Yes, that is reasonable. What's wrong with that? Requirements kicking in after end-of-life is good. It encourages responsible end-of-support from companies. You're missing the forest for the trees here. There is no good reason not to support this if you're against DRM.

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxUGoPNGaVeRKcUU6w7wzx3iZVjdYnjO69

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxLwTNvTltKnPGH4E0mZ0y2ns42cNOtDoW

On The Crew: The Crew was mostly a target of convenience and the best opportunity in recent years from what I know. I think Overwatch would have been even murkier and more uphill than The Crew (especially when sending complaints to consumer protection agencies), since owners got Overwatch 2 and free perks as "compensation":

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxiIgoflLIa3hDzzGP97itl4Mx9MGJRb6J

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxU0j27dEb6sGZalcaCKjJcqmu5dkS1XQb

https://youtu.be/yxIY-q6Utrs?list=PLheQeINBJzWaKyqwEEuRIlnDoDMMvQ0rb&t=745

For the UK, they cited non-existent laws and made an irrelevant conclusion (gave a non-response with reasoning that didn't relate at all to their conclusions): https://youtu.be/cI2G4xLBVkY?list=PLheQeINBJzWa6RmeCpWwu0KRHAidNFVTB&t=267

You can find the past UK petition compared to the new one here: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/pastactions

The new one was reworded to be even clearer than the one from last time, and they still copy-pasted a rejected answer that the Petitions Committee wanted the government to redo before the elections came about and dissolved Parliament. Here's proof they copy-pasted: https://imgur.com/a/uk-government-copying-answers-XKNNdSN

I think it was pretty impressive for a petition given the character limits. And what a shame the response from the government



Stop Killing Games' appeal to change and aspirations towards making gaming better: https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx2TTvCkKQ2WgrWv3GWQ748iR069et4Kju
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxUdcgGwUM2ryXQ9kTt-BBvp2cs6-SnC3p
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxWkUxVX6863qASlNzPrX0T58PoiPYcjO3

https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkxbt5EM88lCmw3Kbpaj9WAG3FGv7RPOyUj
“Most of what we're doing is about future games...the point is, this campaign is focused on games that don't even exist yet. So when I see comments saying what we're asking for is impossible, or we don't know what we're talking about, what I hear is somebody saying "It is impossible or impractical to make an online game in the future with an end-of-life plan." Now, I and many developers I've talked to think that's a pretty silly statement, but I've seen so many comments along those lines. I think a few out there have an almost myopic focus on games right now and how things can't change, and that's not where our focus is.” - Ross Scott


Here, this should cover everything else, have fun: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HasD_5PwyW2LbXvJVkoQ2IHmia7QWShsEmNziGyT_Go/edit?tab=t.0

Don't nitpick against your interests when you understand the problem of games being killswitched but refuse to do anything about it, especially since this is the only chance we have to saving games. What's the alternative?: https://youtu.be/sEVBiN5SKuA?list=PLheQeINBJzWa6RmeCpWwu0KRHAidNFVTB&t=114


https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx8PMRKgUtwd9MLRvSJqBJU9wmAcK4ealE

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxIghD5Mv6c5pXYupYccK6P2zKpbN9GhqJ

https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkxj-yg5AFEeFlaqw5cbEityPkx1CwiBkGy

I would guess GOG is just too scared about pissing off publishers and having important games (one or more moneymaker titles) pulled to publicly support this. They're kinda scraping by financially afaik, so they're probably unwilling to gamble on something like this.

You might have an easier time getting Zoom-Platform, Fireflower Games, maybe itch.io?, to publicly support this. Especially Zoom-Platform I'd say.

I think people would be more supportive and certainly less confused of this movement's motives if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that if The Crew were "supported" another 10 years (but still DRM'd up to the eyeballs and unpreservable), then in his own words Ross would also be "perfectly happy" with keeping the 3x layers of DRM in it (that makes it "unpreservable") for another 10 years over the same time-frame he simultaneously decries he "wants something done" about Game Preservation...

Similarly, people here have been arguing for removal of DRM in games for +15 years (including auto-removal of DRM in AAA's after a couple of years) for today's games that were "future" games vs when GOG launched. The same games for which Ross also still happily supports keeping the DRM in "as long as they're being sold" (ie, if a game remains on Steam / Ubisoft Connect for the next 30 years, he's happy with 30 more years of DRM in it...)

Likewise some stuff still makes zero sense no matter how you frame it. Take this screenshot. Ignoring the fact that "Do absolutely nothing" on the left is exactly when you need to do something (work done during this phase is the difference between Skyrim's Creation Club vs Diablo 3 for offline playability 10 years down the line). Focusing on the right. How the hell does he plan to "preserve" micro-transactions AND require the game to have no further connection to publisher / developer? Unlike Expansion Packs / DLC that can be bought outside of game (eg, via GOG, Steam, etc), Micro-Transactions are basically bought in-game (in-game "coins" via Google Play games, skins / booster packs / lootbox drops in PC games). So again, he seems to be arguing for simply creating a The Crew community server that still implements some form of DRM check (and possibly access to a copy of Ubisoft's financial records) necessary to form a community database to allow the new server to use to unlock in-game MT content for those who bought it without relying on Ubisoft servers. It's hardly "nit-picking" to point out the obvious problems with that...

Which audience are you addressing here? People on GOG have been "doing something" about it by at the very least not financially fuelling the problem by throwing money at online-only Ubisoft games. It's the same mindless whales who blew $500 per game on MT's that are the worst offenders for encouraging more of the same in future. It definitely come across as patronising to read "Critics of me are silly, people on GOG 'refuse to do anything about DRM" comments by a guy who's fine with keeping DRM in Steam / EA / uPlay games for decades as long as they don't get unlisted and wants more DRM on community servers (to preserve his micro-transactions).

In fact that screenshot AB2012 linked to above is like watching someone argue FOR "preserving" Candy Crush Saga coin unlocks whilst arguing AGAINST auto-removing DRM from single player AAA's on Steam after say 5 years. There's a point where you need to admit that such a "Preservation Program" is going nowhere simply by being completely arse-backwards. It's the single player AAA's that are most preservable where the focus should be on, and the online lootboxes / MT's in online-only cloud-based games that will never be preservable even with a million such petitions.

I'm not sure if you're actually serious about claiming people on "Good Old Games" are opposed to playing our favourite games 20 years down the line, but the criticism many of us have is "Stop Killing Games" is regularly portrayed as if it conferred all the advantages DRM-Free gamers get from DRM-Free games, except Ross has openly said in his own words he doesn't actually want to remove DRM from any game that's still being sold on any store (inc the same Steam he supposedly dislikes), even games that are 20-30 years old. So if you fall asleep and in 20 years time, the same Far Cry 3 / Mass Effect 1-3 / Age of Empires Definitive game are still being sold on Steam, Origin, etc (with same DRM), he's happy to keep that DRM in for yet another 20 years. If a DRM'd game remains for sale on Steam for the next 100 years, then he's "happy with" 100 years of DRM.

In short, we're not "opposed to Game Preservation", we just want actual Game Preservation, not the DRM'd pretence of it.

Sure, but it might imply various financial penalties for not complying and hassle to remove the drm at the end of support to avoid said financial penalties.

So far, especially with platforms like Steam, we've seen the dystopia of drm convenience at both ends of the spectrum (for devs and users).

How about we start making drm not quite as convenient for someone (devs) for a change?

Seems like a move in the right direction to me so I'll take it.

You just refuse to understand what I'm saying here (and what others say even better and more in detail): I'm interested in what happens while the game is sold (/supported) and the initiative specifically says that DRM is perfectly fine during that time, which is unacceptable. What happens when or if the game stops being sold or otherwise legally distributed has too little relevance by comparison. If a game would be distributed without DRM to begin with, there will be no problem if it stops being supported, anyone who already has it will be able to play it just fine. And, in fact, the interest of game preservation would be to prevent the situation in which games are no longer legally available, wouldn't it?

I won't and I've said my piece on it, multiple times. It's an effort to combat an admittedly severe but comparatively rare symptom while specifically stating that there's "nothing wrong" with the disease, its causes and its far more common symptoms.