At 7/5/25 09:13 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:50 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:44 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:08 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:56 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:41 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:37 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:33 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:32 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:29 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:
What am I wrong about? Please, show me.
If I'm wrong I'll accept it, but I just don't think I am.

No. You need to prove your point and you can't.

Then so do you. What am I wrong about?

And what part of my point do you think isn't proven yet?

How about you go back to my responses and address the parts you skipped over in your little deflection game. You're a waste of everyone's time if you can't do that.

Sure, but then you have to tell me why I was wrong earlier.
You mean this part?
"Name me one game that would have to work 1% harder that doesn't have the resources to do so."

I didn't really understand what you meant, or what you were trying to ask. Can you re-word it slightly for me? Thanks.

Ok, I'm pretty sure you're not a dev, but I am. An end of life plan is effectively nothing for a game that doesn't implement DRM or server-side access, something that 99.9% of indies don't and can't do. I have no power to yeet a game I put on itch.io off of people's hard drives because I'm not implementing a backend specifically designed to kill my client's access to it whenever I want. Your concern is completely unfounded, your imagination is running wild and there is no real world situation where the Stop Killing Games initiative would impede a creative from making the decisions they would have made otherwise. That or you just don't understand what's at issue here.

With that in mind, I need you to substantiate your claim that this would impede creatives. I need a concrete situation. You're saying "it's bad because it's bad," you're not actually offering a situation where a dev would have to compromise on their vision because there's a rule in place that says they need to have a plan to hand-off their game to their community when whatever online functionality they implemented ends official support. You're just saying there will be, you're not backing that up with any examples. Just name one situation at all, let us weigh that against the mountains of situations where a game being rendered inaccessible sucks shit.

I'm a dev too.
I'm saying "it's bad to give creatives less options" becasue creating a law to give creatives less options does exactly that.
It's a proposed change to the law to limit what you can make, and I don't see how that's a good thing. You say my "concern is unfounded" but that's literally what they are proposing, am I wrong?

The vagueness here betrays its emptiness. There is no option being taken away, otherwise you could name it.

Maybe my game is only a piece of art if it dies and doesn't come back (like Glitchhiker). Maybe the game isn't finished unless this happens. If this becomes law, this isn't a possibility anymore, am I incorrect?

Then do what the initiative lays out and label your shit as performance art with an end date where it will be unplayable. The only option being taken away from you is the one to defraud your customers. You don't deserve that.

What's vague about what I said? I did everything you requested and you're still unhappy.

Would you like to tell me what was wrong about my earlier statement now? Thanks.

There's nothing to disprove, you can't offer anything beyond "it just will be bad because it just will be"

At 7/5/25 09:21 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 09:13 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:50 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:44 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:08 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:56 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:41 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:37 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:33 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:32 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:29 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:
What am I wrong about? Please, show me.
If I'm wrong I'll accept it, but I just don't think I am.

No. You need to prove your point and you can't.

Then so do you. What am I wrong about?

And what part of my point do you think isn't proven yet?

How about you go back to my responses and address the parts you skipped over in your little deflection game. You're a waste of everyone's time if you can't do that.

Sure, but then you have to tell me why I was wrong earlier.
You mean this part?
"Name me one game that would have to work 1% harder that doesn't have the resources to do so."

I didn't really understand what you meant, or what you were trying to ask. Can you re-word it slightly for me? Thanks.

Ok, I'm pretty sure you're not a dev, but I am. An end of life plan is effectively nothing for a game that doesn't implement DRM or server-side access, something that 99.9% of indies don't and can't do. I have no power to yeet a game I put on itch.io off of people's hard drives because I'm not implementing a backend specifically designed to kill my client's access to it whenever I want. Your concern is completely unfounded, your imagination is running wild and there is no real world situation where the Stop Killing Games initiative would impede a creative from making the decisions they would have made otherwise. That or you just don't understand what's at issue here.

With that in mind, I need you to substantiate your claim that this would impede creatives. I need a concrete situation. You're saying "it's bad because it's bad," you're not actually offering a situation where a dev would have to compromise on their vision because there's a rule in place that says they need to have a plan to hand-off their game to their community when whatever online functionality they implemented ends official support. You're just saying there will be, you're not backing that up with any examples. Just name one situation at all, let us weigh that against the mountains of situations where a game being rendered inaccessible sucks shit.

I'm a dev too.
I'm saying "it's bad to give creatives less options" becasue creating a law to give creatives less options does exactly that.
It's a proposed change to the law to limit what you can make, and I don't see how that's a good thing. You say my "concern is unfounded" but that's literally what they are proposing, am I wrong?

The vagueness here betrays its emptiness. There is no option being taken away, otherwise you could name it.

Maybe my game is only a piece of art if it dies and doesn't come back (like Glitchhiker). Maybe the game isn't finished unless this happens. If this becomes law, this isn't a possibility anymore, am I incorrect?

Then do what the initiative lays out and label your shit as performance art with an end date where it will be unplayable. The only option being taken away from you is the one to defraud your customers. You don't deserve that.

What's vague about what I said? I did everything you requested and you're still unhappy.

Would you like to tell me what was wrong about my earlier statement now? Thanks.

There's nothing to disprove, you can't offer anything beyond "it just will be bad because it just will be"

I've already told you exactly why I think it's bad and how it limits people's creative output, and I don't think this is refutable. You just don't like my answer for some reason.

I asked what was incorrect with my earlier statements and you can not answer me. You said they were incorrect and have refused to substantiate your claim with any support of any kind. If you're correct, my opinion on the matter will be irrelevant, because it will be true and I will accept it.

Please, go ahead. Tell us exactly what I said that was incorrect. Quote the exact thing I said that you think is incorrect, and elaborate on why, so we can move ahead with the discussion.

At 7/5/25 09:26 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 09:21 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 09:13 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:50 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:44 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 08:08 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:56 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:41 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:37 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:33 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:32 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/5/25 07:29 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:
What am I wrong about? Please, show me.
If I'm wrong I'll accept it, but I just don't think I am.

No. You need to prove your point and you can't.

Then so do you. What am I wrong about?

And what part of my point do you think isn't proven yet?

How about you go back to my responses and address the parts you skipped over in your little deflection game. You're a waste of everyone's time if you can't do that.

Sure, but then you have to tell me why I was wrong earlier.
You mean this part?
"Name me one game that would have to work 1% harder that doesn't have the resources to do so."

I didn't really understand what you meant, or what you were trying to ask. Can you re-word it slightly for me? Thanks.

Ok, I'm pretty sure you're not a dev, but I am. An end of life plan is effectively nothing for a game that doesn't implement DRM or server-side access, something that 99.9% of indies don't and can't do. I have no power to yeet a game I put on itch.io off of people's hard drives because I'm not implementing a backend specifically designed to kill my client's access to it whenever I want. Your concern is completely unfounded, your imagination is running wild and there is no real world situation where the Stop Killing Games initiative would impede a creative from making the decisions they would have made otherwise. That or you just don't understand what's at issue here.

With that in mind, I need you to substantiate your claim that this would impede creatives. I need a concrete situation. You're saying "it's bad because it's bad," you're not actually offering a situation where a dev would have to compromise on their vision because there's a rule in place that says they need to have a plan to hand-off their game to their community when whatever online functionality they implemented ends official support. You're just saying there will be, you're not backing that up with any examples. Just name one situation at all, let us weigh that against the mountains of situations where a game being rendered inaccessible sucks shit.

I'm a dev too.
I'm saying "it's bad to give creatives less options" becasue creating a law to give creatives less options does exactly that.
It's a proposed change to the law to limit what you can make, and I don't see how that's a good thing. You say my "concern is unfounded" but that's literally what they are proposing, am I wrong?

The vagueness here betrays its emptiness. There is no option being taken away, otherwise you could name it.

Maybe my game is only a piece of art if it dies and doesn't come back (like Glitchhiker). Maybe the game isn't finished unless this happens. If this becomes law, this isn't a possibility anymore, am I incorrect?

Then do what the initiative lays out and label your shit as performance art with an end date where it will be unplayable. The only option being taken away from you is the one to defraud your customers. You don't deserve that.

What's vague about what I said? I did everything you requested and you're still unhappy.

Would you like to tell me what was wrong about my earlier statement now? Thanks.

There's nothing to disprove, you can't offer anything beyond "it just will be bad because it just will be"

I've already told you exactly why I think it's bad and how it limits people's creative output, and I don't think this is refutable. You just don't like my answer for some reason.

I asked what was incorrect with my earlier statements and you can not answer me. You said they were incorrect and have refused to substantiate your claim with any support of any kind. If you're correct, my opinion on the matter will be irrelevant, because it will be true and I will accept it.

Please, go ahead. Tell us exactly what I said that was incorrect. Quote the exact thing I said that you think is incorrect, and elaborate on why, so we can move ahead with the discussion.

This is the problem with shadowboxing with a whole mountain of nothing. Just because you have a high post count of half baked allusions to phantom problems makes you think you made an argument at some point. It's a total waste of everyone's time. Let everyone judge for themselves at this point, I've got a life to live.

At 7/4/25 07:06 PM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/4/25 02:19 PM, nguser2013 wrote:

At 7/4/25 08:16 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/4/25 07:27 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:39 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:37 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:34 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:21 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:09 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/3/25 05:58 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:
Well you didn't mention about making it clear

Yes I did. Multiple times ITT.
Read my posts.

Well yeah after people argue back at that statement that you then add the "clear dated time". Regardless it still a shitty thing to do to customers.

That statement was made 5 hours before you joined the thread.
You had plenty of time to read the entire thread before replying, don't get upset at me. It's not my fault you didn't read the thread.

I'm not getting upset? I'm just debating at your statement.

Cool. But we're not having a "debate" lol.
I'm just correcting you.

SMH. People with corporate like statements mindsets just surprise me these days.

I don't have a "corporate mindset", did you not read any of my posts?
I'm worried about what this means for artists and their art (the games they make).

The nyou should keep it yourself, not sell it,

Why?
Please, I want to know exactly what your problem is.

At 7/5/25 10:03 AM, nguser2013 wrote:

At 7/4/25 07:06 PM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/4/25 02:19 PM, nguser2013 wrote:

At 7/4/25 08:16 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/4/25 07:27 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:39 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:37 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:34 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:21 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:

At 7/3/25 06:09 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:

At 7/3/25 05:58 AM, Metropoloxx wrote:
Well you didn't mention about making it clear

Yes I did. Multiple times ITT.
Read my posts.

Well yeah after people argue back at that statement that you then add the "clear dated time". Regardless it still a shitty thing to do to customers.

That statement was made 5 hours before you joined the thread.
You had plenty of time to read the entire thread before replying, don't get upset at me. It's not my fault you didn't read the thread.

I'm not getting upset? I'm just debating at your statement.

Cool. But we're not having a "debate" lol.
I'm just correcting you.

SMH. People with corporate like statements mindsets just surprise me these days.

I don't have a "corporate mindset", did you not read any of my posts?
I'm worried about what this means for artists and their art (the games they make).

The nyou should keep it yourself, not sell it,

Why?
Please, I want to know exactly what your problem is.

I am afraid, at this moment, some is screenshoting your art and recording your musics.

At 7/1/25 10:06 PM, nguser2013 wrote:Hello newgrounds. I like to announce something.

There are currently two initiavite running, one is in UK and another in EU.

EU - "Stop Killing Games" ⚠️Deadline: 31/07/2025⚠️

If you are EU citizen, go sign "Stop Killing Games" initiavite.
Those who are not, spread this message.

UK have own version of this. But EU version is approaching deadline, end of this month.

Currently:
765,221 signatures towards 1,000,000 goal

After reading forum rules, I don't post any links or I get banned.
I'm pretty sure... in 2025 people know how to use google search engine.
Like hell, I was using Altavista and Ask Jeeves in my school days, and google came.

At 7/5/25 08:08 AM, ZekeWatson wrote:
I'm a dev too.
I'm saying "it's bad to give creatives less options" becasue creating a law to give creatives less options does exactly that.
It's a proposed change to the law to limit what you can make, and I don't see how that's a good thing. You say my "concern is unfounded" but that's literally what they are proposing, am I wrong?

Maybe my game is only a piece of art if it dies and doesn't come back (like Glitchhiker). Maybe the game isn't finished unless this happens. If this becomes law, this isn't a possibility anymore, am I incorrect?
I sure don't understand why anyone (especially a developer) would want this part to become law.

At 7/5/25 05:34 AM, Volpon wrote:Yeah but ..why? Like you seem cogent, explain your thought process cause i just don't get it.

At 7/4/25 03:08 AM, Narratorway wrote:I largely agree with Thor/Pirate Software.
This initiative as currently presented is largely detrimental to videogames as a whole and in its ignorance/indifference to the realities of game development

At 7/6/25 12:25 AM, Narratorway wrote:I realized now I somewhat misspoke in my previous entry and presented my criticisms of the initiative as if they were reasons the initiative shouldn't pass, when really I meant to present them as reasons the initiative likely won't pass.

...as currently presented.

At 7/6/25 06:12 AM, Volpon wrote:I'm a bit bit dense but I still don't see how the initiative is detrimental to anyone?

Yeah it's possible they bit off more than they can chew, but I feel like they did their best to keep the scope limited as much as possible. It's hard to touch the topic of conservation without talking about ownership at all.

The only risk I see, is starting a long overdue conversation about digital rights.
That would ultimately be good to the industry. The current parasitic model is not sustainable imo.

At 7/6/25 01:41 PM, Narratorway wrote:Getting legal authorities to recognize a videogame purchase can be rendered meaningless by the seller with no oversight or legal recompense is a worthy endeavor, but demanding such situations require games be preserved after ending support is going to create push-back that wouldn't be there otherwise. And when that opposition points to these demands and ask, "What does this have to do with consumer's rights?", it's going to be very hard to come up with a response that makes any legal sense.

At 7/1/25 10:06 PM, nguser2013 wrote:Hello newgrounds. I like to announce something.

There are currently two initiavite running, one is in UK and another in EU.

EU - "Stop Killing Games" ⚠️Deadline: 31/07/2025⚠️

If you are EU citizen, go sign "Stop Killing Games" initiavite.
Those who are not, spread this message.

UK have own version of this. But EU version is approaching deadline, end of this month.

Currently:
765,221 signatures towards 1,000,000 goal

After reading forum rules, I don't post any links or I get banned.
I'm pretty sure... in 2025 people know how to use google search engine.
Like hell, I was using Altavista and Ask Jeeves in my school days, and google came.

At 7/6/25 01:41 PM, Narratorway wrote:

At 7/6/25 10:23 AM, Volpon wrote:I guess my question would be: how would you present preservation then? What would be an innocuous way to broach the subject?

I wouldn't.

Consumer Rights are about transactions between consumers and sellers and governments' responsibility to ensure those transactions are fair for the consumer. How that can be accomplished is vast: labeling, compensation, you name it. So consumer rights can still be preserved without games being so because game preservation is not connected to consumer rights. Ross said as much in his original Q 'n A on the issue months ago. Or to put it more simply:

Games Preservation = Good Thing
Games Preservation =/= Consumer Rights

Getting legal authorities to recognize a videogame purchase can be rendered meaningless by the seller with no oversight or legal recompense is a worthy endeavor, but demanding such situations require games be preserved after ending support is going to create push-back that wouldn't be there otherwise. And when that opposition points to these demands and ask, "What does this have to do with consumer's rights?", it's going to be very hard to come up with a response that makes any legal sense.

At 7/6/25 07:46 PM, Metropoloxx wrote:

At 7/6/25 01:41 PM, Narratorway wrote:

At 7/6/25 10:23 AM, Volpon wrote:I guess my question would be: how would you present preservation then? What would be an innocuous way to broach the subject?

I wouldn't.

Consumer Rights are about transactions between consumers and sellers and governments' responsibility to ensure those transactions are fair for the consumer. How that can be accomplished is vast: labeling, compensation, you name it. So consumer rights can still be preserved without games being so because game preservation is not connected to consumer rights. Ross said as much in his original Q 'n A on the issue months ago. Or to put it more simply:

Games Preservation = Good Thing
Games Preservation =/= Consumer Rights

Getting legal authorities to recognize a videogame purchase can be rendered meaningless by the seller with no oversight or legal recompense is a worthy endeavor, but demanding such situations require games be preserved after ending support is going to create push-back that wouldn't be there otherwise. And when that opposition points to these demands and ask, "What does this have to do with consumer's rights?", it's going to be very hard to come up with a response that makes any legal sense.

I can already imagine the huge corpo backed campaigns against SKG ideas whether by lobbying, misinformation, misinterpret, or whatever money can buy to silence SKG. But you know what at least people like Ross are trying. I don't like this defeatist attitude/do nothing these past decade where letting companies just do whatever without getting some push back by the public. Also Dolorious brought a good idea. I'm goddam customer not someone just consume media without thought. I pay for my products and I should have customer rights/protections.

If SKG does anything or nothing at all, then at least it was tried then never done at all.

At 7/6/25 03:41 PM, Dolorious wrote:Ever wonder why we went from calling the people that buy products customers to consumers?
I stopped using the term consumer as soon as I noticed it was a subtle way for big corporations to dehumanize the population. Personally I think another step in pushing back against all this bullshit is to go back to calling the buyers customers again. We aren't animals and we have rights. We aren't animals to shove our heads in the trough and just eat whatever shit these big corporations stuff in there. We are customers, human beings that are choosing to engage or refuse in a transaction of their products or services.

I personally think it will help a lot. But that's up to the people. I as a customer, a human being will call out these big corporations for their scummy attempts at rug pulling in these transactions.

At 7/7/25 07:55 PM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/6/25 03:41 PM, Dolorious wrote:Ever wonder why we went from calling the people that buy products customers to consumers?
I stopped using the term consumer as soon as I noticed it was a subtle way for big corporations to dehumanize the population. Personally I think another step in pushing back against all this bullshit is to go back to calling the buyers customers again. We aren't animals and we have rights. We aren't animals to shove our heads in the trough and just eat whatever shit these big corporations stuff in there. We are customers, human beings that are choosing to engage or refuse in a transaction of their products or services.

I personally think it will help a lot. But that's up to the people. I as a customer, a human being will call out these big corporations for their scummy attempts at rug pulling in these transactions.

I've been conscious about that for a while. I still use the term when referring to consumer protection law just to avoid confusion, but when it comes to individuals, reducing them to their tendency to "consume" makes them sound like mindless chattel, and referring to the act of engaging with art as "consuming" reduces the art form into something necessarily disposable that can't have any lasting effect or deeper meaning.

It's the perfect term for corpos that want you to accept a non-negotiable, one-way relationship where you unquestioningly pay for whatever slop they push out without any kind of critical thought or overarching standards, forgetting it as soon as you finish so you're primed and ready to buy the next identical game in the series exactly 12 months later. To be a consumer is to accept that arrangement.

These initiatives run counter to the consumption narrative, and elevate the dynamic to a customer-client relationship where the former can't be so easily cheated. The people against it only want to reserve their right to (or at least continue to escape punishment from) engaging in predatory, deceitful tactics that make explicit how they don't see their customers as human beings that deserve to at least know what they're paying for.

At 7/7/25 08:08 PM, Dolorious wrote:

At 7/7/25 07:55 PM, Skoops wrote:

At 7/6/25 03:41 PM, Dolorious wrote:Ever wonder why we went from calling the people that buy products customers to consumers?
I stopped using the term consumer as soon as I noticed it was a subtle way for big corporations to dehumanize the population. Personally I think another step in pushing back against all this bullshit is to go back to calling the buyers customers again. We aren't animals and we have rights. We aren't animals to shove our heads in the trough and just eat whatever shit these big corporations stuff in there. We are customers, human beings that are choosing to engage or refuse in a transaction of their products or services.

I personally think it will help a lot. But that's up to the people. I as a customer, a human being will call out these big corporations for their scummy attempts at rug pulling in these transactions.

I've been conscious about that for a while. I still use the term when referring to consumer protection law just to avoid confusion, but when it comes to individuals, reducing them to their tendency to "consume" makes them sound like mindless chattel, and referring to the act of engaging with art as "consuming" reduces the art form into something necessarily disposable that can't have any lasting effect or deeper meaning.

It's the perfect term for corpos that want you to accept a non-negotiable, one-way relationship where you unquestioningly pay for whatever slop they push out without any kind of critical thought or overarching standards, forgetting it as soon as you finish so you're primed and ready to buy the next identical game in the series exactly 12 months later. To be a consumer is to accept that arrangement.

These initiatives run counter to the consumption narrative, and elevate the dynamic to a customer-client relationship where the former can't be so easily cheated. The people against it only want to reserve their right to (or at least continue to escape punishment from) engaging in predatory, deceitful tactics that make explicit how they don't see their customers as human beings that deserve to at least know what they're paying for.

And one has to remember that these big mega corporations hire psychologist or psychoanalyst to figure out how to manipulate the population to maximize their profits or whatever fucking goal they're trying to achieve. It's all extremely insidious with the shit they try to pull. Trying to dehumanize their customers and have them accept that dehumanization.