That seems like a massive oversimplification of his stance.
He’s discussing the intricacies of what’s needed to keep games running past end of life, and highlighting what he sees as pain points. I don’t see any flat rejection, mostly he’s pointing out the kinds of legislation that can be harmful to indies and easy for corporations to circumvent.
I can understand not agreeing with everything he says there, but implying he’s an opponent of the movement doesn’t seem practical just off that video.
I don’t know why it wouldn’t be a practical conclusion to draw, considering that the points made on that video are basically in line with the points brought up by the video game corporations and trade associations, who as you might have guessed are very firm opponents of the movement.
I’ve brought up some of those same points in discussion, not because I “want to protect my dear precious widdle AAA publishers”, but because this is what lawyers do - they practice the most critically focused arguments their opposition will deliver when a confrontation goes to its highest court.
If you say a murderer stabbed someone, and I say “His lawyer’s going to ask you to show a murder weapon”, that’s not me covering for him, just pointing out what’s needed to deliver that conclusion.
Similarly, Chet has adequate experience describing what’s needed to keep a multiplayer game running, and if a AAA publisher brings their lawyers to court against SKG, they will absolutely deliver those same arguments - which makes the movement’s flexibility position on how servers run a critical subject to think about. I don’t blame anyone for feeling doubtful about how game makers can share servers, since it’s a very tricky subject.
But to lend credit to your stance, if not that specific argument: Someone did share a different preserved YT link that I think portrays him as an opponent of SKG more clearly. I’m a bit disappointed in that stance, and I think he overstated Ross as being totally inflexible. The fact that he deleted it may at least indicate he changed his mind a bit, but it’s hard to say for sure.
I agree it is a lot easier to take his latest video more sympathetically if you haven’t seen his earlier video.
I think it comes off as oppositional instead of being helpful in the way you describe because SKG is already more flexible than he lets on in this new video. I mean he says in the video a couple of times over that this is how “he would do it”, and that “this isn’t the only way”. But that just means that the difficulties and scenarios he brings up isn’t really in the scope of SKG, and that the kind of preservation he wants to see isn’t the kind of preservation that SKG is aiming for. But by presenting these scenarios in the general case, he gives off the indirect impression that the preservation itself is more difficult than it needs to be. For SKG, as long as the game is left in a reasonably functional state, it’s all good.
Yes, the game corporations are presenting these more restrictive preservation scenarios because they want to paint this problem as being too difficult to solve, while Chet (I imagine, given his background) is presenting these scenarios because he believes it will be of genuine benefit to the consumer, but but ultimately they are both opponents of the more flexible requests laid out in the SKG movement.
Plus, he (like a lot of Valve employees) are pretty gung ho about the free market working itself out, and mentions that legislation are punitive and don’t work and that the game publishers should be partners in the effort and not enemies, so I can’t imagine he would get along well with the lot of the people in the SKG movement just on an ideological basis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6LbwYHZJ1PY
That seems like a massive oversimplification of his stance.
He’s discussing the intricacies of what’s needed to keep games running past end of life, and highlighting what he sees as pain points. I don’t see any flat rejection, mostly he’s pointing out the kinds of legislation that can be harmful to indies and easy for corporations to circumvent.
I can understand not agreeing with everything he says there, but implying he’s an opponent of the movement doesn’t seem practical just off that video.
I don’t know why it wouldn’t be a practical conclusion to draw, considering that the points made on that video are basically in line with the points brought up by the video game corporations and trade associations, who as you might have guessed are very firm opponents of the movement.
I’ve brought up some of those same points in discussion, not because I “want to protect my dear precious widdle AAA publishers”, but because this is what lawyers do - they practice the most critically focused arguments their opposition will deliver when a confrontation goes to its highest court.
If you say a murderer stabbed someone, and I say “His lawyer’s going to ask you to show a murder weapon”, that’s not me covering for him, just pointing out what’s needed to deliver that conclusion.
Similarly, Chet has adequate experience describing what’s needed to keep a multiplayer game running, and if a AAA publisher brings their lawyers to court against SKG, they will absolutely deliver those same arguments - which makes the movement’s flexibility position on how servers run a critical subject to think about. I don’t blame anyone for feeling doubtful about how game makers can share servers, since it’s a very tricky subject.
But to lend credit to your stance, if not that specific argument: Someone did share a different preserved YT link that I think portrays him as an opponent of SKG more clearly. I’m a bit disappointed in that stance, and I think he overstated Ross as being totally inflexible. The fact that he deleted it may at least indicate he changed his mind a bit, but it’s hard to say for sure.
I agree it is a lot easier to take his latest video more sympathetically if you haven’t seen his earlier video.
I think it comes off as oppositional instead of being helpful in the way you describe because SKG is already more flexible than he lets on in this new video. I mean he says in the video a couple of times over that this is how “he would do it”, and that “this isn’t the only way”. But that just means that the difficulties and scenarios he brings up isn’t really in the scope of SKG, and that the kind of preservation he wants to see isn’t the kind of preservation that SKG is aiming for. But by presenting these scenarios in the general case, he gives off the indirect impression that the preservation itself is more difficult than it needs to be. For SKG, as long as the game is left in a reasonably functional state, it’s all good.
Yes, the game corporations are presenting these more restrictive preservation scenarios because they want to paint this problem as being too difficult to solve, while Chet (I imagine, given his background) is presenting these scenarios because he believes it will be of genuine benefit to the consumer, but but ultimately they are both opponents of the more flexible requests laid out in the SKG movement.
Plus, he (like a lot of Valve employees) are pretty gung ho about the free market working itself out, and mentions that legislation are punitive and don’t work and that the game publishers should be partners in the effort and not enemies, so I can’t imagine he would get along well with the lot of the people in the SKG movement just on an ideological basis.