Yea this always struck me as the most intresting thing pirate softwre said, ive watched over an hour worth of him talking about the issue between his videos and streams. It seems like he genuinely hates ross's character, like ross embodies something he hates in gamers. I think his stupid asmongould comment is more so a reflection of that. He also mentioned he would happily talk to Louis rossman, which is more reasonable but still nowhere near as effective as talking to ross.
My observation has been that PS was ignorant to some of the info around the initiative (for example, that EU initiatives are generally meant to be vague with some of the details), got called out on it, and doubled down. The more he refused to admit being wrong in any aspect (citing his experience and talking down to those who disagreed with him), the more negative attention he received. I could see that culminating in a lot of negativity toward Ross, seeing as the people arguing against him have put Ross on a pedestal. It's always possible something happened behind the scenes of course, but from the outside looking in it doesn't come across well.
I didn't see the PS original stream on the initiative (apparently he took it down), but a couple commenters have mentioned that he said something like that. Not sure if that's true or not, but to think he could brush Ross aside for something like that is odd. Both Asmon and Louis Rossman (to my understanding) are more radical on the topic, and Asmon certainly isn't more informed than Ross. I don't know what other justification you could use to say he has a "much better take" outside of being closer to your own position or more informed. So yeah, maybe it is just channel size.
@@dead3y3_YTgenuinely, this shocks me.. I guess the main issue with Thor is that he took Ross's announcement as some sort of disingenuous campaign.. Or maybe he's just too prideful and want's to die on this hill Or.. since he is a developer.. and knows FOMO makes money.. he has no choice but to object
i tried to reply with a blow-by-blow of Pirate Games' absolutely bad takes but it's pretty clear to me that he either doesn't understand the initiative or is purposely obfuscating it. Take your pick.
So far, his main argument is backed mainly by his experience/reputation. The same qualities he dismisses in Ross, the same qualities in many of those who support the initiative. Only I've heard specific examples to substantiate Ross's argument (that this isn't too much to ask of Dev's) and haven't heard the same from PS's side. I took a look at "A video essay about media preservation", really well put together! Not sure if you're planning on more video essay style content, but I'll keep an eye on the channel :)
@@dead3y3_YT Ross does have the support of A LOT of game developers as well as lawyers, this is the experience of ONE ex-Blizzard developer now publisher who WANTS the industry to be anti-consumer against someone who is backed by a lot of game developers who know what they are doing and know offer ANY kind of support for a game to still run once the support ends is possible and not even that difficult. The Pirate is a malicious actor who wants anti-consumer practices to prevail because he is a publisher, he doesn't care about videogames beyond them making him money.
@@dead3y3_YT The thing is, even if this becomes a complete nightmare for Devs then so be it. Getting screwed over by corporations is not something we should accept even on small things like hobbies.
An important thing to highlight is that disingenuous doesn't mean "thing I don't like". It means insincere. There is absolutely nothing insincere about Ross or what he's trying to do. He's trying to preserve art for future generations. His view on politicians is cynical or perhaps naive, and that's true. But so is a lot of people's view of politicians and legislation. People on average don't have a lot of faith in legislative institutions. So Thor zeroing in on that and building his whole stance around that one particular piece is very odd. What is disingenuous is Thor acting like he's well informed on the conversation and acting like an authority on the matter. When it's very clear that he does not have a good grasp on the Initiative or who Ross is or what he's trying to do. It seems to me Thor already had an opinion on this locked and ready to go and fired it off when he got the chance to. No amount of debate or discussion will change his mind. And more than likely he's just going to dig his heels in even deeper if his community doesn't drop it. Thor seems like the type of person who is very entrenched in his opinions and people like that just aren't worth talking to. You can listen to them, hear them out, but as for engaging with them or trying to change their mind? Forget it lol
Thank god, first sentence and you already understand lol I focused more on this point in part because someone from Kiwi Farms was dead set on convincing me PS was dishonest in places and therefore shouldn't be listened to/is bad/evil. Message boards where people obsess that way and assume guilt until they can find enough to back up their anger are dangerous, but that's less my point. Moreso, when I say the slide is "disingenuous" or "dishonest framing" people seem to think agreeing means their guy is evil/bad. There's a sort of moral absolutism online that says any criticism of Ross's approach has to be countered with "firstly he did nothing wrong/bad, secondly he gave up everything and is a martyr, thirdly who's side are you on??". A reversal with PS has been "firstly he's corrupt/bias, secondly he's a furry who has a ferret (etc etc), thirdly he has barely any dev experience and also all devs secretly hate consumers anyway". That all being said, I don't care for Thor's approach to this. "isn't worth talking to" feels strong, but I'd accept that it would be unproductive until he's willing to both talk and listen.
I will point out that this instance is far from the only time Thor has shown how big of a hypocrite he is. He continues to misrepresent the initiative and its goals, he continues to build strawman arguments that are completely irrelevant to the conversation. He refuses to acknowledge what the initiative wants, even when it is specifically answered in the FAQ, he refuses to talk to Ross for clarification and a discussion. But the most damning piece of evidence to me was his second video, where he not only does all of these things again, he even outright contradicts his own arguments. I don't remember the exact phrasing but essentially he says that other people do not get to decide what games he wants to play. That is his decision to make. Barely two minutes later he says that playing a multiplayer game without other people/with a small player count does not make sense. He says that these games are social games, and that playing them without this part is worthless. He is essentially stating that this is the only reason to play these games, and that you are wrong for wanting to play them differently. You want to go back to a game from your childhood, even though it will only have bots instead of real people, to go on a small nostalgia trip? You are wrong, you don't want that. Do you want to go back to an MMO to just walk around, listen to the soundtrack, maybe do some quests solo? You are wrong, you don't want that. This has shown me that he has absolutely zero interest in engaging with the initiative in an honest way. He is only out to hurt the initiative as much as he can. Let us not forget that he is directly invested in the success of the live service game market, with his involvement in the Offbrand publishing studio. Now, I do not know to which extent this factors into his response. Maybe it doesn't at all and he genuinely in his core believes that the initiative is wrong. But if that is the case, that still does not excuse his behavior towards Ross, and his continuous manipulation of his audience by using strawmen and his online image of a godly game developer to put himself on a pedestal of authority.
I really like this comment, well thought out and pointing to pretty specific issues in his approach. Despite clearly having strong views on it, you say: "I do not know to which extent this" (Offbrand) "factors into his response. Maybe it doesn't at all and he genuinely in his core believes that the initiative is wrong." Just one of those things that isn't easy when you disagree with someone who extending the same charitability. Because of his approach, I'm pushing back less than I might be on the mind readers in the comment section. Still best not to engage in it, and I appreciate that :D
@@dead3y3_YT I'll note for the sake of transparency that personally I do think that Thor is against the initiative for these reasons. His history with Blizzard, his current investment in the live service market. His stance is just too extreme and too out of the left field. He is pushing too hard with too many dishonest tactics for me to believe him when he says he only dislikes it for the vagueness, or due to one slide in a presentation from Ross (especially when he is demonstrably not above the idea of being dishonest and manipulative to get people on his side). That said, it is just my opinion. I believe that people should be aware of these facts, especially when Thor presents himself as a lonely indie dev without a bias. However, like you said with the mind reading, we cannot truly know. What we do know (or at least what I hope I provided enough objective evidence for) is that the way he is approaching the situation is not right, especially with the size of his channel. It is one thing to disagree and provide well thought out reasons for why you disagree, it is an entirely different thing to be dishonest and refuse to discuss with the person you are opposing. When the vast majority of the top comments are telling you that you messed up, that you didn't understand the topic (a fact he did not mention in his second video, actually the first thing he said was how many positive responses he received, knowing full well it was his most disliked video by a long shot), the right thing to do is to educate yourself so that you are not spreading misinformation. You do not say "You are wrong because I know better than you, now I will never talk to you again".
"Do you want to go back to an MMO to just walk around, listen to the soundtrack, maybe do some quests solo? You are wrong, you don't want that." I think this is possibly the funniest possible line on this, because look at Runescape, especially Old School...and Ironman mode, which is actually amazingly popular and a rather beloved feature. Which essentially is you actively choosing to walk around, listen to the soundtrack, and play this MMORPG as though it was a solo experience because you have hard locked yourself out of any meaningful mechanical interactions with anyone else playing the game. You have to solo everything in Ironman. And people love it. Just playing the game they want to play, in their own way.
Here's the summary: Thor: "You don't get to define what players get to play or not play" Also Thor: "dead game there's only 5 people online, why would I play that?" Also Thor: "so why would you want to preserve a game in that state? It doesn't make any sense to me" ... Also Thor: "you should not have control over what is in my steam library", well isn't that rich coming from you? :D
@@dead3y3_YT What frustrates me the most is how Thor pointed out he is carrying voices that are not allowed to be heard (devs can't just voice out every concern or frustration online because of NDAs). Dude... *exactly!* You could've highlighted those concerns in a talk with Ross so he gets where you and other devs may be coming from, while also getting a better picture of what Ross is getting at with this initiative. It would've been an amazing opportunity for everyone involved to learn something. Or you could.. you know... delete his comment and make an unnecessarily negative take because of one slide. Over a concept at that, not something that was actually fleshed out. Yeah, sure, that works too.
@@ESFAndy011 It is a frustratingly bad approach from PS. Without this point/points like it ("not worth talking to"), I'd probably be saying "hey I disagree with him too, but that's wild" to more comments. There are always going to be people who are right for the wrong reasons (disagree with someone because they don't like them, not because of their arguments). I don't want to encourage that; I think it's a dangerous approach to understanding the world. It leads to being wrong for the wrong reasons and being unwilling to listen. I noticed this heavily when I would criticize any aspect of Ross. Ross can't have been dishonest, that would be evil and then things would get complicated because evil people (like PS) do evil things. And PS is evil because... of anything I can say to convince you. Just agree on one thing, and then we can write off anything he says. It's harder to defend PS when he writes Ross off in a similarly lazy way. I don't support him doing it, I don't support commenters doing it. He leveled that playing field by engaging in it, though there are lines he hasn't crossed and ideally wouldn't cross. Not an "all bets are off" situation, but point 7 to me is bad enough to harm my view of him.
It hurts my soul hearing someone with a big audience call Ross unreasonable or disingenuous when I know for a fact Ross is one of the most patient, curious and level headed people on UA-cam.
PirateSoftware has own agenda. That's as simple as it goes. He will push back anything that goes against "creating garbage bugged games and grab money ripping customers". It's pretty clear that he as a developer doesn't want consumers to have rights
I totally see where you're coming from, but most developers probably wouldn't agree with him. Maybe that is why he's doing it (though the hit to his reputation can't be worth it, but maybe he wasn't expecting this to be an issue), just not sure I'd lump his position in with the general dev position. Maybe at his size in the industry though?
You think THATS bad, his server has been weird as of late. Even though I disagree 100%, alot of people come in acting like it is an open debate. It has been sore spot for Thor for like, 2 weeks now. I cant say if there is any direct action like someone being kicked, but it is weird to say the least. I will say, even though I keep it to myself, I think some people have only bolstered his stubbornness, namely his friends and loyal fans. To the person who made it seem like it is he either doesnt get it or being purposefully misinforming is 100% right. It has to be the latter. His friends like Theo and Prime are perfect case studies. And Theo has his own dumb video on it. So, one side of this is really, really stubborn and socially ingrouped, The other side is a broad amalgamation of developers, consumers, gamers and politically minded folk. I for one am excited to be in the latter, but I feel like I was still cheated on. Out of all the pro-consumer takes Thor has had, somehow this is the broken one. I dont think it is a bad thing to call out culture bias when I see it. Maybe it is because I was into politics before development, but who knows. It is 100% the culture of “You will not own anything for your convenience and my inconvenience; and you will be happy”.
Sounds like an echo chamber, that happens with things like this really easily. UA-camrs complain about not getting views and their fans very quickly jump to "you must be shadowbanned, I hate the algorithm, this isn't fair". Not agreeing means you must hate the guy I like, so why listen to you anyway. Honestly though... I would try your best not to hold that pattern against people. It might explain thor's behavior, that's frustrating. I more mean not to hold that community's existence against Thor, that's just what large segments of the internet do. I've seen the same thing happen any time I talk about Ross's slide. It exists on both sides, and if the tables were turned (if Ross seriously messed up somehow) he'd have the same sort of people around him most likely. I'd think of the "broad amalgamation of developers, consumers, gamers and politically minded folk" as a thinking group that might shift either way with the right arguments and evidence. Underneath this group on any topic or side exist the people you're seeing.
@@dead3y3_YT I wanted to reply to this because in hindsight being 20/20, I think some of my post is very 'human' in the sense it uses a bit of emotionally loaded language, so I am going to restate my thesis and reaffirm yours. So it is natural in a sense that when talking about ingroups/outgroups that we have a tendecy to use our bias and experience as a sort 'probability detector' In a sense, it is like when you are writing a program and you are matching for patterns of behavoir against people and choosing the one that 'makes the most sense to you'. To be clear, it is bad. There is no perfect 1 to 1 map of how someone can be critiqued and their personal beliefs. I actually have a pet peeve against arguments of the tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) kind because of simply how useless it is. Hypocrisy is bad, sure, but it is like also kind of natural. I guess most people have a few things they are 'hypocritical about'. I suppose my specific thesis is: I don't not think that Thor hangs out with developers and speaks for all of 'us'. Nor those adjacent to him, like Prime and Theo. That said, I also think it is kind of 'hasty' to paint Thor as a plant or some sort of conspiracy. That is too much and frankly kind of conspiratorial. Thor had one bad take, maybe or maybe not because of ingroup or inperson biases, and I am still subbed on his channels. I am in his server and I just dont think I will forget. I am sure in some ways, time will prove it to be that I do not hate Thor. I know people have started too because of...this. But I Was disappointed. Also, as a game developer and a gamer, we are allowed one bad anti-consumerism take per yer. I do not make the rules, I just follow them, Space Cowboy. Case in point, Asmon and the recent Dragons Dogma problem. Was his take bad? Absolutely (and I Do not watch/like him, so it is relevant). Buuut at the same time, it is socially normalized to be go "but wait how is a review copy that is free taint a games perception?" and to that, I just cite how Suzy, aka the Sphere Hunter was really dragged alongside others. And yeah, that is a topic we can also discuss. Should developers send review copies with ANY binding terms? But not the point of course, but it is related. TLDR: I want Thor to do better, and I think I will feel better and think better myself when we as an games industry actually think and theorize about what we can do. And how we can do better in all realms from the development stage all the way to review. Oh and otherwise, Capcom did nothing wrong(I know, I was shocked too)
He's debuting a game that will be an online only live service game he's co-founder of called Rivals 2 under a new company called Offbrand. Not ONCE did he mention this, and I only just recently stumbled upon this being a thing. Take that as you will.
I have no idea where you are getting that Rivals 2 is online only, it's specifically a sequel to a game (Rivals of Aether) and will be played regularly offline at tournaments
@@YukiKazami He said himself in a recent stream, I remember it was around five hours in. I wasn't the only person who saw this, others have been trying to grab a VOD of this. And...that's irrelevant if it's played at tournaments offline. As a dev he could just program a version specifically for that, and then still something else to the general public...the very sort of unethical shit this proposal seeks to vanquish.
@@steviewolfeofficial No, he's not a developer on Rivals 2, I think he's just publishing. It's being created by the exact same people as Rivals 1, and it's not a magical secondary build that's only gonna be used for events, it's a platform fighter with a local client. I don't really know much about pirate but I know Rivals very well. My point is just to leave Rivals out of this lol, it's already been kickstarted a long time ago and been in development way before it had anything to do with Pirate
The only thing disingenuous here is Thor overblowing their "20 years in the Industry" His experience was playtesting the same parts of a game over and over in different ways to find bugs and file bug reports, and down the line, was part of a team that wrote a anticheat. Its crazy to me they pull the "20 years in blizzard" card left and right when that means literally nothing, that company permanently warped his brain with the takes he has.
Don't forget the "i'm an idie dev for 8 years". Undertale-esuq game is in EA for 6 years. It's in development for almost the same time as Kenshi. In my eye he's not a game dev. He's a streamer with coding hobby.
He also totally got that job because his dad is an old-schooler from back in the 90s. Which is saying something, I don't think you NEED to be nepotized to get the QA job, you just have to live in Anaheim. It means he probably had aspirations of getting in on the development side of Blizz for his entire career and even his family name wasn't enough to move him that far up.
I think it's weird that thor, who only did qa testing and then some major stuff for their security of wow, automatically makes him know about how every dev works? It just feels like a wide sweeping "i know better than you" statement with nothing to back it up.
I am increasingly moving to the camp that devs themselves are part of the issue not just their management. So to me seeing a beligerant developer with the absolute piss take that its "easy" to pass consumer oriented legistlation- I mean theres no correcting that. the busted status quo of gaming is a prerequistite for that man being paid, hes never gonna get along. Talking to him might make interesting content for a youtube video or podcast, but if I was put in charge of a charity and tasked with most effectively using somebody elses money for this goal, I would absolutely NOT waste that money or my time on this conversation.
That's the funny thing, PirateSoftware is both the main person pushing against the initiative and is refusing to talk to Ross (the person running/pushing the initiative). Ross has a really well put together FAQ video on the initiative and has done a good job pushing it. The one thing I wasn't a fan of was the idea that politicians would see it as an easy win. I understand that sort of marketing is for people who think "why bother", but it does feel dishonest. Luckily it isn't an argument for why you should support the bill, just why it might pass. So a pretty minor marketing complaint, and PS is blowing it out of proportion. At this point I don't think Ross has any reason to argue with PS about it. It would only be worth getting into if PS did find a way to substantiate his issues with the initiative. Since he hasn't, the focus should be on getting signatures.
The idea it was easy was Ross's position. That slide at 1:40. It's Ross's. Think how you want to think, but you should know what side is making what points.
I'll tell you what the real problem is: Ross has a dry, anti stablishment humor and takes which align more with materialism, and Thor is a deep-rooted liberal. They have a fundamentally different ideology, and it's funny that the only one rubbed wrong by this is Thor who just so happened to omit in both his videos he has conflict of interest, go figure. "Disingenuous" my ass, he is projecting hard.
That guy piratesoftware seems sus. He is the one with a conflict of interest. He tries to put the initiative in a bad light using lies and half-truths. It's ironic that he actually accuses Ross of sensationalism. But not wanting to talk to Ross makes this most sus indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if he got some kind of financial interest in this, maybe a few industry buddies that give him some kickbacks for lending his platform. If he really just dislikes Ross that much, just talk to Luis Rossman, he seems to get what is at stake because he's been dealing with a similar issue regarding buying old iPhone parts.
The initiative is not trying to stop companies from pulling service from any games. You cannot ask a company to perpetually run a service forever. What the initiative is fighting against is companies leaving games sold as goods in an unplayable state, without means of repair even if they had the technical expertise. They game publishers can do whatever they want with the game while they're running it and end service whenever they want, but it's their responsibility as sellers of goods to leave the possessions of their customers in a functional state. You should really change the wording in your description, as one of the most common misconceptions and strawman arguments against the initiative is the idea that it's asking companies to maintain service for all games they put out forever, which is absolutely asinine.
Right, I wrote the description without as much focus because I generally don't pay much attention to descriptions but you're right. I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression there, I'll adjust it :)
It seems like no one making these videos has actually watched rosses multiple videos on this. I get that its like 3+ hours of video at minimum but the fact that i keep hearing people say he said it will be easy shows none of you actually watched his videos in their entirety and are reacting for clout
"Politicians would see it as an easy win" is (I believe) the initial argument from Ross on that slide. Ross has been openly pessimistic about the likelihood of it passing in the past, but put on a more positive/optimistic face to encourage those (like him) who are pessimistic to give it a go anyway. This is called "dishonest framing", though you could argue using the word "could" is enough to say he wasn't explicitly dishonest. I would argue the way it was presented was meant to show that Politicians would see it as an easy win, and "could" is more because that might not be enough for it to pass. While I think framing something as likely that you believe is unlikely is dishonest, the argument isn't related to why the bill would be good. Only why it could pass. So it fits cleanly into being "marketing", and is a pretty minor issue that PS is blowing out of proportion.
Also... you think I'd have to watch 3+ hours to have seen the relevant portion of "Europeans can save gaming!" and criticize the way it's framed there? Really? You don't think I could literally watch the first 5 minutes and take issue with the way it's framed? While it would be unreasonable to form a strong opinion without more than just that, taking an issue with the way that slide is presented does not require all that much context. Even without knowing at first that Ross was pessimistic and was presenting as optimistic, I found the argument odd. Saying Politicians don't care about video games (like the issue would be inconsequential) as if EU Politicians didn't just cave to microsoft in the merger w/ activision. Knowing that Ross was presenting points as if they were strong when he had little faith in them makes it pretty open-shut. I reiterate that I don't take much issue with it.
@dead3y3_YT presenting someone as misleading and disingenuous for not fully presenting the full scope then making a video without actually doing due diligence to see if he hasn't made his stance and campaign clear is in fact disingenuous yes. Being pedantic about his potential optimism implying is disingenuous is a reach dude.
Please try to follow my argument instead of what you're doing. I am not arguing that Ross's position is disingenuous or dishonest. I am arguing that his presentation/slide in that specific video was disingenuous. I didn't at any point imply or encourage the idea that it is his stance. In fact, I argued that his actual stance is contrary to the arguments he made when presenting the slide. I recognize his stance is not the one he implied in "Europeans can save gaming!", though perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you.
I'm on Ross's side on the issue, but being unable to see flaws in your own side is not a strength. I know his position, I agree with it, that's why I criticize the way he originally presented it. Ross's FAQ was the far stronger breakdown on the issue for me, I've explained why the way Ross presented the slide in "Europeans can save gaming!" felt off to me. I can understand if you've made up your mind and don't care to listen, I'm doubtful but hopeful for a different outcome in your next response. A sentiment I'm sure Ross would understand very well.
If it isn't section 1201 of the DMCA that harms the rights of consumers its definitely forced arbitration that a lot of these companies get away with. Me personally I think it would be best to do away with DRM as a whole. I think its also funny that pirates are the ones being "entitled" when Warez groups have been getting the short end of the stick seeing as the FBI raids them because no business can circumvent technological measures even as a service so why not file share on top of already committing an unlawful act? But piracy is a service problem right thor?
Thanks! I'm glad it was intelligible honestly lol, this came at the end of hearing out each side and then returning to PS's post. When I first read the post it bothered me, but after watching the FAQ I found it way more frustrating.
@@dead3y3_YT I am neither a developer or campaigner and I think what Ross is doing is admirable. I can't help but think Thor being a dev us clouding his judgement. Maybe just maybe game developing should be slight harder with an eol plan like Ross said.
there is 1 thing about piratesoftwares takes I agree with, and its that we should be taking things much slower and more precise, were talking about a bunch of old people in government that don't understand gaming at all, so we need to make sure we are crystal 100% clear about our messaging, for example the initiative does talk about games that rely on servers, but it doesn't lay out what a server is, for most people that don't understand tech and gaming to them a server is hardware, not what it really is which is a piece of software, so to the old people in government it may seem like were asking companies to literally give us their server farms we need to remember the people were talking to, we know what a server is, they don't, we need to be crystal clear, currently the initiative relies to much on people having prior knowledge that people in government unfortunately time and time again have ben shown to lack
Thing is, the initiative doesn't require immediate action and whatnot - it's goal is to actually make EU govt notice it and start the discussion about what can be done and how it should be done. It's not the final law and was never intended to be one. Also the initiative form has a word limit, so...good luck fitting all the terminology into it. Ross made a 40 minute QnA video going over majority if not all questions and concerns regarding the initiative a week-ish ago, which I recommend watching in full(something thor probably either didn't do or purposefully chooses to not respond to publicly)
Seconding possiblynocturnal's suggestion to watch Ross's FAQ, it explains his response to this very well. Particularly by comparing this initiative against other initiatives. They have a word limit and don't get into specifics within the written document for a reason.
@@mss664 again - good luck fitting all the technical terms in the allocated word limit Besides, the amount of signatures is what matters the most. This doesn't mean the initiative will flop if it doesn't reach 1mil signatures, as Ross said in his faq video(which, again, I strongly recommended watching and engaging with), but higher amount of signatures does increase the likelyhood of it being noticed. Technical definitions, proposed changes etc will come after that, but I'm just repeating myself at this point
@@mss664another thing that is missing The initiative is not being put in front of the EU with zero context, it is being presented by two of the people who are behind the initiative (not Ross since he's not part of the EU). I highly doubt they will refuse to give any elaboration or context required
actually giving value to asmon instead of ross...whats this, we know who asmon is since the ages, chill nerdy cave kiddo in his room and all now grown up like the rest and now because nerds give attention to his channel and products, we value his opinion bcuz he said good things about thor and bcuz he likes you? yea agreed on you are wrong about the i dont wanna talk to ross, plus being in the industry means shit, so? and? why we need to hear everytime your accomplishments as idk, should it mean or ring a bell? does that give you more value than me or everybody else on the matter? consumers want to be protected and its absolutely reasonable and if YOU dont wanna hear or talk about it, guess what, the masses will swarm you
I think his point that Ross would likely not engage in the conversation in a measured way is kind of valid. As far as I have seen Louis Rossman is pretty much always measured when he discusses something, and Asmon seems like he would be less biased than Ross. It seems like Ross has an "answer" for every question/concern, and he may be 100% right about them all I don't know personally. But it seems like he's very sure that every possible criticism or concern has a very easy answer. He also seems pretty hyperbolic with the whole "this is the last chance for something like this, nobody else would every try to fix it", and "there's no other alternate solutions, and if you are against this solution and don't have one of your own, you're against all solutions and don't want to solve the problem". I get he's passionate about it and you have to be, and he's really taking action and that's commendable. And Idk how much experience he has with either laws/regulations or the game development industry/developer experience, he may have a ton I just don't know. But I know Louis is very experienced and knowledgeable with regulation and consumer rights, and pirate software is obviously very experienced with the game dev side of things.
Ross's position is that this is an issue that has become industry norm and has gained entrenchment. He's called for people to tackle the issue before and he's sought people willing to take it on. No one has stepped up. He is more than willing to listen to others and take their points but he isn't comfortable with the practise having more time to breathe and make itself at home. People calling him unqualified for this position are correct, but those comments are unhelpful if there is no suggestion of an amendment or alternative. The messaging of "this is the last chance" is hyperbolic, but as he sees it, if he change can't be brought around while there is a large amount of people who recall a time where games being tethered to online servers was not even a concept, let alone one to be worried about or affected by, then change is never going to be brought about as now is the best shot people have. The practise only entrenches itself further and people acclimatise and don't question it more over time.
I mean.... for gaming theres just 4 big regions. EU US Asia China ( yes i know china is also asia, but lets face it. They often already have very specific gaming rules and often get their own versions of games because shit needs to go through censoring first and many things work very different, but china alone has a big enough market that its worth it for many companys) So who would you trust to fix it most? Asian market is very different from Western Market. China as i said before has very unique and often weird rules as well with games already needing to be altered. That leaves EU and US Now i get that EU also has many problems and not everything is smart.... But i would rather trust em over a government that cant even care about its folk that barely has any rights and gives more rights to company's. Like sick days counting as days off.... No minimum paid days off. No work contracts needed and at will employment where you could be fired every single day just for luls. Or the fact that the us cant even do healthcare right. Where one Illness can crush a middle class family into poverty and this being the reason why over 60% of Kickstarter/GoFundMe and so on are people begging for money because they have illnesses and are running out money. You would trust that government at some point to deal with company's not killing games? The EU on the other hand is more often than not very consumer and civilian friendly. This is a chance to force EU Politicians to finally look at this and make some choices. And yeah, this is just a petition too finally look at this topic and get some rulings in. Chances are if this petition passes and the EU will look at it. They will ask gamers, they will ask company's. Law draft will be written, it will be checked by many peops, it will be discussed. Draft will most likely be re-written a few times. And chances are it will take years before a law about this would even pass. Maybe 2030 a law would happen. And then again. All games that were made/existed before that date would not even be affected. Because EU laws are never made retroactive. Same reason why its still very much legal to drive an old timer car on public roads that has no seat belts or any other safety features. Recently a law passed in EU that all newly build cars need to be build with a blackbox inside. That records how you drive , when you accelerate/break and so on. Cars that were build before that law goes into motion don't have to care about it at all. No one needs to rush and get a blackbox installed now in their 2010 BMW or 2015 VW.
So yeah, long story short. While this is def not the final chance. It might be a solution that could be done soon, and who knows in how many years the next chance comes....
I've mulled this over a good amount because I took issue with it at first too. While in general I don't like the approach, in this specific case it might be a bit relevant. If this fails and the "just market it more clearly" idea happens, it could be normalized to a point of no return. You need enough people to passionately agree and put pressure on politicians for it to pass. That being said, I can't bring myself to fully support that marketing choice. I can support the bill, just not that specific part of how it's marketed. Reinforcing this feeling is the "when they try again in future and fail, you'll think to yourself" narrative. The amount of work you'd have to do to convince people to try again if this fails is only raised when you validate the feeling that it would be pointless. My understanding is that Ross has pushed for this for a long time, so it opens a really easy "why bother" attack on the campaign even as it stands. Ideally that doesn't happen, and support stays strong long enough to make a change. Ross has talked about being imperfect and seeing some of the errors in his approach. That he reached out to others, no one took up the mantle, and he's doing the best he can. I think that justifies some wiggle room on marketing disagreements, but it's fair to point them out.
You're the best kind of correct about this not being the last chance and yet Ross who has stated in the past that he'd prefer not being the one pushing for this couldn't find anyone willing to bear the torch in his stead. How likely is it that someone will do this in a future where the previous attempt already failed if no one is willing to do it now?
I disagree. Thor is writing someone off based on believing they were disingenous in one slide, I'm not writing off Thor. I'm criticizing the act of writing off the opposition (especially based on something small) and the disrespectful way in which he does it. I wouldn't like it if Ross boycotted Piratesoftware the way PS is boycotting Ross. Despite what he said in the paragraph about Asmongold having a better take than Ross (which is insane), I still wouldn't like it if Ross invalidated PS's opinions in the same way PS invalidated Ross's.
@@dead3y3_YT As you can have your opinion on Thors actions, same Thor can have opinion on Ross actions. It dosen't change the fact that you selected specific sentences of Thors reaction, just to validate your opinion. What is called knitpicking. Just to be clear. I'am not saying Thors behaviour is appropriate. Just that you try to invalidate his opinion based of his willingness to talk with Ross.
I need to be clearer because you aren't following. I do not have a problem with nitpicking. I do not have a problem with criticizing or taking issue with the initiative. I do not have a problem with him not liking ross. I do not have any of those problems. These are things you think I take issue with, I do not. I actually appreciate that there is someone pushing against the initiative because it helps flesh out the issue. I like that PirateSoftware's actions have led to a broader understanding of the issue as people on both sides look closer (they nitpick). I like that PirateSoftware is nitpicking, nitpicking is good. I do not like Piratesoftware comparing Ross to Asmongold and saying he has a better take. The reason for this is that Asmon is both further from PirateSoftware than Ross and is less informed on this issue/topic. While I disagree with position on the severity of Ross's slide, that's fair enough (as I stated in the vid). What isn't fair is refusing to communicate with your main opposition on the topic assuming you care about it (which he claims to). What's even less reasonable is saying Asmon has a better take. I already explained why this is ridiculous. It was either done because A) he doesn't like Ross, so immiturity (again assuming he cares about the issue), B) Ross is more formidable: I've heard this argument before in comments, I doubt this because I think Louis Rossman would do a fine job. Maybe there is a third option? You're welcome to suggest it, but me taking issue with the breakdown of communication from PS's side is not the same kind of criticism he employs. It could be "Nitpicking", but focusing on the specifics of an issue rather than just the big picture is good.
If that was also unclear somehow: I'm not trying to invalidate his opinion on the initiative with this argument. I never claimed to, I've been more charitable with PS's position than the people you may be used to. Being frustrated with his behavior and specifying exactly why is unrelated to whether or not his opinions are valid. What is this focus on nitpicking as if that's a bad thing? Focusing on specifics is good when talking about a real issue lol
@@clarctosorion Knitpicking implies you're focusing on irrelevant parts to the conversation. That is.. not what's happening here lol. He very clearly outlined exactly what Thor said and responded to it. That's not kitpicking, that's being specific. There is a difference.
Yea this always struck me as the most intresting thing pirate softwre said, ive watched over an hour worth of him talking about the issue between his videos and streams. It seems like he genuinely hates ross's character, like ross embodies something he hates in gamers. I think his stupid asmongould comment is more so a reflection of that.
He also mentioned he would happily talk to Louis rossman, which is more reasonable but still nowhere near as effective as talking to ross.
My observation has been that PS was ignorant to some of the info around the initiative (for example, that EU initiatives are generally meant to be vague with some of the details), got called out on it, and doubled down. The more he refused to admit being wrong in any aspect (citing his experience and talking down to those who disagreed with him), the more negative attention he received. I could see that culminating in a lot of negativity toward Ross, seeing as the people arguing against him have put Ross on a pedestal.
It's always possible something happened behind the scenes of course, but from the outside looking in it doesn't come across well.
@@dead3y3_YT that's the good faith conclusion but I was pushed off that after watching the stream comments.
this sounds more like Pirate software saying "Ross doesnt have enough clout for me to care about him"
I didn't see the PS original stream on the initiative (apparently he took it down), but a couple commenters have mentioned that he said something like that. Not sure if that's true or not, but to think he could brush Ross aside for something like that is odd.
Both Asmon and Louis Rossman (to my understanding) are more radical on the topic, and Asmon certainly isn't more informed than Ross. I don't know what other justification you could use to say he has a "much better take" outside of being closer to your own position or more informed. So yeah, maybe it is just channel size.
@@dead3y3_YTgenuinely, this shocks me.. I guess the main issue with Thor is that he took Ross's announcement as some sort of disingenuous campaign..
Or maybe he's just too prideful and want's to die on this hill
Or.. since he is a developer.. and knows FOMO makes money.. he has no choice but to object
i tried to reply with a blow-by-blow of Pirate Games' absolutely bad takes but it's pretty clear to me that he either doesn't understand the initiative or is purposely obfuscating it. Take your pick.
He has a financial interest in not understanding.
@@ShadowRulah exactly
So far, his main argument is backed mainly by his experience/reputation. The same qualities he dismisses in Ross, the same qualities in many of those who support the initiative. Only I've heard specific examples to substantiate Ross's argument (that this isn't too much to ask of Dev's) and haven't heard the same from PS's side.
I took a look at "A video essay about media preservation", really well put together! Not sure if you're planning on more video essay style content, but I'll keep an eye on the channel :)
@@dead3y3_YT Ross does have the support of A LOT of game developers as well as lawyers, this is the experience of ONE ex-Blizzard developer now publisher who WANTS the industry to be anti-consumer against someone who is backed by a lot of game developers who know what they are doing and know offer ANY kind of support for a game to still run once the support ends is possible and not even that difficult.
The Pirate is a malicious actor who wants anti-consumer practices to prevail because he is a publisher, he doesn't care about videogames beyond them making him money.
@@dead3y3_YT The thing is, even if this becomes a complete nightmare for Devs then so be it. Getting screwed over by corporations is not something we should accept even on small things like hobbies.
An important thing to highlight is that disingenuous doesn't mean "thing I don't like". It means insincere. There is absolutely nothing insincere about Ross or what he's trying to do. He's trying to preserve art for future generations. His view on politicians is cynical or perhaps naive, and that's true. But so is a lot of people's view of politicians and legislation. People on average don't have a lot of faith in legislative institutions. So Thor zeroing in on that and building his whole stance around that one particular piece is very odd.
What is disingenuous is Thor acting like he's well informed on the conversation and acting like an authority on the matter. When it's very clear that he does not have a good grasp on the Initiative or who Ross is or what he's trying to do. It seems to me Thor already had an opinion on this locked and ready to go and fired it off when he got the chance to. No amount of debate or discussion will change his mind. And more than likely he's just going to dig his heels in even deeper if his community doesn't drop it.
Thor seems like the type of person who is very entrenched in his opinions and people like that just aren't worth talking to. You can listen to them, hear them out, but as for engaging with them or trying to change their mind? Forget it lol
Thank god, first sentence and you already understand lol
I focused more on this point in part because someone from Kiwi Farms was dead set on convincing me PS was dishonest in places and therefore shouldn't be listened to/is bad/evil. Message boards where people obsess that way and assume guilt until they can find enough to back up their anger are dangerous, but that's less my point. Moreso, when I say the slide is "disingenuous" or "dishonest framing" people seem to think agreeing means their guy is evil/bad. There's a sort of moral absolutism online that says any criticism of Ross's approach has to be countered with "firstly he did nothing wrong/bad, secondly he gave up everything and is a martyr, thirdly who's side are you on??". A reversal with PS has been "firstly he's corrupt/bias, secondly he's a furry who has a ferret (etc etc), thirdly he has barely any dev experience and also all devs secretly hate consumers anyway".
That all being said, I don't care for Thor's approach to this. "isn't worth talking to" feels strong, but I'd accept that it would be unproductive until he's willing to both talk and listen.
I will point out that this instance is far from the only time Thor has shown how big of a hypocrite he is. He continues to misrepresent the initiative and its goals, he continues to build strawman arguments that are completely irrelevant to the conversation. He refuses to acknowledge what the initiative wants, even when it is specifically answered in the FAQ, he refuses to talk to Ross for clarification and a discussion. But the most damning piece of evidence to me was his second video, where he not only does all of these things again, he even outright contradicts his own arguments.
I don't remember the exact phrasing but essentially he says that other people do not get to decide what games he wants to play. That is his decision to make. Barely two minutes later he says that playing a multiplayer game without other people/with a small player count does not make sense. He says that these games are social games, and that playing them without this part is worthless. He is essentially stating that this is the only reason to play these games, and that you are wrong for wanting to play them differently. You want to go back to a game from your childhood, even though it will only have bots instead of real people, to go on a small nostalgia trip? You are wrong, you don't want that. Do you want to go back to an MMO to just walk around, listen to the soundtrack, maybe do some quests solo? You are wrong, you don't want that.
This has shown me that he has absolutely zero interest in engaging with the initiative in an honest way. He is only out to hurt the initiative as much as he can. Let us not forget that he is directly invested in the success of the live service game market, with his involvement in the Offbrand publishing studio. Now, I do not know to which extent this factors into his response. Maybe it doesn't at all and he genuinely in his core believes that the initiative is wrong. But if that is the case, that still does not excuse his behavior towards Ross, and his continuous manipulation of his audience by using strawmen and his online image of a godly game developer to put himself on a pedestal of authority.
I really like this comment, well thought out and pointing to pretty specific issues in his approach. Despite clearly having strong views on it, you say:
"I do not know to which extent this" (Offbrand) "factors into his response. Maybe it doesn't at all and he genuinely in his core believes that the initiative is wrong."
Just one of those things that isn't easy when you disagree with someone who extending the same charitability. Because of his approach, I'm pushing back less than I might be on the mind readers in the comment section. Still best not to engage in it, and I appreciate that :D
@@dead3y3_YT I'll note for the sake of transparency that personally I do think that Thor is against the initiative for these reasons. His history with Blizzard, his current investment in the live service market. His stance is just too extreme and too out of the left field. He is pushing too hard with too many dishonest tactics for me to believe him when he says he only dislikes it for the vagueness, or due to one slide in a presentation from Ross (especially when he is demonstrably not above the idea of being dishonest and manipulative to get people on his side).
That said, it is just my opinion. I believe that people should be aware of these facts, especially when Thor presents himself as a lonely indie dev without a bias. However, like you said with the mind reading, we cannot truly know. What we do know (or at least what I hope I provided enough objective evidence for) is that the way he is approaching the situation is not right, especially with the size of his channel. It is one thing to disagree and provide well thought out reasons for why you disagree, it is an entirely different thing to be dishonest and refuse to discuss with the person you are opposing.
When the vast majority of the top comments are telling you that you messed up, that you didn't understand the topic (a fact he did not mention in his second video, actually the first thing he said was how many positive responses he received, knowing full well it was his most disliked video by a long shot), the right thing to do is to educate yourself so that you are not spreading misinformation. You do not say "You are wrong because I know better than you, now I will never talk to you again".
"Do you want to go back to an MMO to just walk around, listen to the soundtrack, maybe do some quests solo? You are wrong, you don't want that."
I think this is possibly the funniest possible line on this, because look at Runescape, especially Old School...and Ironman mode, which is actually amazingly popular and a rather beloved feature. Which essentially is you actively choosing to walk around, listen to the soundtrack, and play this MMORPG as though it was a solo experience because you have hard locked yourself out of any meaningful mechanical interactions with anyone else playing the game. You have to solo everything in Ironman.
And people love it. Just playing the game they want to play, in their own way.
Here's the summary:
Thor: "You don't get to define what players get to play or not play"
Also Thor: "dead game there's only 5 people online, why would I play that?"
Also Thor: "so why would you want to preserve a game in that state? It doesn't make any sense to me"
...
Also Thor: "you should not have control over what is in my steam library", well isn't that rich coming from you? :D
Jason "Thor" Hall calling Ross disingenuous is just projecting so hard he could do a powerpoint presentation without any equipment.
It’s pretty indefensible.
I can understand being mad about some of the comments online, but writing off Ross as “not worth talking to” is wild
@@dead3y3_YT What frustrates me the most is how Thor pointed out he is carrying voices that are not allowed to be heard (devs can't just voice out every concern or frustration online because of NDAs). Dude... *exactly!* You could've highlighted those concerns in a talk with Ross so he gets where you and other devs may be coming from, while also getting a better picture of what Ross is getting at with this initiative. It would've been an amazing opportunity for everyone involved to learn something.
Or you could.. you know... delete his comment and make an unnecessarily negative take because of one slide. Over a concept at that, not something that was actually fleshed out. Yeah, sure, that works too.
@@ESFAndy011 It is a frustratingly bad approach from PS. Without this point/points like it ("not worth talking to"), I'd probably be saying "hey I disagree with him too, but that's wild" to more comments.
There are always going to be people who are right for the wrong reasons (disagree with someone because they don't like them, not because of their arguments). I don't want to encourage that; I think it's a dangerous approach to understanding the world. It leads to being wrong for the wrong reasons and being unwilling to listen. I noticed this heavily when I would criticize any aspect of Ross. Ross can't have been dishonest, that would be evil and then things would get complicated because evil people (like PS) do evil things. And PS is evil because... of anything I can say to convince you. Just agree on one thing, and then we can write off anything he says.
It's harder to defend PS when he writes Ross off in a similarly lazy way. I don't support him doing it, I don't support commenters doing it. He leveled that playing field by engaging in it, though there are lines he hasn't crossed and ideally wouldn't cross. Not an "all bets are off" situation, but point 7 to me is bad enough to harm my view of him.
It hurts my soul hearing someone with a big audience call Ross unreasonable or disingenuous when I know for a fact Ross is one of the most patient, curious and level headed people on UA-cam.
PirateSoftware has own agenda. That's as simple as it goes. He will push back anything that goes against "creating garbage bugged games and grab money ripping customers". It's pretty clear that he as a developer doesn't want consumers to have rights
I totally see where you're coming from, but most developers probably wouldn't agree with him. Maybe that is why he's doing it (though the hit to his reputation can't be worth it, but maybe he wasn't expecting this to be an issue), just not sure I'd lump his position in with the general dev position. Maybe at his size in the industry though?
This reminds of J allen brack quote from blizzcon when he asked about bringing back classic WoW "you don't want that you think you do but you don't "
Late comment but i remember they did a wow classic no ? Or plan to release the wow classic experience.
You think THATS bad, his server has been weird as of late. Even though I disagree 100%, alot of people come in acting like it is an open debate. It has been sore spot for Thor for like, 2 weeks now. I cant say if there is any direct action like someone being kicked, but it is weird to say the least. I will say, even though I keep it to myself, I think some people have only bolstered his stubbornness, namely his friends and loyal fans.
To the person who made it seem like it is he either doesnt get it or being purposefully misinforming is 100% right. It has to be the latter. His friends like Theo and Prime are perfect case studies. And Theo has his own dumb video on it.
So, one side of this is really, really stubborn and socially ingrouped, The other side is a broad amalgamation of developers, consumers, gamers and politically minded folk.
I for one am excited to be in the latter, but I feel like I was still cheated on. Out of all the pro-consumer takes Thor has had, somehow this is the broken one.
I dont think it is a bad thing to call out culture bias when I see it. Maybe it is because I was into politics before development, but who knows. It is 100% the culture of “You will not own anything for your convenience and my inconvenience; and you will be happy”.
Sounds like an echo chamber, that happens with things like this really easily. UA-camrs complain about not getting views and their fans very quickly jump to "you must be shadowbanned, I hate the algorithm, this isn't fair". Not agreeing means you must hate the guy I like, so why listen to you anyway.
Honestly though... I would try your best not to hold that pattern against people. It might explain thor's behavior, that's frustrating. I more mean not to hold that community's existence against Thor, that's just what large segments of the internet do. I've seen the same thing happen any time I talk about Ross's slide. It exists on both sides, and if the tables were turned (if Ross seriously messed up somehow) he'd have the same sort of people around him most likely.
I'd think of the "broad amalgamation of developers, consumers, gamers and politically minded folk" as a thinking group that might shift either way with the right arguments and evidence. Underneath this group on any topic or side exist the people you're seeing.
Between this and the git video, I am getting kinda tired of Theo.
@@dead3y3_YT I wanted to reply to this because in hindsight being 20/20, I think some of my post is very 'human' in the sense it uses a bit of emotionally loaded language, so I am going to restate my thesis and reaffirm yours.
So it is natural in a sense that when talking about ingroups/outgroups that we have a tendecy to use our bias and experience as a sort 'probability detector' In a sense, it is like when you are writing a program and you are matching for patterns of behavoir against people and choosing the one that 'makes the most sense to you'. To be clear, it is bad. There is no perfect 1 to 1 map of how someone can be critiqued and their personal beliefs. I actually have a pet peeve against arguments of the tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) kind because of simply how useless it is. Hypocrisy is bad, sure, but it is like also kind of natural. I guess most people have a few things they are 'hypocritical about'.
I suppose my specific thesis is: I don't not think that Thor hangs out with developers and speaks for all of 'us'. Nor those adjacent to him, like Prime and Theo. That said, I also think it is kind of 'hasty' to paint Thor as a plant or some sort of conspiracy. That is too much and frankly kind of conspiratorial.
Thor had one bad take, maybe or maybe not because of ingroup or inperson biases, and I am still subbed on his channels. I am in his server and I just dont think I will forget. I am sure in some ways, time will prove it to be that I do not hate Thor. I know people have started too because of...this. But I Was disappointed.
Also, as a game developer and a gamer, we are allowed one bad anti-consumerism take per yer. I do not make the rules, I just follow them, Space Cowboy.
Case in point, Asmon and the recent Dragons Dogma problem. Was his take bad? Absolutely (and I Do not watch/like him, so it is relevant). Buuut at the same time, it is socially normalized to be go "but wait how is a review copy that is free taint a games perception?" and to that, I just cite how Suzy, aka the Sphere Hunter was really dragged alongside others. And yeah, that is a topic we can also discuss. Should developers send review copies with ANY binding terms?
But not the point of course, but it is related.
TLDR: I want Thor to do better, and I think I will feel better and think better myself when we as an games industry actually think and theorize about what we can do. And how we can do better in all realms from the development stage all the way to review.
Oh and otherwise, Capcom did nothing wrong(I know, I was shocked too)
the hubris of thor knows no limits when he thinks that he has so much clout withing the gaming industry that he could stop something as big as this
He's debuting a game that will be an online only live service game he's co-founder of called Rivals 2 under a new company called Offbrand. Not ONCE did he mention this, and I only just recently stumbled upon this being a thing. Take that as you will.
I have no idea where you are getting that Rivals 2 is online only, it's specifically a sequel to a game (Rivals of Aether) and will be played regularly offline at tournaments
@@YukiKazami He said himself in a recent stream, I remember it was around five hours in. I wasn't the only person who saw this, others have been trying to grab a VOD of this.
And...that's irrelevant if it's played at tournaments offline. As a dev he could just program a version specifically for that, and then still something else to the general public...the very sort of unethical shit this proposal seeks to vanquish.
@@steviewolfeofficial No, he's not a developer on Rivals 2, I think he's just publishing. It's being created by the exact same people as Rivals 1, and it's not a magical secondary build that's only gonna be used for events, it's a platform fighter with a local client. I don't really know much about pirate but I know Rivals very well.
My point is just to leave Rivals out of this lol, it's already been kickstarted a long time ago and been in development way before it had anything to do with Pirate
The only thing disingenuous here is Thor overblowing their "20 years in the Industry"
His experience was playtesting the same parts of a game over and over in different ways to find bugs and file bug reports, and down the line, was part of a team that wrote a anticheat.
Its crazy to me they pull the "20 years in blizzard" card left and right when that means literally nothing, that company permanently warped his brain with the takes he has.
Don't forget the "i'm an idie dev for 8 years". Undertale-esuq game is in EA for 6 years. It's in development for almost the same time as Kenshi.
In my eye he's not a game dev. He's a streamer with coding hobby.
He also totally got that job because his dad is an old-schooler from back in the 90s. Which is saying something, I don't think you NEED to be nepotized to get the QA job, you just have to live in Anaheim. It means he probably had aspirations of getting in on the development side of Blizz for his entire career and even his family name wasn't enough to move him that far up.
Jason was born in 1987. It's baffling to me someone his age holds these feelings. It seems like he's covering his ass and his dev buddies asses.
Probably lead intoxication
I think it's weird that thor, who only did qa testing and then some major stuff for their security of wow, automatically makes him know about how every dev works? It just feels like a wide sweeping "i know better than you" statement with nothing to back it up.
I am increasingly moving to the camp that devs themselves are part of the issue not just their management. So to me seeing a beligerant developer with the absolute piss take that its "easy" to pass consumer oriented legistlation- I mean theres no correcting that. the busted status quo of gaming is a prerequistite for that man being paid, hes never gonna get along. Talking to him might make interesting content for a youtube video or podcast, but if I was put in charge of a charity and tasked with most effectively using somebody elses money for this goal, I would absolutely NOT waste that money or my time on this conversation.
That's the funny thing, PirateSoftware is both the main person pushing against the initiative and is refusing to talk to Ross (the person running/pushing the initiative).
Ross has a really well put together FAQ video on the initiative and has done a good job pushing it. The one thing I wasn't a fan of was the idea that politicians would see it as an easy win. I understand that sort of marketing is for people who think "why bother", but it does feel dishonest. Luckily it isn't an argument for why you should support the bill, just why it might pass. So a pretty minor marketing complaint, and PS is blowing it out of proportion.
At this point I don't think Ross has any reason to argue with PS about it. It would only be worth getting into if PS did find a way to substantiate his issues with the initiative. Since he hasn't, the focus should be on getting signatures.
The idea it was easy was Ross's position. That slide at 1:40. It's Ross's. Think how you want to think, but you should know what side is making what points.
I'll tell you what the real problem is: Ross has a dry, anti stablishment humor and takes which align more with materialism, and Thor is a deep-rooted liberal.
They have a fundamentally different ideology, and it's funny that the only one rubbed wrong by this is Thor who just so happened to omit in both his videos he has conflict of interest, go figure. "Disingenuous" my ass, he is projecting hard.
Yea. It’s like Ying and Yang with these too
Saying asmon has good takes devalues every word thor has said
You know it’s a bad day when someone as hopeless as asmon is getting one up on a self proclaimed “expert”
That guy piratesoftware seems sus. He is the one with a conflict of interest. He tries to put the initiative in a bad light using lies and half-truths. It's ironic that he actually accuses Ross of sensationalism. But not wanting to talk to Ross makes this most sus indeed.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got some kind of financial interest in this, maybe a few industry buddies that give him some kickbacks for lending his platform. If he really just dislikes Ross that much, just talk to Luis Rossman, he seems to get what is at stake because he's been dealing with a similar issue regarding buying old iPhone parts.
The initiative is not trying to stop companies from pulling service from any games. You cannot ask a company to perpetually run a service forever. What the initiative is fighting against is companies leaving games sold as goods in an unplayable state, without means of repair even if they had the technical expertise. They game publishers can do whatever they want with the game while they're running it and end service whenever they want, but it's their responsibility as sellers of goods to leave the possessions of their customers in a functional state.
You should really change the wording in your description, as one of the most common misconceptions and strawman arguments against the initiative is the idea that it's asking companies to maintain service for all games they put out forever, which is absolutely asinine.
Right, I wrote the description without as much focus because I generally don't pay much attention to descriptions but you're right. I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression there, I'll adjust it :)
It seems like no one making these videos has actually watched rosses multiple videos on this. I get that its like 3+ hours of video at minimum but the fact that i keep hearing people say he said it will be easy shows none of you actually watched his videos in their entirety and are reacting for clout
"Politicians would see it as an easy win" is (I believe) the initial argument from Ross on that slide. Ross has been openly pessimistic about the likelihood of it passing in the past, but put on a more positive/optimistic face to encourage those (like him) who are pessimistic to give it a go anyway. This is called "dishonest framing", though you could argue using the word "could" is enough to say he wasn't explicitly dishonest. I would argue the way it was presented was meant to show that Politicians would see it as an easy win, and "could" is more because that might not be enough for it to pass.
While I think framing something as likely that you believe is unlikely is dishonest, the argument isn't related to why the bill would be good. Only why it could pass. So it fits cleanly into being "marketing", and is a pretty minor issue that PS is blowing out of proportion.
Also... you think I'd have to watch 3+ hours to have seen the relevant portion of "Europeans can save gaming!" and criticize the way it's framed there? Really? You don't think I could literally watch the first 5 minutes and take issue with the way it's framed?
While it would be unreasonable to form a strong opinion without more than just that, taking an issue with the way that slide is presented does not require all that much context. Even without knowing at first that Ross was pessimistic and was presenting as optimistic, I found the argument odd. Saying Politicians don't care about video games (like the issue would be inconsequential) as if EU Politicians didn't just cave to microsoft in the merger w/ activision.
Knowing that Ross was presenting points as if they were strong when he had little faith in them makes it pretty open-shut. I reiterate that I don't take much issue with it.
@dead3y3_YT presenting someone as misleading and disingenuous for not fully presenting the full scope then making a video without actually doing due diligence to see if he hasn't made his stance and campaign clear is in fact disingenuous yes. Being pedantic about his potential optimism implying is disingenuous is a reach dude.
Please try to follow my argument instead of what you're doing. I am not arguing that Ross's position is disingenuous or dishonest. I am arguing that his presentation/slide in that specific video was disingenuous. I didn't at any point imply or encourage the idea that it is his stance. In fact, I argued that his actual stance is contrary to the arguments he made when presenting the slide. I recognize his stance is not the one he implied in "Europeans can save gaming!", though perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you.
I'm on Ross's side on the issue, but being unable to see flaws in your own side is not a strength. I know his position, I agree with it, that's why I criticize the way he originally presented it. Ross's FAQ was the far stronger breakdown on the issue for me, I've explained why the way Ross presented the slide in "Europeans can save gaming!" felt off to me.
I can understand if you've made up your mind and don't care to listen, I'm doubtful but hopeful for a different outcome in your next response. A sentiment I'm sure Ross would understand very well.
If it isn't section 1201 of the DMCA that harms the rights of consumers its definitely forced arbitration that a lot of these companies get away with.
Me personally I think it would be best to do away with DRM as a whole. I think its also funny that pirates are the ones being "entitled" when Warez groups have been getting the short end of the stick seeing as the FBI raids them because no business can circumvent technological measures even as a service so why not file share on top of already committing an unlawful act? But piracy is a service problem right thor?
Remember to link initiative to your videos ether in description or pinned comment. Most gamers are too lazy to do more than 1 click to get there.
True enough, added :D
It feels like to me he would rather talk to asmond than Ross cuz asmond is less knowledgeable about the situation
Well said
Thanks! I'm glad it was intelligible honestly lol, this came at the end of hearing out each side and then returning to PS's post. When I first read the post it bothered me, but after watching the FAQ I found it way more frustrating.
@@dead3y3_YT I am neither a developer or campaigner and I think what Ross is doing is admirable. I can't help but think Thor being a dev us clouding his judgement. Maybe just maybe game developing should be slight harder with an eol plan like Ross said.
there is 1 thing about piratesoftwares takes I agree with, and its that we should be taking things much slower and more precise, were talking about a bunch of old people in government that don't understand gaming at all, so we need to make sure we are crystal 100% clear about our messaging, for example the initiative does talk about games that rely on servers, but it doesn't lay out what a server is, for most people that don't understand tech and gaming to them a server is hardware, not what it really is which is a piece of software, so to the old people in government it may seem like were asking companies to literally give us their server farms
we need to remember the people were talking to, we know what a server is, they don't, we need to be crystal clear, currently the initiative relies to much on people having prior knowledge that people in government unfortunately time and time again have ben shown to lack
Thing is, the initiative doesn't require immediate action and whatnot - it's goal is to actually make EU govt notice it and start the discussion about what can be done and how it should be done. It's not the final law and was never intended to be one. Also the initiative form has a word limit, so...good luck fitting all the terminology into it.
Ross made a 40 minute QnA video going over majority if not all questions and concerns regarding the initiative a week-ish ago, which I recommend watching in full(something thor probably either didn't do or purposefully chooses to not respond to publicly)
Seconding possiblynocturnal's suggestion to watch Ross's FAQ, it explains his response to this very well. Particularly by comparing this initiative against other initiatives. They have a word limit and don't get into specifics within the written document for a reason.
If the initiative doesn't pass, we won't have the chance of explaining what a server is to the old people in the government.
@@mss664 again - good luck fitting all the technical terms in the allocated word limit
Besides, the amount of signatures is what matters the most. This doesn't mean the initiative will flop if it doesn't reach 1mil signatures, as Ross said in his faq video(which, again, I strongly recommended watching and engaging with), but higher amount of signatures does increase the likelyhood of it being noticed.
Technical definitions, proposed changes etc will come after that, but I'm just repeating myself at this point
@@mss664another thing that is missing
The initiative is not being put in front of the EU with zero context, it is being presented by two of the people who are behind the initiative (not Ross since he's not part of the EU). I highly doubt they will refuse to give any elaboration or context required
Good points #Asmongold #goingbald
What are these hashtags😂 but hey thanks
actually giving value to asmon instead of ross...whats this, we know who asmon is since the ages, chill nerdy cave kiddo in his room and all now grown up like the rest and now because nerds give attention to his channel and products, we value his opinion bcuz he said good things about thor and bcuz he likes you? yea agreed on you are wrong about the i dont wanna talk to ross, plus being in the industry means shit, so? and? why we need to hear everytime your accomplishments as idk, should it mean or ring a bell? does that give you more value than me or everybody else on the matter? consumers want to be protected and its absolutely reasonable and if YOU dont wanna hear or talk about it, guess what, the masses will swarm you
I think his point that Ross would likely not engage in the conversation in a measured way is kind of valid. As far as I have seen Louis Rossman is pretty much always measured when he discusses something, and Asmon seems like he would be less biased than Ross. It seems like Ross has an "answer" for every question/concern, and he may be 100% right about them all I don't know personally.
But it seems like he's very sure that every possible criticism or concern has a very easy answer. He also seems pretty hyperbolic with the whole "this is the last chance for something like this, nobody else would every try to fix it", and "there's no other alternate solutions, and if you are against this solution and don't have one of your own, you're against all solutions and don't want to solve the problem". I get he's passionate about it and you have to be, and he's really taking action and that's commendable. And Idk how much experience he has with either laws/regulations or the game development industry/developer experience, he may have a ton I just don't know. But I know Louis is very experienced and knowledgeable with regulation and consumer rights, and pirate software is obviously very experienced with the game dev side of things.
Ross's position is that this is an issue that has become industry norm and has gained entrenchment. He's called for people to tackle the issue before and he's sought people willing to take it on. No one has stepped up. He is more than willing to listen to others and take their points but he isn't comfortable with the practise having more time to breathe and make itself at home. People calling him unqualified for this position are correct, but those comments are unhelpful if there is no suggestion of an amendment or alternative.
The messaging of "this is the last chance" is hyperbolic, but as he sees it, if he change can't be brought around while there is a large amount of people who recall a time where games being tethered to online servers was not even a concept, let alone one to be worried about or affected by, then change is never going to be brought about as now is the best shot people have. The practise only entrenches itself further and people acclimatise and don't question it more over time.
I mean.... for gaming theres just 4 big regions.
EU
US
Asia
China ( yes i know china is also asia, but lets face it. They often already have very specific gaming rules and often get their own versions of games because shit needs to go through censoring first and many things work very different, but china alone has a big enough market that its worth it for many companys)
So who would you trust to fix it most?
Asian market is very different from Western Market.
China as i said before has very unique and often weird rules as well with games already needing to be altered.
That leaves EU and US
Now i get that EU also has many problems and not everything is smart....
But i would rather trust em over a government that cant even care about its folk that barely has any rights and gives more rights to company's.
Like sick days counting as days off.... No minimum paid days off. No work contracts needed and at will employment where you could be fired every single day just for luls.
Or the fact that the us cant even do healthcare right. Where one Illness can crush a middle class family into poverty
and this being the reason why over 60% of Kickstarter/GoFundMe and so on are people begging for money because they have illnesses and are running out money.
You would trust that government at some point to deal with company's not killing games?
The EU on the other hand is more often than not very consumer and civilian friendly.
This is a chance to force EU Politicians to finally look at this and make some choices.
And yeah, this is just a petition too finally look at this topic and get some rulings in.
Chances are if this petition passes and the EU will look at it. They will ask gamers, they will ask company's. Law draft will be written, it will be checked by many peops, it will be discussed. Draft will most likely be re-written a few times.
And chances are it will take years before a law about this would even pass. Maybe 2030 a law would happen.
And then again. All games that were made/existed before that date would not even be affected.
Because EU laws are never made retroactive. Same reason why its still very much legal to drive an old timer car on public roads that has no seat belts or any other safety features. Recently a law passed in EU that all newly build cars need to be build with a blackbox inside. That records how you drive , when you accelerate/break and so on.
Cars that were build before that law goes into motion don't have to care about it at all. No one needs to rush and get a blackbox installed now in their 2010 BMW or 2015 VW.
So yeah, long story short. While this is def not the final chance. It might be a solution that could be done soon, and who knows in how many years the next chance comes....
I've mulled this over a good amount because I took issue with it at first too. While in general I don't like the approach, in this specific case it might be a bit relevant. If this fails and the "just market it more clearly" idea happens, it could be normalized to a point of no return. You need enough people to passionately agree and put pressure on politicians for it to pass.
That being said, I can't bring myself to fully support that marketing choice. I can support the bill, just not that specific part of how it's marketed. Reinforcing this feeling is the "when they try again in future and fail, you'll think to yourself" narrative. The amount of work you'd have to do to convince people to try again if this fails is only raised when you validate the feeling that it would be pointless. My understanding is that Ross has pushed for this for a long time, so it opens a really easy "why bother" attack on the campaign even as it stands. Ideally that doesn't happen, and support stays strong long enough to make a change.
Ross has talked about being imperfect and seeing some of the errors in his approach. That he reached out to others, no one took up the mantle, and he's doing the best he can. I think that justifies some wiggle room on marketing disagreements, but it's fair to point them out.
You're the best kind of correct about this not being the last chance and yet Ross who has stated in the past that he'd prefer not being the one pushing for this couldn't find anyone willing to bear the torch in his stead. How likely is it that someone will do this in a future where the previous attempt already failed if no one is willing to do it now?
You know that with those arguments you are nitpicking the same way as Thor? Just against him.
I disagree. Thor is writing someone off based on believing they were disingenous in one slide, I'm not writing off Thor. I'm criticizing the act of writing off the opposition (especially based on something small) and the disrespectful way in which he does it. I wouldn't like it if Ross boycotted Piratesoftware the way PS is boycotting Ross. Despite what he said in the paragraph about Asmongold having a better take than Ross (which is insane), I still wouldn't like it if Ross invalidated PS's opinions in the same way PS invalidated Ross's.
@@dead3y3_YT As you can have your opinion on Thors actions, same Thor can have opinion on Ross actions.
It dosen't change the fact that you selected specific sentences of Thors reaction, just to validate your opinion. What is called knitpicking.
Just to be clear. I'am not saying Thors behaviour is appropriate. Just that you try to invalidate his opinion based of his willingness to talk with Ross.
I need to be clearer because you aren't following. I do not have a problem with nitpicking. I do not have a problem with criticizing or taking issue with the initiative. I do not have a problem with him not liking ross. I do not have any of those problems. These are things you think I take issue with, I do not.
I actually appreciate that there is someone pushing against the initiative because it helps flesh out the issue. I like that PirateSoftware's actions have led to a broader understanding of the issue as people on both sides look closer (they nitpick). I like that PirateSoftware is nitpicking, nitpicking is good.
I do not like Piratesoftware comparing Ross to Asmongold and saying he has a better take. The reason for this is that Asmon is both further from PirateSoftware than Ross and is less informed on this issue/topic. While I disagree with position on the severity of Ross's slide, that's fair enough (as I stated in the vid). What isn't fair is refusing to communicate with your main opposition on the topic assuming you care about it (which he claims to). What's even less reasonable is saying Asmon has a better take. I already explained why this is ridiculous.
It was either done because A) he doesn't like Ross, so immiturity (again assuming he cares about the issue), B) Ross is more formidable: I've heard this argument before in comments, I doubt this because I think Louis Rossman would do a fine job. Maybe there is a third option? You're welcome to suggest it, but me taking issue with the breakdown of communication from PS's side is not the same kind of criticism he employs. It could be "Nitpicking", but focusing on the specifics of an issue rather than just the big picture is good.
If that was also unclear somehow: I'm not trying to invalidate his opinion on the initiative with this argument. I never claimed to, I've been more charitable with PS's position than the people you may be used to. Being frustrated with his behavior and specifying exactly why is unrelated to whether or not his opinions are valid.
What is this focus on nitpicking as if that's a bad thing? Focusing on specifics is good when talking about a real issue lol
@@clarctosorion Knitpicking implies you're focusing on irrelevant parts to the conversation. That is.. not what's happening here lol. He very clearly outlined exactly what Thor said and responded to it. That's not kitpicking, that's being specific. There is a difference.