14. At 7 she confirms in her own opinion this isn't impossible to do, just going to be difficult if you don't basically do it from the start.(hence why I suggested this whole initiative should've asked engine creators to provide dedicated servers on build, not game developers ).

15. at 7:15 she finally admits to a lot of the concerns brought, then goes on to say devs just didn't plan for end of life scenarios. Because it costs money in an industry that's already saturated where everyone is fighting for $10. A lot easier to plan for a website shut down, than plan for a game shut down. A lot easier to archive a website with a tool for offline viewing, than to have to recode your server structure, exponentially easier, you can save websites right now. A lot easier to look at lets say some software that checks your serial key for auth and disable that auth with a few lines of code so owners can still use it when the service goes offline, vs having to recode thousands of lines of code. They're not even close to the same thing. Them not adapting to this is because the price of games would have to rise substantially to allow for this to happen, and they're constantly looking for what is the cheapest price to sell you the game, while still delivering a product. Have some done it in the past, sure, depends on the game, the complexity of it and the structure. If you lost your original dev and you are asking your new dev to do this, it's going to be very hard and he's going to hate you.

16. At 8:24 she says "if this succeeds they'd do it from the start", like I said, they'd have to do it constantly from the start, for every update, from the start, and maintain combability, for years until the game is shut down. There's no better solution. This means higher prices, less time spent on making the game, so worse content in exchange for providing this support. They'd have to do both peer to peer and dedicated servers at once, which is an expensive cost added to development. At least we agree on something.

17. at 8:54 she mentions gdpr and says it didn't kill the web, it wasn't gonna kill the web anyways, cause gdpr applies to eu, and there's other parts of the world. Even if they choose to share to eu customers, they can just comply to the data they can receive. In the case where they can't, they simply do not do business with the eu. This isn't uncommon and these kind of "transactions" of data and other things happen within continents, to countries, to states, all across the world from different points of view. Everyone is in some form "compliant" to someone else, this isn't a big deal. The difference here is in general people will use a data processor which complies with regulation, that data processor has already been done. In this case, the data processor would be the engine(unity/unreal), which should provide the dedicated servers on build, the web dev would have to go out of their way to break that agreement.

    PS: Companies break GDPR constantly, it takes a long time for them to get a fine and they pay it and move on. So it doesn't exactly mean much. Sure they adapt, but find loopholes and other methods to get around this problem. Data in this case is what they collect. I'm sure multiplayer games collect some data, but I think they just sell you a game and move on. It would be valve that collects that data. So in this context GDPR and it's adaptation to the world doesn't mean much. It's also easier to disable/re-enable collecting x identifiers, then recode a server.

18. 10 min mark. True, if it does pass, the gaming world would indeed adapt in various forms, like I specified. Things wouldn't stay the same. Gamers would get their offline servers, and at what cost? That's the true question. What's paying the price?

19. At the 11 min mark she mentions that some say this would lead to higher game prices. She makes a decent point here, saying that instead of gamers buying a second newer game after 3 years, they can play the same game for 6 years even if it gets shut down, because now the incentive is to keep the game alive, rather than innovate. This by her own words, means less games being put out, so less innovation, something she's disagreed with herself earlier in the video. Contradictory?

20. at 11:30, did they petition qualifying gamers, or just anybody who can sign? As far as I'm aware, anybody can sign this if they're from the eu. They don't even have to have one of these games.

21. at 13:50 she talks about big publishers pointing out this would harm security, but she disagrees, but I wonder why PayPal/google/valve/etc don't just open source their internals? Maybe something with finding glitches, exploits, harmful ways to break it? Maintaining compatibility for a singleplayer game is much easier than for a multiplayer game. She mentions GoG but I don't know what that has to do with providing private servers for games that used to be online only. Does GoG have multiplayer games that they provide private servers for? All GoG does is post the games, and ask devs to do what a cracker does, just officially with permission since it's their game.

22. She goes on to say these things should last a few years. Doesn't specify a duration but this is kinda like suggesting a warranty on a game instead. Something like a 3 year warranty in which if the game shuts down you get a refund maybe? Doesn't say it should last forever. So I guess now we need a timeframe for how long it's reasonable for a game to last before being obsolete?

23. She says "when you buy something you should own it in a meaningful way". I don't understand, when you buy a movie ticket and you watch the movie, is that a meaningful way? When you buy a multiplayer game and enjoy it for 3 years, is that not meaningful?

24. She mentions how apple didn't want to switch to usbc because they said lightning is better, but I mean it's apple, they've willingly paid millions for slowing phones down, breaking laws, etc. and they avoid paying taxes in the country they should pay taxes in. Like what kinda example is that? I mean people have been telling apple users for years their phone is outdated before it's even launched and beaten by a samsung every single time and they still refused to believe it. That's a little different. It's just a cult mentality and the brand goes with it because people willingly go there. Apple also didn't want to switch to usbc because for once they had a proprietary cable that they don't have to steal from others and claim they invented it. Even if it was worse in performance. Just because they switched doesn't mean they're not working on another proprietary lightning upgrade in the background, I bet someone is working on that right now. If they managed to improve on usbc, they'll work their ass to make lighting or whatever they're gonna call the next one better at leas for a short while, while taking info from the usbc.

    It's not a bad point to mention that in general people/corpos will be afraid of change, it's true, but the important part here isn't if it can be done, it can, but at what cost, and is the cost worth it? It obviously wont be free, what are we taking out of, to make this happen?

25. She mentions "hopefully better value to consumers" at 18:30, this goes both ways, because value could mean a worse quality game that last longer in this case, but less money spent on two games, therefore better value. Not what I'd call better value.

26. at 18:40 she confirms again it's better do this from the start as it is expensive and harder to do it towards the end.

27. at 19 she mentions security again, admits the problem, proceeds to suggest to remove the features that would have made it playable with others. So an offline game it is.

    PS: All in all, I still think it would've been a better idea to instead ask engine creators to provide dedicated servers on build, rather than ask developers to do this. The signatures would've been less because users know even less about engine creators, but maybe if this passes, enough developers will push unity or unreal to have this as a default.

Good intentions, just a lot of lies/deceit and misinformation, some good points but doesn't stand up when they can't be honest about the reality of what would actually happen, lack of consideration for businesses and individuals all for the sake of nostalgia. I too bought a bunch of these games, but I find it unreasonable for them moving forward to have to do this by force, I want them to make good games and I appreciate the one that can support the games past end of life. Game quality severely decreased in recent years, prices are rising even indie games now think they're worth $40, I don't need more of this or movements to push them to make it worse.

She's probably fine if she's a web dev at a big corpo like she says, big money there so game is cheap for her even if it's $5000, I'd rather it not get there too soon, I also don't plan to make 1 game my only game, so I don't need them to last forever. It's cool if someone mods a sandbox and the publisher isn't mad about it.

a. Well that's the problem, no one knows what the initiative is about. Ross says one thing, initiative says one thing, youtubers that you can "trust" say one thing. Either way it's getting votes so it's going well I guess, maybe that was the intention. Get people from everywhere with every intention.

b. Nice do these specialized people post their creds online so we can see their gamer ranks and accounts?

c. The problem with mmos is it needs constant investment to survive. It can have a 5 million player base, if there's not something new constantly people get bored. You see this effect in PoE. People join a league that supposedly lasts 3 months(now longer) and they finish the league in 1 week and the player base goes from 150k users to 10k or less by the third month.

Private servers introduce "new" content in the sense of giving content hard to get normally on legit servers, content that was not yet released, random 3d models they download from a 3d site, etc. They charge for that content. Mod teams survive on this. Once they crack the game, they generally sell the private server to different hosters, who charge for these things unofficial things they'll do to the game. They generally charge less than what retail costs, and have different pay structures, such as pay 1 time hold the content, which some find appealing. It's still a private server and someone is still profiting off someone elses work without permission.

Wow classic returned to combat some of these private servers, it worked well until private servers now went into the direction of creating their own content. You see, before private servers of wow would generally stay true to the content, however since classic is doing the exact thing, now their strategy is to add random content or switch it up. Classic wow also introduces new content on top of vanilla so it's a little unfair to call it "classic" but I understand since you didn't play.

OSRS I don't understand why it's alive, the game is trash, although many will disagree with that, many in poorer countries because they farm materials to survive and it pays more to sell mats in osrs than to work a 9-5 job. I can respect that.

Nostalgia I'm guessing. Retrogaming stays available due to nostalgia. Rarely does anyone from the new generation care to go play super old dos games. This trend will only get worse with more and more games becoming available on the market. Think about us, we're probably from the 80's, 90's. How often to we still play those games?

As for why wow constantly succeeds, it's simple, you can't just make a new mmo nowadays and compete with wow. They all have the potential to beat wow, they don't understand the approach tho. However, wow is getting old, newer generations aren't into wow. So it's basically dying as a game not because it's getting defeated by other games, it's dying because it's too old for anyone to care about it. A playerbase of 10 000 who want to sign in once a year just to feel cool would not be enough to keep wow official alive. That's why even blizzard is working on a new mmo.

d. Ubisoft removing crew from libraries is shitty indeed, but that doesn't mean it would vanish. There's thousands of copies installed on devices that people haven't turned on in years, someone would archive it. There just wasn't an interest in it until it was getting shut down. I get your point here but the game shouldn't have had multiplayer in the first place, it should've been a single player game. Why they went that direction idk, so in that scenario I agree they should've provided a mode for it and it's shitty of them to not do so. At the same time, I don't think every game qualifies to have a standard mode, and I believe it would impact on quality to have to provide 2 game modes instead of 1.

f. Since it was sold physically(which I didn't know) , this counters it's files being lost. So it is just a matter of time until someone cracks it since it's abandonware. There just has to be interest.

However, it is clearly stated on the box that a permanent internet connection is required to play. I can't blame them for that as that's how they advertised the game. Why change the game after it was made? Why buy it if you don't agree to it's terms? Why buy it and then sue so you can change their company because you don't like how they operate? Were there just no other games? (pic is below)

g. My point with nightriderz is if you look up a server, that's the first one that shows up. If NFS World was still live it would've been the official one. The problem here is someone trying to play the game ,and maybe getting scammed, fished, having a bad experience, etc. through one of these bad servers. Of course you can look up, but as you say people go for what's popular, popular mmo, the popular server. Which can be a bad thing for the brand and for the game being shared with others(suppose a reviewer rates it on one of those servers), etc. and tarnishes the brand name.

h. No you wouldn't miss on those with their own engine, those who choose to code a game from scratch, aka making their own engine, should have to do it from scratch as well. Kind of like cars, you don't make cars without airbags, so, don't make engines without dedicated servers on build. Thats the easiest most realistic solution here.

i. A company should be able to close their project if it fails or after x time if they so choose without having to give it away. They should not sue for a similar idea, as copyright wouldn't allow them anyways, but they shouldn't have to give their game away, sell their game away, keep it open for 10 people, etc. TDU2 has 16 players. It sold 1.8 million copies. It shouldn't be forced into those options for 16 people.

j. "Just because he wanted the game out of own interest, noone made him share it. He did so voluntarily, he answers questions every day in the discord server, he is trying to reach 100 % original online functionality. He doesn't do it for profit, he has a job for that. Everyone is profitting of the time he has invested and still does. You only count server costs. You don't value your free time at all? Moreover, these are donations. They could end tomorrow. I doubt he had more patrons in the beginning. If he wouldn't have had to reverse engineer and work that much on it, people would donate less. At least I would have donated just once if at all."

Regardless it is still profit. All these legitimate companies we buy things from also have fail safe measures, licensing and publishing costs, legal costs, advertising costs, faq costs, localization costs, all kinds of costs someone with a private server will never even think about having. Yet we shit on these companies for charging money, but it's somewhat charitable if a modder hosts a private server of content he doesn't own? If that's not mega hypocritical, I don't know what it is.

k. "Sorry, but I don't get your generalisation regarding modders motivation (stealing and making profit). Maybe some turn to the dark side later on, but they all begin as former players."

Doesn't mean each modder is the same, but I don't treat modders who host online servers with "donations" and in game services for those donations the same as I treat a guy who's modding his skyrim/gta. I've hosted a deathmatch server myself at some point for almost a year day and night without ever asking for donations. I've even made them for free for a few people at no cost. Granted I was a kid at the time, and it was for CS so it wasn't exactly rocket science(or it was for some), but still, if the guy loved TDU2 so much, he could share the server and make it open source right? Or he doesn't want anyone else to have fun with it? The NFS World modders could make the servers public.

View attached image.