Games as a Service Thread

If you disconnect your data service and can still play it, then it's not.

Yes. This includes those.
Not even. Just spend A FEW DAYS OR HOURS making a server package to release after the servers are cut. Would help a ton.

Why is Ross so based?

Attached: 1443709857467.gif (536x520, 2.87M)

Just those who need a server to work, that generic shmup or match 3 game is not a GaaS.

There are positives and negatives with the idea of games as service, but to be the biggest issue with the idea seems that it can only work for a certain type of game. I mostly hope it dosen't kill single player games and isen't game as service basically just MMO's?

But the rest of people on YouTube just whine and ask the developers to stop. Which doesn’t help. Ross goes and DISSECTS EVERY POSSIBLE ARGUMENT, and suggests going legal.
He’s an OG

The only "pro" of GaaS is anti-piracy. The cons are legion, but Ross isn't even asking to eliminate online-only games, just provide a means to play the games once developers stop support.

This
Don't let this thread get slid again.

based ross that actually reads and replies to your emails and comments

He actually cares about video games.

>1 hour of this uncharismatic mess of delivery

No
Thank
You

Stop spamming your video you e-celeb faggot

Post the victims of GaaS.

Attached: 1549313137247.jpg (1000x755, 84K)

Nice argument, fagtron. You sure convinced me with those hot opinions.

>Game as a service is cancerous
True, but he isn't only talking about the cancerous kind. He's questioning any provided online component of a video game (whether he explicitly says so or not). If only half of your product is fraudulent you're still committing fraud.

Yea Forums retards be like piracy isn't theft but why are all my games going free to play, loot box subscription services.

A paper bag has more charisma, and probably looks better than him.

>The only "pro" of GaaS is anti-piracy
It can provide a certain long levity to a game that other models can't

Finally something worth fighting against

Life isn't about your stupid fucking debate club.
Not everyone is gonna sit and entertain your autism.

That's literally fucking false though, nigger

Wtf, I love phone "games" now

Nobody is complaining about games predicated on a drip feed of content from an online service. They're complaining about the fact that when that drip feed ends and the service shuts down, the game itself stops working FOREVER. Unlike a chair, car, or any other tangible item with a limited lifetime, a GaaS game can't be replaced.

Ross is the beautiful perfect best boy as always and 100% right in everything. If mainstream media had any honor they'd take notice of this, but of course they won't.

Don't waste time with shills shitpost.

Attached: 1549321399091.png (585x737, 28K)

Tribes still being online wouldn't make it any more alive.

>beautiful

where

they're only going to notice if someone takes these companies to court for GaaS
and then make propaganda on how not liking GaaS makes you a racist

wtf I hate TF2 now

I thought the mold killed him and fucked his GF.

Brainlet here, is there a list of "games as a service" games? Can you define what it is in one sentence and give some examples?

>It can provide a certain long levity to a game that other models can't

False since you can do that with a regular game perfectly fine, with DLCs. You don't need for the game to be an online-only piece of bullshit that stops working when the company decides it doesn't make enough money anymore.

This guy can make a video on why every Yea Forums poster is an ugly faggot and you would all champion it while trying to start a debate club in the thread.

Do you people seriously have nothing else to do on a Friday? Lol

>and then make propaganda on how not liking GaaS makes you a racist

This. It's fucking disgusting but "access media" sees itself as an extension of the company PR, nothing more, and company PR obviously is in favor of anything the company does no matter how destructive.

You can still host dedicated servers with TF2 or CSGO and then mod the shit out of them.

If we at least had the possibility to host our own servers, and modify speedcap, weapon damage, etc, I'm sure there will be people playing to this day.

Attached: 1549320717494.gif (320x240, 1.22M)

Ross gives a detailed definition as the first thing in the video.

Attached: the truth of things.png (1254x280, 197K)

i miss tribes, even if i was never good at it

Attached: 1551325778485.jpg (700x1500, 456K)

His definition is
>the business practice of players not having control of whether they can play a game due to a company withholding that function

He posts a download for a compile list of games that have been abandoned, of which 96% are no longer capable of being played at all.

Here's the list Ross and his community have gathered. As for the definition - watch the first 10 minutes, he goes over different ones until he settles with the one he found the most concise and to the point.

Attached: list of game shutdowns april 2019.png (1920x4060, 1.42M)

Based corporate bootlicker shitting on this site’s basic principles

>the possibility to host our own servers
This has been reverse engineered in
>modify speedcap, weapon damage, etc
Probably doable to a large extent but I don't have experience with it. I do know that some people are running an older version of T:A on a private server (the "GOTY" version) which had different weapon damage. Also speedcap can be set in custom server settings IIRC

I don't care about corporations. There are people out there who don't give a fuck about this non-issue.

I know it's hard to believe.

>taking away your right to use a product because the company felt like it is a non-issue

Attached: 1500198413083.jpg (358x473, 45K)

>There are people out there who don't give a fuck about this non-issue.
Like Nigga Why Are You Here Haha Just Go To A Different Thread Haha Just Close Your Eyes

>games as a service is not an actual service
In other news lean managment can be done by fat fucks, agile development does not require actual physical dexterity and synergy basically doesn't mean anything at all.
Also, taking corporate buzzwords literally is a symptom of autism.

do you faggots seriously think one youtube video will impact anything?
GAAS will happen either way and there's nothing you can do about it
stop being delusional
remember when GG was going to fix gaming journalism? yeah, you're powerless

So basically none of this would have been an issue if devs had kept the LAN mode and gave dedicated servers tools to all their games?

The point is they're using their status as a """service""" to justify practices that would otherwise be illegal with goods.

Then walk away, it doesn't affect you.

>it doesn't affect you
It's going to affect everybody. The question is what happens when it arrives and just permanently ruins whatever shred of worth video gaming had left.

>devs had kept the LAN mode and gave dedicated servers tools to all their games?
Yes, or release those features later.

>just lay down and accept getting fucked in the ass by corporations goy
niggers like you are the reason why modern society is turning into a 1984 social media filled dystopia hell

Yes, exactly. As for MMOs, he says there should be a minimum amount of information made available at the end of their lives so that people could implement their own servers (mainly the packet and protocol descriptions), if making the server code public is not an option.

I'm not him but it is hard sometimes to make peace with the fact that any terrible, exploitative, miserable thing in any form of law, politics or finance could happen, literally fill in the blank with your own worst nightmare, and 70% to 90% of people would be generally okay with it.

Like what's it called when you move beyond the "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" phase and realize that everyone alive is going to be herded into the pen of slavery and they're going to stay there forever, and in fact our contemporary concepts of liberty are a weird outlier that never existed before in human history and will never exist again?

Yea Forumsirgins especially the yar hard kind don'take up the majority of players anywhere other than the Chinese market.

I´m glad he hasn´t lost to the mold yet

There's no reason not to allow dedicated or player hosted online games, including voice chat etc.

>Developer should make the outcome of their work and investments public for the masses because people demand so!
Why? Did communism return and I just didn't notice?

Well you're clearly not spending this time actually playing videogames so why the fuck are you even here?

>Implying the plutocracy can be stopped

Attached: 1549771165706.png (512x512, 113K)

Does Ross even count as an e-celeb? The videos he's most famous for don't show his face and are even in character as someone else.

>he didn't watch the full 1:15:00 minutes

Don't answer shills.

(((The mold)))

Except he openly calls for action and allies.

You worthless fucking bootlicking shitsucking culture-destroying sub-humans will not win this one.

Attached: ap,550x550,12x16,1,transparent,t.u1.png (413x549, 113K)

Because you pay for a bike at some bike store, then the bike store comes and breaks it in the middle of night without you knowing. Watch the video before you make stupid posts again.

He's an "eceleb" regardless but he's at least passionate and not just doing it for the money he says he'd just embrace working full-time and doing videos on occasion as a hobby if the donor bux didn't roll in.

>Any service I can think of has one of these 3 characteristics, but GAAS doesn't
>Clearly has 2 and 3
His argument hinges on this segment and it's the weakest part of the video. That's also just his definition, he doesn't provide any legal precedent stating services must have specified timeframes.
>But there's no expectation of how long the service will last
Neither does the roofer contratee in his example of #2.
>But games don't NEED to require real-world resources to opperate
Just because they shouldn't/couldn't require them doesn't mean they don't. Unless you want to legislate video game development, devs are free to build it how they want.

Attached: 1.jpg (1504x790, 99K)

>breaking your legal right to own and use your good is a non-issue

You're too obvious, Accursed Farms.

>Purchase a product
>Product stops working because company said so

Don't open this spoiler.

Attached: black-mold-on-a-wall.jpg (1100x734, 84K)

>Club Penguin
The argument that GaaS aren't a service doesn't hold water for things like Club Penguin. There are lots of browser games that are built around seasonal content and frequent updates. Serving browser content is a service. No one owes anyone the backend software when a website goes down no matter how much they spend on that website.
Calling it fraud is a bait and switch to manipulate gamer entitlement. If you want to complain about losing games forever, that's fine, but fuck off with the legal approach to strong arming companies. It wont happen and the ramifications are awful.

>I don't buy the argument that giving away the server side software creates hacking issues
But it does. If future games build on that software, it's easier to design hacks when you can look at vulnerabilities in older versions.

Ross is too high IQ to ever post here.

Stop it.

Attached: Ross+scott+_7c186a00766d6a3f18fc4b0cb8c922c6.jpg (480x360, 43K)

>t. ross or the mold claiming to be ross

Attached: 1548753901837.jpg (654x713, 68K)

that fat british fucker jim has been saying this shit for years, why would anyone start listening now?

Digital distribution IS "games as a service", you no longer buy an actual copy, you only pay for a license to download. Why do people not able to comprehend this? Are they too retarded, too brainwashed, or is it the sunk cost mentality and they don't want to admit that normalizing paying for digital distribution and getting rid of physical copies was a mistake?
Legality has nothing to do with it, they are completely different models. Renting a car or paying for a taxi and outright buying a car might involve the same car but they are entirely different models.

I'M NOT ROSS YOU ACTUAL MONKEYS! HE'S WAY TOO BUSY WORKING ON VIDEOS TO BE ME AND "THE MOLD" IS GONE, AND EVEN IF IT WASN'T MOLD CAN'T JUST BODY SNATCH PEOPLE THAT'S ABSURD!

>didn't watch the video
He goes over this exact thing. There are perpetual licenses you know.

>His argument hinges on this segment and it's the weakest part of the video. That's also just his definition, he doesn't provide any legal precedent stating services must have specified timeframes.
He's just creating a framework that all services tend to fall under. I would like to see an example a service that doesn't hit at least 1 of these criteria.
>Neither does the roofer contratee in his example of #2.
But you do know when the service is completed.
>Just because they shouldn't/couldn't require them doesn't mean they don't.
He just wants devs to provide a means to play the game after it's no longer supported. This CAN be done with no future support (resources) from the developers.

based retard

Providing bare-minimum online functionality would be beneficial to only an infinitesimal portion of gamers. Providing more than that would take substantially more time/money than the "less than a week" estimate he gave. Do you honestly think devs are more likely to ramp up their budget rather than just stop providing online functionality outside of additional payment?

EA fucking wishes it could charge a subscription fee for every online game it offered and legislation would be the perfect excuse to do so.

Because no one had patience to search for legal terms.

According the aussie court, if you purchase a digital product with a single payment, you own said product.

>pay for a license
You are retarded

Copyright runs out after a certain amount of time has passed. There are tricks companies use to subvert this, but the general rule is that you have a lengthy time to make money off of something, and then it becomes available for everyone. The closest games have to this is emulation, which is technically illegal.

But if I only lease the bike, bike store will one day come and take it away from me.
Hey, you made a mistake there. You wanted to say license a product. As in, lease it. For some time. Not forever.

Fuck off, Ross.

>all these shitposters posting counter arguments ross already addressed in the video
Why are you posting here if you clearly don't have the interest for intelligent discussion?

You're analogy is all sorts of retarded. You're not leasing a game, you're paying for a good that you own the rights to for that very specific instance. God damn dude, watch the fucking video before spouting nonsense.

>Why are you posting here if you clearly don't have the interest for intelligent discussion?
>Yea Forums

Don't hurt me anymore

FFS. stop shilling your shit channel

>Providing bare-minimum online functionality would be beneficial to only an infinitesimal portion of gamers.
There are numerous games that prove you wrong. Devs stop giving a shit when a game stops making money, regardless of how many people play it. There are plenty of dead games that players fight tooth and nail to recreate.
>EA fucking wishes it could charge a subscription fee for every online game it offered
They can already do that. They don't because people wouldn't pay for it.

Fuck off with your eceleb shit. Don't buy the game if you don't like it

>But you do know when the service is completed.
As you do a game when game servers go down.
>He just wants
That's irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is that his leverage comes from this idea that GAAS aren't really services. And this point hinges on that 3-point framework. If GAAS hits any of those points, he has no argument for them currently being fraud. And they don't even need to hit those points because they're purely conceptual, not legal.

This, why are people bitching about games a service when they are voting with their wallet for it by using Steam and paying for digital distribution? These same people will get mad if you tell then you want a physical copy and aren't willing to pay for digital distribution.
Perpetual license doesn't make it not a service.

Attached: think_seriously.png (421x416, 47K)

>Perpetual license doesn't make it not a service.
Except it does.

I did. Legally he has no idea what he is talking about but it's okay because he outright admits it.

Every chunky grey cartridge you ever bought for 60 bucks at Funcoland came with a legal disclaimer saying you don't actually own it, just a license to use the single copy of the software contained in the medium.

>and legislation would be the perfect excuse to do so.
You enforce regulation against shutting servers down, you make it unfeasible for devs to offer online services without a subscription model. EA's pitch would be "$5 a month or no online functionality at all". And once they and Activision do it, it becomes normalized.

>Legally he has no idea what he is talking
No, but he read through and showcased a guy that did

Legally he backs up his claims in the first half of the video, and you would know that if you had paid attention. If you buy a good, you own it. Period. There's precedent for that. If the company then decides to make it nonfunctional then that is infringing on your rights as a legal owner of your good.

>questioning any provided online component of a video game
>(whether he explicitly says so or not)
At the start of the video he explicitly states that he does not have an issue with just any online component. He clearly defines and specifies which games that include online components are all right and which games are not.

>As you do a game when game servers go down.
That is absolutely not when the ""service"" is completed. No gamer goes into a game expecting to only play as long as daddy developer says they can. They play it to their own personal satisfaction. If the devs provided a concrete framework for how long their game would last, that would be a different story, but it's currently set at "whenever the fuck we want to stop."

You own what you pay for. Congrats guys your lust to consume corporate cock doesn't impact other people. The customer will eventually win.

>I did
no you didn't

>Devs stop giving a shit when a game stops making money, regardless of how many people play it.
Do you think if the game was still healthy, they wouldn't be making money on it?

>regulation against shutting servers down
It's explicitely not that. It's about the description of protocols so that the users could, within reason, create servers themselves.

you know, at least Toontown Rewritten has been up for more than five years, and POTC private server has been up for one or two.