarely on my "not worth it to talk to" list as there are others that could have a more productive conversation.
Louis Rossman and Asmongold have much better takes on this and actually try to engage about the issue in a measured way.
At the end of the day I am now and always have been a game developer.
The majority of my platform has and will continue to be advocating for teaching how this industry actually works.
This flashpoint moment is the greatest example of why players need to actually know how games are made.
Why do you think I run game jams or a discord to help you make games?
It's so you can see that requests like this don't make sense and gain perspective on the industry.
It stops the internet hate machine from band-wagoning against developers which always happens due to lack of perspective.
Stay frosty.