text:
"Games as a Service". If you've been involved with computer or video games for any length of time you've probably come across that phrase. I don't know what the origin is. Wikpedia's no help. Look at this first sentence under 'History'. "The idea of Games as a Service began around 2004 with the introduction of-" blah blah blah that doesn't matter, that's already wrong. I mean EverQuest was the first major game
I knew about doing this in '99 but even before that, I remember hearing
about the Sierra Network from '91. I really doubt that was even when this started
either, it was probably some MUD. Yeah, before World of Warcraft, there were MUDs,
fun for everyone. "2004"…you're no help at all
here Wikipedia. And I got sidetracked in the first minute.
Nice. Anyway, what I was getting at is I don't
know the origin of this phrase, but it's so thoroughly entered the vernacular, that I'm honestly wondering if it's the result
of some subtle propaganda campaign. I say that because it's such a harmless
sounding phrase but it hides a terrible if not illegal
business practice. And that bring me to the title: "Games as a Service is Fraud". Now that sounds clickbait-y, and,
I guess it is but, I'm not exaggerating. I mean it. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of fraud
I can easily explain in one sentence. So it's not like changing the odometer
on a car then covering it up and selling it
as though you never did that. That's easy fraud.
Anyone understands that. This is a more sophisticated kind. Like how even now, a lot of people
are still confused on how Goldman Sachs broke the law leading up to the 2008
finanical crash and how a lot of people should have gone to prison. This is more like that. Now I'll warn you, this video is going to
be long, and could get boring in spots, but, it's necessary. See, this video is my declaration of war
on Games as a Service. I'm going up against years of pushed
narrative here, this isn't gonna be easy. I have to explain everything as a way
to provide ammo to the troops. And even though it's gonna be long,
I'm gonna say a lot. You know how some court cases drag on
weeks or months? Well this is me putting my entire case
in this video. So however long it is, it's me saying it all. I'm going to explain what Games as a Service is, why it's fraud, address any counterarguments, and most importantly, what can be done about it. I have a plan sort of. Oh and I think it's Games as a Service "is"
fraud and not "are" fraud because it's referring to the singular practice
"Games as a Service". But I guess you could also literally have
Games as a Service "are" something. I really don't know if- So let's jump right in:
What is "Games as a Service?" Well, Wikipedia defines it as Ah ha ha! Gotcha! No, we're not doing that. They had their chance. I was hoping they would make this easy on me. Nope. Gamasutra defines it as Uhh… This long winded philisophical ideal. Ok, yeah, looks like I'm gonna have to
do this myself. Ok, first, let's get something out of the way. Because this isn't confusing enough, "Games as a Service" is not the same as
a "game service". A "game service" is usually a rental system. So if you pay a company twenty bucks a month
and can rent games or have them streamed to you, but you can also buy them outright somewhere, then that's not what I'm talking about.
That's not fraud, that's fine. But "Games as a Service", how do we define that? Well, it's a business practice, but what? Well if you're a gamer, you probably have
an idea of what it is so let's list some common traits and see if we
can narrow it down to what actually defines it. Here's my list–let's go down the line. "Online only". Yes, I'd say that one defines
every use of Games as a Service. Now some games have downloadable content
that you can run offline, but that's not what the industry means
when they refer to this. In fact, another term for Games as a
Service is "live service games". In other words, you're connected online,
so it's live. But hey, I'll give another freebie. If offline Games as a Service games exist,
then those are not fraud. So hey, "Oblivion" horse armor Not fraud. This is actually a great baseline if you want
to determine how fair or not you think I'm being toward game companies. This says something
about where my standards are these days. But back to defining things, we'll say, "Yes,
every Games as a Service is online only." However, not every online game is Games
as a Service. We'll come back to that in a minute. "Extra online features" This is stuff like stat tracking,
matchmaking, player messaging, and so on. Well Games as a Service usually have
these, but they're by no means a guarantee. Plus, regular games can have these too. Player messaging and voice chat go way back. Stat tracking certainly happened in
offline games. Matchmaking was usually third party software
in the past so I think it's safe to say none of those
define "Games as a Service". "Microtransactions". And you may not believe this, but NO,
those are NOT what define Games as a Service! Here are a few Games as a Service that
had NO microtransactions whatsoever. However, I will say the overwhelming
majority of Games as a Service DO have microtransactions and this is the number one reason companies really like this practice. However, since exceptions do exist,
this is not actually what defines it. "Subscription fees". Very few games still have these, so, no. However, we have that trick again. Most Games as a Service do not have
a subscription fee, but all games with a subscription fee are
Games as a Service. Get it? "Frequent updates". Well a lot of good Games as a Service
have these, but again, it's by no means what defines them. Plenty of Games as a Service go by years
with no updates at all so, nope, that's not it either. And, "massive multiplayer games". Nope, still not it. On one hand, you have some Games as a Service
that are intended for a small number of players, on the other hand, you've had some gigantic
games that are not this practice. The multiplayer mod for Just Cause 2 has had over 1,800 simultaneous players
in the game. Yet it is NOT considered "Games as a
Service". MMO games are usually Games as a Service,
but, not what defines it. Okay, so wow. The only definition that survived is Games
as a Service are online only. and even that one has a caveat. See, some games are just meant to be played
online. If you play the game "Starsiege: Tribes" the only way to really play it, is to
connect to other people. In essence, it's an online only game. Yet it is not Games as a Service.
You know why? Because YOU'RE still the one in control. Games as a Service means the company is
providing you the "service" of allowing you to play your game. And yes, I am being facetious. You didn't used to need "permission" for that. Now people will debate what Games as a
Service should mean but this is the real world, hard definition. "Games as a Service" means the business
practice of players not having control of whether they can play a game due to a
company withholding that function. That it all it is, in its purest,
most distilled form. Oh sure, they usually have other stuff on
this list but none of those other traits could survive
the definition test. In fact, I'd say this definition isn't even
the intent of Games as a Service. But it is what defines it. If it doesn't have this, it is NOT Games
as a Service. Okay! Fraud time! So now we have a concrete definition of
Games as a Service. But why is it fraud? Well, the simplest answer is it's being sold
as something it's not. I'll break it down. But first we have to understand the difference
between a "good" and a "service". Products are defined as "services" or
"goods". A "good" is something you buy and own,
a "service" is an action performed for you. So if you buy a hammer, it's a "good". It's a thing. It's yours. But if you get a haircut, that's a service. They didn't just hand you your haircut in a
box they used scissors to deliver the desired
result. Or, so I'm told. And again, I have to rail on Wikipedia here. Since they define goods as "something tangible"
then later say they're NOT always tangible. Good job contradicting yourself in the first
sentence guys! Whatever, that second part is correct. So things like digital movies you buy are
intangible goods. You can't touch a movie. But it's still sold like a physical good. Well guess what? Most games are goods too. Even Games as a Service. So yes, I just said Games as a Service
are not services. I'll get to that. But, I have to concede on one point. If it's a game that has a subscription fee that
you pay each month like World of Warcraft under most laws, those ARE services and, I don't think I can make the case those
are fraud. Those win this round. But, you know what? We can work with that.
Since that's what, five games now? Eh, maybe ten. But let's try to establish legally that
Games as a Service are not services. Now of course the law's different in every
country, but we'll cover some major ones. Now I can't take credit for most of this part. I found bits and crumbs of this on my own but then I stumbled into a mother lode of
information on why games are goods and you own them. A highly researched user, Delicieuxz created the best layman's explanation on this
topic I've seen in the Linus Tech Tips forum. Oh, hi Linus. Now I admit, this is a colorful title, but
putting that aside, he has some good logic. So let's look at the abridged version. "A license is a right to use a property or
intellectual property that belongs to somebody else." "When you read 'this software is licensed, not
sold' in a software end user license agreement" "'this software' refers to the software
intellectual property" "and not the copy of that intellectual property
that you've purchased via a software license." "The software intellectual property is
licensed, not sold." "The license is sold, not licensed or leased." A little confusing there, but let's keep going. "All the mass produced items you've bought
follow the same rules." "You are purchasing a one-off copy of the
intellectual property of those things" "and there is a transfer of ownership over
those instances" "and you become the sole owner of that
instance of intellectual property." "You own it and have full property rights
over it." Okay, just so everybody's with me, he's
saying if you buy a copy of… Half-Life you don't own the rights to the Half-Life
franchise. You can't sell additional copies of it. But you DO own YOUR COPY of Half-Life. A lot of goods are like this. If you buy
a car you don't own the manufacturing and design
right to that car model. But you do own YOUR CAR. It's a basic concept. I said before I'm going up against a narrative well one myth you hear sometimes is you
don't "own" any of your software. What he's doing here is explaining why that's
almost always false. Turns out you have ownership rights after all! Who knew? Next he says there are two types of software
licenses: perpetual, and subscription licenses. Perpetual ones last forever. So that copy of Mega Man that your brother
has in the attic? That's a perpetual license. And this is why World of Warcraft gets a
free pass for now. They want 15 bucks a month. That's as clear
as day a subscription license. If you're not paying a subscription fee for
your game then it's being bought under a perpetual
license. That's a really key point, a whole lot of
things are gonna come back to this. "A perpetual license is a product" "and whenever it's sold it undergoes transfer
of ownership upon the point of sale." "Ownership is what establishes one's decision
making authority over the thing." "To sell something is to relinquish it as
one's property" "and to relinquish all of one's decision
making authority over that thing" "to the person who bought it." "Then the seller no longer has any rightful
say over anything regarding that instance" "of software represented by its perpetual
license." So there it is. If you only have to pay once, and it's not
a subscription fee for your game then by definition it's being sold under
a perpetual license. Under most country's laws, that means it's
a GOOD, and NOT a service. This is why I wonder if "Games as a Service"
is a deliberate propaganda term. It means the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT SAYS! But I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "this is just some guy on
the internet saying words" "that doesnt prove anything." Fair point. But you know what helps a legal argument? If you back up what you're saying with legal
documents that say the same thing. And that's exactly what he does. For
multiple countries. "The European Union's highest court, the
Court of Justice, has ruled that software" "sold via a perpetual license represents a
good rather than a service" "and the purchaser becomes the exclusive owner
of that instance, just like a physical good." Then he links to the court documents for
UsedSoft v. Oracle and a more professional explanation of what
that means. Next up, Canada. He gives an outdated link but I found this court case which apparently
rules Software as a Service is a good As explained in this article. They even refer to Software as a Service! I love it when it's black and white like that. And later he revises things saying Canada follows the World Intellectual
Property Organization's International Classification of Goods and
Services Guidelines. Yeah you know we're having fun now with a
name like that. Anyway, they say they're goods too. Next, Australia. You may have heard of this
one. In the case of the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission v. Valve Corporation Australia rules that sure enough, games
are goods. You have to love this quote in the conclusion "Each of Valve's challenges to the applicability
of the Australian Consumer Law fails." Yada yada–"Valve supplied goods, which are
defined as including computer software." And then we get to the United States. Listen, the United States hard mode when it
comes to this topic. In the lower courts, nobody agrees on anything. In 2008 in the court case Vernor v. Autodesk a federal judge in Washington State said that
yes, you own the software. Then in 2010, that was appealed to the Ninth
Circuit which said no, you don't own the software and
you have to follow the EULA rules. But then there was an amicus brief filed with it
which said yeah, this could easily be abused could harm preservation, this is potentially
a dangerous precedent, and hey Congress why don't you do something about this? But even then, that decision was just from
the Ninth Circuit states, not the entire US Before I keep going, look at this! That giant headline saying you don't own
anything. That's misleading. This is what I mean when I talk about a
narrative. Especially because in 2013 the Supreme Court
ruled on a different case saying people in the U.S can resell
copyrighted goods which includes software licenses, and the
first sale doctrine applies which states a seller retains no decision
making authority over a good once they have sold it to someone else. And as a side note, the official link to this
court document was down. I had to find it using the Wayback Machine so I guess that doesn't bode too well for the
Supreme Court, but, whatever. In the US, games as services being goods
aren't quite proven but there's a lot of precedent that implies
they are. Delicieuxz says it best: "A specific matter of software ownership has
never gone to the USA's Supreme Court" "and it's likely that software publishers
would prefer that it doesn't." He's damn right they do! "Because in all likeliness the verdict will
be the same as it was in the European Union" "and in Australia. Because this matter has
never gone to the USA's Supreme Court" "and because regional court verdicts have
conflicted with each other in their conclusions" "it is baseless for anyone to claim that people
in the USA don't own their purchased software." So again, if there's no subscription fee,
you own your games. Well so what? Just because Games as a Service isn't actually
a service, that doesn't mean anything. It's just a name for a business practice. Where does the fraud come in? Well the "fraud" comes from that whole
ownership thing. Remember: a seller retains NO decision making
authority over a product once they have sold it to someone else. Now some of you may know that I'm huge
advocate against killing games. By "killing games," I mean the practice of
a company's actions leaving a game completely unplayable by anyone who bought it. This is also known as "bricking" a game. Well killing games, and Games as a Service
are handcuffed together You almost don't have one without the other. See, all Games as a Service depend on you
connecting to a server controlled by a company. That's fine while the game is running, but eventually most companies decide they're
not making enough money on the game anymore to justify the server running. So they shut it down. Once THAT happens, every single person who
bought the game can never play it again. If I sold you a copy of a game on disc then next month while you were sleeping I
snuck into your house and broke the disc I would go to jail. In practical terms, that's almost exactly
what Games as a Service is. Companies engaged in this practice almost
always destroy your product AFTER they've sold it to you. And I keep saying this "almost always"
happens, there's a reason for that. Some volunteers and I have put together a
list of every game we could find that has been shut down, and how that was
handled. Now if anything this is the small list since I filtered out games like you see here just
to bring focus on the bigger problem cases. We came up with 122 titles that mostly meet
that criteria. Now this list may not be 100% accurate. It
can be difficult to verify some information but I'm guessing it's at least 95% accurate. And it's probably the most extensive data
collected on this topic to date. So, out of 122 titles, how many times did
the companies do something to either A) Give customers a chance to run their game
after shutdown, or B) Give a full refund, no strings attached. Well from my best count, here it is. Yeah. That's five titles. Or in other words, about 4% of all
Games as a Service. So hey, I made a clickbait-y title, I'll
fess up. If we're being completely honest, "Games as
a Service" is not fraud. It's only fraud about 96% of the time. So if anyone says I'm exaggerating how bad
all this is, it's true. I'm exaggerating 4%. And who knows? We could have missed one! I'm making all this public, you're welcome
to double check the data. In fact, I'm not sure which of those games
were on a subscription license at the time of shutdown, so you might even
be able to get that number down to 95 hey, maybe 94%. Oh, and some of these titles you can
actually still run usually due to illicit server emulators. But
those are cases where the companies did NOTHING to help, and it was in spite of the company's
actions. Not because of them. More on that in a bit. So I'm calling this fraud because of the
reality, and the intent. Just because your game doesn't run
doesn't make it fraud. There could be bugs, the hardware could go
bad. I'm not talking about quirks, accidents,
forces of nature. But with Games as a Service, the product
is DESIGNED to fail as soon as they shut down the server. The fraud begins once they purposefully
take away access to your product. Games as a Service is fraud because it
involves selling perpetual licenses that are in practice, NOT perpetual. The decision making authority over the product
is being removed from the buyer. Customers buy games with the expectation
that they will function. If 100% of all copies sold of a game cease to
function because of deliberate interference from the seller AFTER the point of sale, how
can that be considered an honest practice? Now the opposition would say this isn't fraud,
because you were sold a perpetual license and just because the company breaks your
game, it doesn't mean you lost your license. You are still free to "repair" the game,
after they break it. I say this is a disingenuous argument on
multiple levels. If somebody sells you a bike, and then
later you get a flat tire yes, your product no longer works, and it
takes some effort to repair it. But that's something the average person can
be reasonably expected to do. Or hey, take it to a repair shop! More importantly the company that sold you the bike didn't
come to your house and puncture the tire. I see that as an important distinction. Now when a Game as a Service stops working which again, I want to emphasize is a
deliberate act NO ONE on EARTH could be "reasonably
expected" to fix that. The reason for that is two-fold. First, it takes specialized programming
knowledge in order to recreate the portions of the server that were lost. Again, the way these games work is most of
the data is on the customer's computer. But the company hosting the game has key
information about how to run it. Where things spawn, logic routines, and
so on. If you want, you can almost think of this
as the "body" and this as the "brain". When they shut the "brain" down here a large portion of the game is now missing,
and it's unplayable. In order to run the game again, the person
would have to write a new "brain". I mean–server! Now that is an exhorbitant amount of work,
and takes a lot of specialized knowledge. I would estimate only 5% of the population
is even capable of doing that. However, it is possible. Whether that's a reasonable expectation of
buyers to repair their product is debatable. I think it isn't, but that is NOTHING
compared to the next part. Programming a new server is difficult enough. But companies will also encrypt their data in
order to protect against hackers and piracy. This is known as "Digital Rights Management,"
or DRM. Now that's reasonable while the product is
still being sold, but once it's shut down then this is the equivalent of locking things
up and throwing away the key. I've talked to a developer for a resurrected
game server emulator and he said they had a cryptography
expert helping them decrypt the code and even then, it took them years. So if you were qualified to crack codes
like what the Nazis were using and win World War II in Europe, then yes, you
might be qualified to "repair" your game. I'm really not exaggerating. Not only is that such a small percentage of
the population capable of doing that but even for them, that in no way can be
considered reasonable. For most people, I'm talking 99.9% or more it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to repair their
game after shutdown. So, not literally impossible, but, again,
I'm rounding. But let's try to shore this up a little
legally. And again, the United States is hard mode. Some of you may have heard of the term
"planned obsolescence". That's the practice of designing goods to
intentionally break faster in hopes that you'll buy a new one so they
can make more money. Best I can tell, this is perfectly legal in
the United States unfortunately. But there's a subset of that called
"programmed obsolescence". See unlike planned obsolescence, which just
increases the odds the product will break over time, programmed obsolescence
ENSURES it will break on purpose, usually at a specific time. And it's not clear if THAT is legal in the
US or not. There have been some cases on it. Like class
action lawsuit Jackie Blennis v. HP in 2008. Charges were pressed against Hewlett-Packard for
designing ink cartridges to shut down prematurely. HP denied any wrongdoing, and yet awarded the
complaintants $5 million of credit to shut them up. Yeah, I'm sure they did that just to be nice. Otherwise, why wouldn't they fight it and
maintain their innocence? Especially since they got hit with another
class action lawsuit, San Miguel v. HP in 2016 for updating firmware on printers to stop
accepting third party cartridges. In other words, breaking functionality. THIS time they were guilty of wrongdoing
and had to pay out $1.5 million. Now these both imply that programmed
obsolescence could be illegal if challenged however in both cases the reasoning behind
the charges doesn't tie directly to that. So these aren't the strongest legal
precendents in my opinion. The strongest legal argument I DID find was
in 2017 in Impression v. Lexmark. The Supreme Court ruled that you have
ownership of your product and are free to do with it as you please even if patents still apply to it that
control its behavior. While that's still a bit of a stretch to say
programmed obsolescence isn't legal I thought these lines from the ruling were noteworthy. "Even if the restrictions in Lexmark's
contracts with its customers" "were clear and enforceable under contract law" "they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent
rights in an item that it has elected to sell." "Once a patentee sells an item, it has
secured that reward, and the patent laws" "provide no basis for restraining the use and
enjoyment of the product." That might be a key sentence. I would call shutting down a game so that
the person who bought it has no way to ever run it again "restraining the use and
enjoyment of the product," wouldn't you? There might be something there. But, this hasn't been tested in court, so
most of this is in a legal gray zone. That means the law hasn't specifically said
if something is legal or not so everybody has to guess based on other
laws. I'm obviously on the "this is fraud" side because if the law says one thing, and the
outcome is the exact opposite then something's breaking down. But how does this actually play out?
Let's see. Do you own your game? Theoretically, yes. You technically never lose ownership of your
perpetual license. It's yours. In practice? Unclear. There's been no higher court ruling on
whether Games as a Service infringes upon your perpetual license. THIS is what I'm trying to change. In real world terms, also known as the
only part I actually care about NO. If no normal person can ever be expected
to use their product again after the company disables it, that is
certainly effective loss of ownership. Seller intent? NO. Games as a Service are designed to
have their functionality removed at a later, undisclosed date AND the data is encrypted to prevent you
from restoring it yourself. It doesn't get any more deliberate to remove
your ownership than that. Games as a Service is a situation where the
outcome is the exact opposite of the intent of the law. This is why the myth that why you DON'T own
your games keeps persisting! People are just saying what they're seeing
with their own eyes! Laws are MEANINGLESS if they're not enforced! And, that's all I have for U.S law. But fortunately, things are a little more
optimistic in other countries. In Germany, there's a political party that
initiated a study to try and reduce planned obsolescence using existing laws
on the books. So kind of like what I'm doing. Some parts I found noteworthy. "Introduction of minimum standards for
repair." "Obligations to provide repair instructions." In France, the Hamon Law was introducted in
2014 to more or less make planned obsolescence
illegal. Except that it looks like that it only
applies to physical goods so there may or may not be an opening there. And hey, it's being put to the test suing
printer companies Epson, HP, Canon and Brother for violating this law. Would be great if they could establish
a precedent for software too. Boy, printers are the games industry of the
real world, huh? And in Europe in general the European Parliament accepted a resolution
to lengthen consumer goods' and software's longevity to combat planned
obsolescence. And back to Australia the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission has consumer guarantees including that your product is safe, LASTING,
and with no faults. Well, Games as a Service are safe, so, you
know, one out of three. Now it also says this doesn't apply if you
knew of, or were made aware of the faults before you bought the product. This is another gray area again. The company usually DOES tell you Games as
a Service could cease working at any time in the end user license agreement. But is this really following the intent of
the law? If the company is creating the defect in the
product on purpose and does it OVER and OVER again to the point where selling intentionally
defective products is their whole business model that still smells like fraud to me, and
should at least be examined. Now I don't know the details of these laws
or movements since it's hard enough for me to research
this as it is, let alone in different languages and it looks like they're mostly focused
on physical goods but for God's sake, we've got to get software
on board this train. Just requiring companies to provide "repair
instructions" would be NIGHT and DAY compared to where
we are now. The bottom line is, it looks like a lot of
people are getting upset over companies ripping customers off and the law is playing catch-up with what
technology is doing. Games as a Service are goods in these
countries which means there's a real chance they could
be protected under the law. The INTENT of these laws is almost identical
to my war on Games as a Service. Software has got to piggyback onto these laws
and get examined by the right governing bodies. And THAT is IT for LEGAL ARGUMENTS! AHHHHHH! I'm taking a break. You want to take a break? I'm taking a break. [8-bit music playing] Okay, so those were the legal arguments. Yeah, that was…fun. But I need to cover EVERYTHING, so,
let's get conceptual! Maybe you're thinking, "Okay, so what if the
law says games are goods?" "Maybe they're really services and the law's
just outdated?" Okay. Let's pretend the law doesn't exist.
We're writing it fresh. If that was the case, then Games as a
Service would be unlike any other service that
exists. I'm not joking. Every other service I can think of, has at
least ONE of the following conditions. One, an expectation of how long it lasts. If you pay an electric bill, it's usually
for a month at a time. Or if you go to an amusement park. Your
ticket lasts the day, or the season. The point being, everybody knows when the
service is over and it ends or you have to renew it. Two, there's a general expectation of when
it's done. If you pay roofers to fix your roof you may have no idea how long that will take.
But you know when it's fixed. There's a rough idea of when the service is finished. Three, there are real-world limitations
towards keeping the service going. Some services can go on forever. If I rent a plot of land I don't have to do anything but collect my
money each month pretty much. Hence number one here. In fact I've had a landlord before where at one point, I wasn't sure if he
was alive or dead. But, the service kept going! But most services require real resources
to continue. If you go to a concert, and you're having
a good time, and just want to stay Well that's great, but the band has to stop
sometime. Eventually, they're going to run out of coke. Maybe you can stump me, but I couldn't think
of ONE service that didn't require at least ONE of those
conditions. EXCEPT, Games as a Service. Hence, even on a conceptual level, they're
NOT SERVICES. Here, I'll show you. "Expectation of how long it lasts." Well, subscription games like World of
Warcraft yes, this win this round too. Damnit! Subscription games really are services, and
they're not fraud. I'll have to get them on the final round. So besides those few games that still require
a monthly fee to play no, this doesn't apply. If there's an expectation for how long
Games as a Service last then what is it? The Culling 2 lasted a week and a half. Meridian 59 has been going on over 22 years. That's no help! Well what do the games themselves tell you? Well most don't tell you anything. They just say they can be shut down at any
time, for any reason. Some say they can be shut down at any time,
plus 30 days. Even then, I'd argue nobody buying the game is actually expecting it to stop working
after 30 days. Now I'd say there's no standard here, but
that's not true. There IS a standard for games. The traditional standard is forever! There are people who speedrun Super Mario
Brothers. That game's over 30 years old. So, yeah, "forever," that's a good standard. Games as a Service is trying to push a
new standard. Except it doesn't have one! Just that it's less, for you! Oh, except for The Secret World, and,
Fallout 76. They're both saying you'll be able to play
them forever. Umm… Okay? Well, for every OTHER Game as a Service
that DOESN'T last forever this is a concrete example of how your
rights are being taken away from you. We've gone from "play forever," to
"whatever the seller feels like". So, no, this does not apply. Expectation of when it's done. Yeah, let me ask you, when is somebody
"done" with a game? When they beat it? What if they want to play it again? What if it's a game that has no ending,
it's just sort of an ongoing thing? What if they want to come back and play it
after a few years? Exactly, there's no standard at all here. Well, no, that's not right either. There IS a standard for games. The old standard used to be that YOU own
the game so, YOU decide when you're done with it. And that's gonna be different for every
person. So no "general" standard. GNAHH! Real world limitations. Okay let me explain this one. Remember that body and brain analogy I made
to the server and clients earlier? Well the vast majority of videogames
throughout history have been sold with both the body, AND
the brain. You got the whole package, so you could keep
the game running as long as you wanted. Now with the server and client model they're set up so that the brain here needs
maintenance by real people and computer hardware, and electricity
bills, and so on. But that's a CHOICE, not a NECESSITY. See at their core, videogames are CODE. They're NUMBERS. They don't "wear out" over time. The number "three" works just as well now as
it did thousands of years ago. It just looks a little different. The containers that hold the data can wear
out but it can also be copied from one container
to the next. So there's an infinite supply! Don't worry! We're not gonna run outta
numbers! They're always on tap! Now the server is usually maintained LIKE a
service while it's running but once it's shut down, it COULD just be
copied over here and someone ELSE could get it running. Companies almost never DO that, but the point
is the limitation isn't real. It's artificial. Somebody made it up. They
could just as easily undo it. In fact, it's easier to undo this, rather
than set this split up in the first place. Again, most games don't even have this limitation. It's not a perfect analogy, but imagine
a natural park. You may pay to go there as a service, and
there will be people maintaining the roads and trails, running a visitor center,
et cetera, and that takes real resources. But if the park runs out of money and shuts
down the park doesn't cease to exist. The trees are still there. The mountains and rocks are all still there. We don't erect an indestructable dome around
the park, that allows nothing in or out and can survive a direct missile strike and then tell everyone with a lifetime pass
that they can never enter the park again. But that's almost exactly how Games as a
Service works. This is not a good standard. I hope one of these analogies is sticking. Anyway the point to all that is even without
the law telling us what's what Games as a Service are really not services,
they're goods! So they should be treated as such! But hey, maybe you're saying they're a
weird exception and should still be treated as services. Okay. Why? I usually look at the law and rules from the
perspective of "what's the actual outcome?" Well the end outcome of most Games as a
Service is that they're destroyed, and can never
be played again. Geez that seems like a really high price
to pay to treat them as services. Now you might be thinking, "Well yeah
that sucks but then we also get anti cheat measures,
stat tracking, matchmaking, easy updates and [interruptive stuttering] See, that's the narrative talking. We can STILL HAVE all that stuff, AND,
NOT destroy the game! The narrative likes to frame it like you
can't have the good without the bad. That's what's known as a "false dichotomy,"
and it's just…wrong! It's like how you can simultaneously be
FOR the circus coming to town but AGAINST clowns stabbing people. I know that sounds impossible to some people,
but it's not that hard a concept. Companies don't have to give up ANYTHING
while they're supporting the game. It's only once they shut the game down that
they need to stop treating them like a service and give the customers their goods. Now you might be thinking "Yeah, but that's
probably a bunch of work right?" Well, it can be, but I'm not an expert. So I talked to someone who is. I asked that developer who worked on a
server emulator how much work would it take for companies
to provide the bare minimum to give users a reasonable chance to create a server emulator once the game
shuts down. Well, he said there were two basic options. I'm not even gonna go over these, but you
can see them here. Now this would NOT be enough for a playable
game. This would be more like those "repair
notes," like it was mentioned in those European planned obsolescence laws. But okay, this doesn't seem like too much
work so I asked him how long would it take the
developers to do this. He said it depended on how well the game was
written, and how competent the developers are but anywhere from less than an hour,
to a few days. Okay, so NOW let's compare. Here are the total pros and cons of having
Games as a Service, the way we do it now. Under pros, the developers save anywhere from
less than hour, to a few days work. Alright, that's a positive. And under cons, everyone who paid for the game along with anyone in the future interested in
the game, will never be able to run it again. Hmm. No this doesn't seem like a good idea to me. In fact, this looks like a really bad deal
for everyone. In order for this to be a good deal I'd say we need a situation like The Day
After Tomorrow where these people are hiding in a library
from the worst blizzard ever and need to burn some books so they stay
warm and don't die. See to me, THAT looks like a better
trade off for destroying media. I'm pretty sure Games as a Service
doesn't save lives. Now I understand if you think I'm framing
this unfairly because it sounds kind of crazy that THIS is the
entire reason the industry is defrauding customers and destroying products with millions of
dollars and thousands of hours of work behind them. But this is the only honest reason I've seen. It reminds me how in the 60's, auto manufacturers
fought against seatbelts being mandatory because even though they saved lives, they
did cost some money and auto makers didn't want that. I won't lie THIS does cost SOME money to do. But not much at all. I would guess well under 1% of the total
budget. It's certainly cheaper than making a game
a service to begin with. So even without the law If THIS is the ENTIRE REASON games are not
preserved and customers can never use their products
again I don't find that particularly compelling. It's almost like if there are no laws on this then there SHOULD be. And that brings me to the final argument and this one I can even use on World of
Warcraft finally. Now this may sound crazy, considering the
first half of this video but I don't actually care about this topic
because the industry is breaking the law that's just a coincidence. I only covered that legal mess because there
could be some real power behind that. I think the law is going to be the only way
out of this but that's not my main motivation here. No, I care because Games as a Service
is destroying games. Quite successfully too. Every once in a while, you'll hear people
ask if games are art. I don't have an answer on that but, I think it's pretty clear that games
are creative experiences often worthy of preservation. So I'll say "art" just to keep it simple. I mean come on, if you're looking at stuff
like this and are saying "NO. This has no artistic
value at all" you're just being grumpy. You know David Bowie's in a game, right? Anyway the point here is that Games as a
Service is more than JUST a consumer rights issue. Even though the quality ratio is debatable games contain ideas, art, often dialogue and ways of interacting that aren't present
in any other medium. They're more than JUST products. If I buy a toaster that's designed to fail well, I still think that's wrong but I can always buy another toaster, and
still have toast. Whereas games are unique experiences. You can't replace them any more than you can
replace books in a library with different authors. You can't replace Dracula with Twilight and say nothing was lost because they're
both about vampires. It doesn't work that way. I'm not going to spend much time explaining
why saving art has value because for me, it's innate. If you don't understand why art or creative
works have value I probably can't reach you on that. Maybe a philosopher can field that one. For me, it's just an instinctive response. Now of course we can't save ALL artistic
works, that's just not practical. There's too many. Plus some of them suck. But we can decide for ourselves what's worth
saving, and what's not. Games as a Service denies that chance to
everyone. When I see a game with obvious creative
value being destroyed this is what comes to mind Now the reality is both better and worse
than that. The part that's better is that games that
are destroyed are far less likely to contain ideas that
are so powerful some see them as a threat. The part that's worse, is that publishers
are way more successful at destroying games than oppressors ever were at destroying
books. Or, you know, at least within the past few
thousand years. Even at book burning rallies people didn't burn every existing copy
of a book they hated. And yet, a lot of Games as a Service have
a 100% death rate. There is no comparison to that in modern
media. I guess in the early days of film we lost
a lot of stuff because the studios didn't know any better. That's what scares me. Now we DO know better, and yet we're still
going backwards. It's like watching a driver take a bus over
a cliff and he KNOWS he's taking it over the cliff.
It's a kind of madness. And speaking of modern media, you can rent
movies or stream music as a service but you can ALSO BUY THEM and KEEP them as GOODS. I guess some TV shows or radio shows you
can't buy, but guess what? You can back them up yourself. Legally! Not to dip back into the law again but that's what THIS case was all about. Technically, it's already legal to back up
Games as a Service is multiple countries. Even in the USA! But if game companies make that impossible
then what does that matter? I care about reality, not fantasy rights! I want to say Games as a Service are the
only form of modern media without real world limitations, that you
CANNOT PRESERVE. It's kind of amazing, in a terrible way. And that's what all this comes down to for
me. Even if Games as a Service passed every
legal test, which it hasn't then the law would be wrong. Games as a Service, the way we do it now permanently destroys games, and all the work
the creators put into them it's entirely preventable, and serves
almost no purpose for anyone. It's just wrong. The whole point of laws is to have a more
civilized society. Wanton destruction of art that others are
trying to preserve and have paid for is not civilized. That's why this needs to stop, even for
subscription games. We just have to stop it. ["Stop it."] Stop it. ["STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!"] And that's my case! So I would be almost done, but but you know how the internet is. Somebody can make a good point but then somebody else comes along, nitpicks
something and then says "debunked" "all done". Uh uh. I mean that may still happen but, I want to wreck that before it even
gets started. Now if you're already onboard with what I'm
saying you can skip straight to the end. Yeah, see, there you go. But Games as a Service is a PLAGUE of
an idea so I need to burn out every last inch of it
I can. So I'm going into overtime to show just how
weak the opposition is. I think it's so bad it's indefensible. But hey, judge for yourself. So here are my rebuttals to every major
counterargument or concern I can think of BEFORE they happen. Here we go! Let's start with the big one. "Games as a Service is legal because you
agree to the terms stated" "in the End User License Agreement." Well, the simple answer is yes, those terms apply, as long as they don't
contradict anything the law says. If they say something that is not legal,
then those documents mean nothing. Nothing. That's why I spent half the video focusing
on the law and almost didn't care what those documents said. If the law says they're wrong that's all there is to it. It's not even
a debate. The end user license agreements are
irrelevant to this conversation. That's what that Lexmark Supreme Court
case was showing. They simply DON'T determine the law. It's good to think of those agreements like
"club rules." So if you're at the Moose Lodge and the rules
say you have to make an antler face before you can speak at the meetings well, then those are the club rules. You don't actually lose your right to speak. But let's crush this argument a little
further. Maybe you think the law is wrong and the customer assumed the risk of shutdown
when they bought the game. Okay. Well then when was it supposed to shut down? I don't think there's been one case in the
history of Games as a Service where the company told the customer WHEN the
game was gonna shut down upon release. That means the agreements are made in
bad faith because the company is purposefully
withholding information from the customer. Now personally, I think that's a weaker
argument that doesn't get to the core issue but it's still true. Game shutdowns are not a force of nature. They are entirely within the company's
control. In order to defend the end user license
agreement you would have to say that companies are
entitled to sell you a product break that product after the point of sale not tell customers when that's going to
happen, even though it's in their control and then, prevent customers from repairing
the product after it's broken. That is NOT good business, that is predatory. Good luck defending that. Okay, here's another big one. "Buying a game entitles you to the client
software" "you are not entitled to the server
software." Technically, yes, that is true. But that's not the whole story. Part of what I was trying to show in the
legal portion is that there's a precedent, if not laws that customers ARE entitled to a working
product. OR a reasonable chance of repairing one. So, no, the customer is not entitled to
the server software. But since they ARE entitled to a working
product that usually means the server software also. Doesn't have to! The company could patch the game for it to
run offline instead. In fact I have a really easy test, that sums
up my whole stance on this. Step one: Company sells the game. Step two: The company conducts business
any way they want to. Step three: Company support ends And step four: the customer has a reasonable
chance to run the game after shutdown. What the company does in step two here
is a "black box". I am in NO WAY trying to dictate how they
run their business there. I'm only concerned with step four here Can the customer run the game? In Games as a Service, the answer is
currently "NO". This is what it's all about, right here. Notice it doesn't say "release the server
software". It says give the customers a chance to
run their game that they paid for. HOW the company does that is up to them. In fact if you get confused by anything
I've said in this video and get lost somewhere, just look at that
chart. This chart is all you really need to know. Simple. Easy. I guess I should have put that at the
beginning. Oops. "What you're proposing would require businesses
to support their games forever." "That's unreasonable." No they wouldn't. In fact, I'm in favor of companies ending
support for a game ANY TIME THEY WANT. That's why an end of life plan is essential. If you're a company, and you end support for
your game but then the customer still has a reasonable
chance to play it after that? That's it! You're done! You don't have to
support anything! What needs to STOP, is support being a
REQUIREMENT to play the game. THAT'S what Games as a Service is. "If Games as a Service have to be treated
as goods" "it will hurt creativity of developers and
restrain them." Well first, I'd like to point out the
industry made games as goods for decades and I didn't see a lot of shortage of
creativity myself. [gibberish singing] And again, we're talking up to a few extra
days of work. I don't see how that would "kill creativity" unless the point of the game was for it
to die. Well wouldn't you know it, we've had a game
just like that "The Flock". This was a multiplayer game that the
developers actually wanted to die. After a fixed amount of player deaths, it
was going to shut down forever and they told people that right from the
beginning. Now I would actually allow an exemption for
this game because I think there's an argument to be
made that this was performance art. See, all other Games as a Service they don't die because the creators WANT
them to. It happens because they become unprofitable
and they handle the shutdowns irresponsibly. But this one, game death was the entire
point. So guess what happened? They ran out of money to pay for server
hosting so they shut the game down prematurely. So, the ONE GAME that wanted to die couldn't do it the way it intended. Its creative vision was compromised BECAUSE
of Games as a Service. Thus, as far as I know, games as a good has
NEVER hurt creativity. Let's look at that chart again. Does this chart look like it's strangling
creativity? But let's say it somehow was. Is that one game being allowed to die not
worth making rules for all others? I don't think so. "If the law was enforced on Games as a
Service" "it would negatively affect a lot of companies" "that would have to go back and change their
games. And they may not be able to do that." I consider the current situation so bad that I would accept that any laws on this,
not apply retroactively. If I can save all the games of the future for
the price of a hundred or so games today that's a devils bargain I can live with. Now it's not like I have any power to
compromise WITH. I'm just talking on a pure conceptual level.
I want every base covered. This is such a black and white issue to me. I don't want to leave any room for people
going "Oh, it's so hard to come up with a rule for
this." "I guess it's impossible to do anything
about it." No, I want clear rules for any scenario. In fact, if I miss one, come at me, I'll
straighten you out. "What about free or free to play games?" Well if a game is truly free, no money
involved I'd say the law doesn't apply, nor should
it. That would hurt creativity. People will want to experiment with concepts
and throw bad experiments out sometimes. There doesn't need to be a higher
responsibility on the person if they're just messing around. It's once they start taking money for that that they're entering legal territory, and
just a higher responsibility in general since then their actions start affecting
others. Now "free to play games," games that are free
but you can also buy extra items or features those are easy. Treat them like any other
commerical game. If you buy a virtual sword in a game then the game shuts down, so you can no
longer access it it's been taken from you, your property
rights have been infringed upon. Hence the need to treat it like the good it
is, so you can keep what you paid for. "Making a server emulator work on another
system is a lot of work." "Developers can't be expected to do that." Well, that's why I presented the "minimum
effort options" here. See, the situation is so bad right now I found a way to lower my standards even
futher. I used to think these were the only ways
for a company to not commit fraud for a Games as a Service shut down. But wouldn't you know it, that minimum
effort solution sort of qualifies too. If a developer provides THIS, then the game
enters "possible to repair" territory. Which I still don't think is great, but, I
can live with that. And again, this is anywhere from under an
hour, to a few days of work. If that is still just too much work
for you to handle then you shouldn't be selling Games as
a Service. Laws enforcing games as goods would
negatively affect games that get shutdown temporarily, but then
come back up. Good point! I agree with you! That's why I
think a grace period is quite reasonable. If a game is shut down for a couple months but then comes right back up so buyers can
play it again, that's acceptable. I think what the appropriate time period is,
is debateable however, I consider "NEVER" an unacceptable
answer. "Requiring companies to give players a chance
to play their games upon shutdown" "is overreach, and an infringement on
business rights." The whole idea behind a perpetual
software license is the business is giving up a tiny bit of
its rights, in exchange for money. It's the customer paying the business, not
the other way around. What's actually happening is overreach
from the business. They're trying to take back rights that
they SOLD. If I were to sell you a car, and then later
steal it, and drive it back to my lot we wouldn't say I'm "protecting my rights" we would say I robbed you. "You're just being an idealist. Things break
down or go bad all the time" "games are no different." Yes they are. Video games are code. Numbers. Games are more like stories. BOOKS go bad, STORIES don't, unless we
let them. Hey there's this story called The Odyssey. It's pretty good, it's about 3,000 years old though it's only been published for
2400 years. When's that one supposed to go bad by? But you know what, that's not a game, so
how about, Go? That one's two and a half thousand
years old. People still play it. So, no, this doesn't apply to games. See, I have to point this out because some
people just don't get it. Cheese goes bad, car tires go bad math equations, do not. Again, there's a real narrative pushing
back against this. Just to pick on someone, take a look at
this article. Eliot here argues that all these online
games are going to get shut down. He's right about that. Then, he tries to argue that this is
"welcome" and "inevitable". Well, no, that's wrong. He then compares game shutdowns to TV
shows ending, like Star Trek. I'm guessing if he took a logic class in
school, he didn't get top marks. See, here's the difference Eliot people can still watch those TV shows today,
because they were preserved. If no one today could ever watch Star Trek
again then yes, that would be a solid analogy. What he's actually arguing here is development and support on a game
eventually ends. YES, that's why an end of life plan is
necessary! Their shutdown is inevitable their destruction is NOT. There are people playing Star Wars Galaxies
right now even though that game was officially shut
down over seven years ago. Do you think those people accepted the
ending back in 2011? Now that's only possible because a developer
illegally leaked code to the game but it just goes to show a game ending
is not inevitable at all. Now I don't think Eliot here is a bad faith
actor, I think he just doesn't know any better and it's unfortunate he's also a game
journalist because then he influences others to buy
in to the misinformation. This is exactly how a constructed narrative
works. Go read The Odyssey Eliot, maybe something
will click in your brain. "What you are proposing is outrageous" "because it would require companies to give
up their intellectual property" "and they cannot release their game without
losing their trademark." Okay, I pointed out earlier that the
perpetual license in no way entitles the buyers to the
intellectual property rights. All they get is that single instance of it. I was never arguing that rights holders
should lose their IP. That's actually the whole point, people with
perpetual licenses have rights also. As for trademark companies can still protect their trademark,
and release an unsupported game. They just have to be in front of it, and
define the terms. As an example, Grand Theft Auto, a
commercial game has been released for free, multiple times by
Rockstar, and they no longer support that game. Do you honestly think Rockstar lost the
rights and trademark to the Grand Theft Auto franchise because
of that? I think they have some money invested into
that one. Using trademark as an excuse to kill a game,
means the company is operating irresponsibly. That's the point here, if the company wants
to solve a problem, they can if they don't, there's infinite excuses. Not good excuses, but, excuses nonetheless. "You say games are goods, but old arcades
were services" "so there IS a historical precedent for this!" See, I knew you were gonna say that. Well let's go back to that service list
again. With arcades, you had one of these first
two criteria. Maybe you played the game until you died, or
played until three minutes were up. It depended on the game. And for SURE arcades had real limits. There were machines with space age
technology that weighed 300 pounds! And hey, if you really wanted to you could BUY the arcade machine as a GOOD
and preserve it! Oh sure it costs thousands of dollars, but
that goes back to the real world limits. It's just not the same thing at all. In fact, arcade machines only PROVE the
point. ARCADES mostly died off, but the GAMES
survived. "You keep mentioning the law, and need for
law enforcement, but this isn't necessary." "Companies just need to be convinced
preserving games is in their interest" "and customers need to make conscientious
buying decisions." Listen, we tried it your way already, it
didn't work! For decades, this wasn't an issue for the
vast majority of games! Nobody was enforcing laws on Games as a
Service because almost nobody was doing it! Great! That's not what's happening now. We're seeing large percentages of blockbuster
titles engaged in Games as a Service. Why should we try to convince companies not
to do something when they're the ones that created the
problem in the first place? The companies that CAN be convinced, aren't
the ones doing this! Remember, this absolute minimum effort
solution, could take under an HOUR! But even I have to admit, that still takes
SOME effort. Killing games requires NO effort. I've heard people say before that companies
would be happy to preserve games if they could just be convinced that it's
more profitable. Well you know those people running shell
games on the street that are scams? They're asking you to pick a cup, when the
ball is actually in their pocket? I'm sure THEY would be happy to run an
honest game if you could convince them that was more
profitable than scamming people. But the thing about fraud, is that it already
has an excellent profit-to-work ratio. A maximum one even. Customers are not going
to convince companies that honest business is more profitable than fraud, because, it's
usually NOT. But I think law enforcement could convince
them. But hey, prove me wrong, maybe the industry
will see the error of its ways and stop killing games before any of this
ever goes to court. But do you really want to bet on the
industry policing itself? Really? I'll bet against you. Hit me up, my email's at the end of this
video. "What about streaming only games?" Streaming only games are ones you can
ONLY play through a video feed it's the only way. So forget everything that was shown in that
body and brain chart. Streaming only games is like you're watching
all that through a window You have NOTHING then. At this point in time, these are mostly
prototypes, but, they're coming. However, it's the same thing as before. If
they're under a subscription license then, all I have is the preservation argument
not to destroy history. I'm not sure there's any legal standing. But if they're under perpetual licenses
and you BUY the streaming games? Yep, back to fraud. That's why we need to challenge this NOW,
BEFORE this becomes the norm. And that also means they'll have to release a
LOT more than this in order to let customers "repair" their game
after shutdown. "You are pushing to enforce laws on games
as goods" "but won't that lead to companies declaring
everything as a service" "with a subscription fee and getting around
it that way?" That IS a risk but you know what, we've been there before,
and saw how it turned out. In the early to mid 2000's, almost every MMO
game was subscription only. Well guess what happened? Almost all of them either failed, or went to
a different payment model. Only a FEW survived on subscription fees. So if every company goes to a subcription
model, most are going to fail because gamers aren't going to be eager to
have five different game bills a month. I think the economics of this aren't going to
work out for companies to do this exclusively and they know it. That's why Games as a Service exist. They're pretending to be services while they're really goods and they're evading the responsibilities
of both! "What about delisted games?" Delisted games are games you can't buy
online anymore, or sometimes at all. I have mixed feelings on those. On one hand I of course want people to be able
to play games that they're interested in. On the other hand I don't think it's reasonable
to force companies to sell their games if they don't want to. There's nothing fraudulent about what
they're doing, so all I have is the preservation argument. And again, this comes back to me wanting to
stay black and white on this issue And I am LASER FOCUSED on not killing games. Maybe once we solve that, I can care more
about other areas like this. "What about games that are updated all the
time" "so the early version is very different than
the later version?" "Isn't it unreasonable for developers to
preserve each version?" That COULD take a lot more work, yes. Which is why I'm willing to compromise on
this too. I would consider ANY working verison of the
game, as adequate compensation for the buyer. Now of course it'd be nicer to have each
version available. But again, I want to leave NO EXCUSES not to provide customers with a working
copy of the game. So if the company can only provide "1.0,"
and not "3.6," whatever. ANYTHING, is better than NOTHING. We're getting WAY TOO MUCH "nothing" right
now. "I don't care if old games aren't preserved,
because I only play new games." Fine. Then you shouldn't care if laws get
enforced on the old ones! Although sometimes, they're not that old! Anyway, this shouldn't affect you. You can go back to sleep. "This guy challenged EA in court on how his
game should last longer and lost" "therefore you don't have rights on your
games." This case was arguing the multiplayer portion
of his game should last longer and it ended up being sent to arbitration,
which is notorious for siding with businesses and the records were kept private. He could have been arguing the case on
completely different grounds than what I've been making that wouldn't
hold up in court. We don't know what happened, and whatever
did happen, is not the law of the land. This is also a perfect example of why legal
strategy matters. If you go into the wrong court, with the
wrong argument, you lose! "I found a ruling in the UK that says
perpetual licenses aren't perpetual" "so you're wrong." First, this was only in the UK. Second, the perpetual part was more in
reference to its usage in the contract and the fact that it was referring to 10
years to begin with means it wasn't a perpetual contract in the
first place. So that's just a really odd interpretation
that may not apply specifically to software. Third, the European Union High Court ruling
on perpetual licenses supercedes this one. Maybe Brexit will shake things up, but even
then, it will still just be the UK. "If companies release information about
their servers" "this means other games they're hosting with
the same software could be hacked." I asked that developer about this and he said in either of these scenarios this doesn't give a hacker enough information
to hack another game that he couldn't get without it anyway. But even if he's wrong, I kind of want to
say "too bad." At some point, a company should take
responsibility for its actions. And that's how I feel about most of these
counterarguments. They're excuses. They're excuses not to do what everybody in
gaming should know is needed. This right here, it NOT the end of the world. Somehow, companies found a way to make
thousands of games in the past and NOT destroy them. It's necessary to go back to that. And it's cheap! See, companies are going to fight us all the
way on this, because, you know customers are the enemy. But THIS is what they care about. THIS is their gravy train. And preserving games doesn't need to
interfere with that! If I could get companies to understand
ONE THING it's that THIS is gonna be WAY CHEAPER
than any litigation. I don't expect them to GET that message,
but I wanted to say it. All I want here is the absolute BARE MINIMUM
of responsibility, to not kill games. Just the tiniest bit my GOD. And finally we're done! So what now? Well, I didn't make this video for my health. This isn't some TED Talk where I say
something positive and then everybody acts like the problem's
solved. No, I made this to actually get something
done. At this point, I've taken things as far as
I can on my own so this video is an SOS for HELP, to take
things further. If you think you can help with ending this
practice, let me know. Here's my email. I probably need people like lawyers, or law
students especially in consumer law, activist
organizers, or anyone with connections to organizations that could actually get the ball rolling
on this. Here, I made cheat sheets of all the
important stuff I discussed in the video. I'll make this, and key information you might
want available as a download link also. I think there might be some meat on some of
the legal precedents but we need them to be examined and ruled on. Here's a few more ideas I had about possible
places to start. And the thing to realize is, we don't need
to win all battles to win the war. Say we can't make any progress at all in
the United States but we can in the European Union, and
Australia. Well that could be enough to make companies
add end of life plans globally because then that will be cheaper than
facing fines or lawsuits. Anyway, I don't know what to do with this
information who to contact, what the procedure is, I'm
a layman. It's a miracle I was able to put this
together as it is. My most valuable function in all this, is as
a mascot to get people fired up in the right
direction. Yeah, like that! That could be me! Somebody else needs to figure out how to
use this. Maybe an agency says they could help, but
they need enough public interest first. Well then I'll be right back up here
telling everybody to contact them. Or, maybe all that's needed is some legal
person submitting the right documents to the right
offices. I'm trying to pull people out of the ether who have more of a clue how to push this
forward than I do. I said at the beginning that I'm declaring
war on Games as a Service. That's true but this is retaliatory. The games industry itself has declared a
war on ownership against the consumer for years now. And they're winning. We're seeing the industry act with UTTER
IMPUNITY on this. At the time of this video, a new era is
starting. Stadia has been announced with
streaming-only exclusive games meaning you'll never be able to preserve
those, it's impossible. Not even that 0.1% chance. And they're not alone. So many companies are tripping over themselves
to do streaming games just like that. The games industry is SO EAGER to take away
the concept of consumer ownership. And that means these games are going to
get destroyed. This is like something out of a science
fiction story to me and yet, here we are! Now I'm as cynical a person as you're going
to find on this topic and even I am seeing a chance to change this. The law could be our ally on this, we don't
know. The problem is, the law has been UTTERLY
ASLEEP at the WHEEL regarding the games industry so we have to wake the law up. We're gonna lose for sure if it keeps on
sleeping. Even if it's against us, there is NO
DOWNSIDE to getting the law involved. The situation has gotten THAT BAD. Because of that I'm only interested in plans where the end
game is some sort of legal process. I think that's our only chance. I don't think…changing consumer habits
will work. In fact I saw a quote before that said
something like "Anytime someone says the solution to a
problem is to 'vote with your wallet'" "I know that cause is doomed." That really reflects my own views as well. I think legislation COULD work but, I also see that as almost impossible. I have no power. If I was a multi-millionaire and could hire
lobbyists to push this through Congress yeah that could work. But, that's not me. But getting judges SOMEWHERE to interpret
EXISTING laws? That at least seems possible. I care about games not being killed, but
I'm not gonna fight this forever there are other things I'd rather be doing. But I either need this practice to stop or else I need to be DEFEATED. I need to have high courts come down and say games will NEVER be protected,
before I can give this up. This is just "Phase One". Informing people
and the SOS for help. "Phase Two" is to wake the law up. We need knowledgable people for that part. Now if you want to help, but don't have any
particular knowledge on this well then you're in the same boat I am. We're just gonna have to wait and see who
reaches out. Believe me, I'll let you know if we need
your help. In the meantime, the only advice I have is making noise on this certainly won't
hurt. Just getting gamers to understand that they
legally DO own their games isn't a bad start. I'm still impressed by that post explaining
it. And you're welcome to use my chart. It's
nice and simple. In fact you can take anything I've said in
this video, and use it however you want. That's fine. Maybe more noise will help, maybe it won't
matter that's large scale zeitgeist manipulating
stuff, I don't know how to do that. I'm single issue here. Stop killing games. Stop it. ["STOP IT!"] Stop it. ["STOP IT!"] Stop it. ["STOP IT!"] [music] [Subtitles by Generic-User, quality control
editing courtesy of danielsangeo] ["This needs to stop!"]


text:
Portland, OR
Sanctuary is a 182 unit apartment building located along the Willamette River in John's Landing. Sanctuary includes a spacious community courtyard with a bocce ball court and a roof deck with views of the river. A segment of the Greenway Trail, running along the building, was expanded to include native planting, viewpoints, and seating.
Consultant Team: SERA Architects

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Great Escape stars, Steve McQueen, James Garner, and Richard Attenborough among many others in a harrowing depiction of captured airmen planning an escape from a Nazi prison camp during World War II.
The Grill of a Father
When I take a quick stroll back through the halls of memory, I'm pretty sure it is I who should be giving and sacrificing as thanks to the man responsible for my care and well-being for the majority of my life.
Newsboys, "Where You Belong/Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus"
When you're dull from all that glitters, when you're thoughts have a hollow ring, when you can't escape from the fact you are getting it wrong… All your foolproof plans seem foolish, all your status is status quo, all your really need to know is where you belong. Turn your Continue Reading
The Sacrifice
No power short of that which love possesses is able to inspire the bliss and agony expressed within the pages of O. Henry's "The Gift of the Magi." Love: timeless and eternal. Della, the dubious heroine, illustrates the full range of emotions which love pulls her through. Della finds herself Continue Reading


text:
The 60th<\/sup> edition of the\u00a0London Film Festival, which took place from 5 to 16 October and was organised by the\u00a0British Film Institute<\/strong><\/a>, brought together big names of the international film industry in the capital of the United Kingdom, exploring social themes of common interest. The spotlights were mainly on three works:\u00a0Lo and Behold: reveries of the connected world<\/strong>, one of the most interesting documentaries of 2016;\u00a0A United Kingdom<\/strong>, a British film that has the home court advantage; Starless Dreams<\/strong>, the new documentary by Iranian director Mehrdad Oskouei<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
Lo and behold: reveries of the connected world<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/iframe><\/div>\n
The documentary on the virtual world and its impacts on our lives, directed by German director and filmmaker Werner Herzog<\/strong>, is divided into ten chapters<\/strong> that tell the story of the founding of the internet. Herzog, who is also the documentary narrator, interviews various people who carried out the telecommunications revolution, including hackers and scientists, without prejudice but with a touch of irony that makes the spectator laugh even at alarming data on the web. He also wonders if the internet dreams about itself. It\u2019s no coincidence that the movie subtitle is \u201cReveries of the connected world\u201d. The scene featuring a group of Buddhist monks with a stretch of water and Chicago\u2019s skyline behind them is emblematic. At a first glance the monks seem to enjoy the calmness of the landscape, but the narrator tells the spectator that something went wrong: all of them are focused on their smartphones.<\/p>\n
The first internet search incubator was launched by the University of California Los Angeles<\/strong>\u00a0(UCLA), and was a sort of indestructible piece of furniture connected to the Stanford Research Institute, 650 kilometres away from it.\u00a0The first message transmitted was a partial failure<\/strong>: researchers tried to type \u201clogin\u201d but only managed to punch in the first two letters \u201clo\u201d. It was by sending these two letters, L and O, that scientists launched the internet.<\/p>\n
A United Kingdom<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/iframe><\/div>\n
Based on the true-life romance between Seretse Khama<\/strong>, performed by David Oyelowo, and Ruth Williams, performed by Rosamund Pike, the film tells the story of a couple that in 1948 decides to marry despite opposition from their families and the British and South African government. She is a British employee, white; he\u2019s in London to study law, but actually is a black man of royal descent and a Bechuanaland nationalist leader (now Botswana) \u2013 at the time a British protectorate.<\/p>\n
Bechuanaland, a neighbouring state of South Africa \u2013 which was about to introduce apartheid<\/strong> \u2013 declared interracial marriages illegal in 1948. The opening film of the 60th<\/sup> edition of the London Film Festival, A United Kingdom<\/strong>, is\u00a0the third work by Amma Asante <\/strong>who had been already praised for Belle<\/strong>. The director of Ghanaian origin who lives in London explores once again social themes that are still relevant today, in this post-Brexit<\/a><\/strong> period of uncertainty, including national identity as well as racial and class identity. As Asante stated, this was an untold story that deserved to be spread. It was possible thanks to Path\u00e9 UK<\/a><\/strong> that produced a number of movies about diversity in the last few years.\u00a0The film opens in the UK on 25 November 2016<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
Starless Dreams<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/iframe><\/div>\n
Murder, drug trafficking, violence<\/strong>, these are just a few of the crimes that teenage single mothers and wives from the rehabilitation centre for juvenile delinquents in Tehran have committed. Winner of the Grierson award<\/a><\/strong> in the documentary category, Starless Dreams is Iranian director Mehrdad Oskouei<\/strong>\u2019s latest film. Given these premises we would imagine a gloomy movie that explores the prisoners\u2019 miserable condition, yet Oskouei has a completely different style and takes the viewer to a place full of life, with a touch of humour.<\/p>\n
These girls\u2019 stories have poverty, drug, destroyed homes in common but each one of them is different in her tragedy. There\u2019s a girl who calls herself \u201c651,\u201d because that\u2019s the number of grams the authorities found on her when she was coerced into selling drugs. Another one talks about how she, her mother and her sister resolved to murder their father, whose kindness had disappeared with drug addiction. Ironically, these girls feel as members of a family in the prison, but the thought of what will happen to them when they will be on the outside brings them to reality.<\/p>\n


text:
We have learned, over the years, that the writing and managing of grants involves much more than mere accounting skills. For many years, Middlesex County has funded much of our lunchtime concerts with a generous grant from its Cultural and Heritage Commission. With the grant came new opportunities, new relations, and new friends.
While attending an event at the Commission's office in New Brunswick, Janet and I met Ravi Swamy from the Academy of Indian Music (AIM) in South Plainfield. The three of us realized quickly that, despite our diverse backgrounds, our interest in authentic classical music was the same. So we arranged for a concert of the Indian ensemble SAPTASUR in our church.
How interesting an event this was! The musicians, Manoj Govindraj (baritone and harmonium) and Shripad Jail (tabla drums), sat on the rug in the Randolph Room, enchanting us from the first moment to the last with the wonder of their music. Did you know that music can go in a circle, returning to its point of origin? In Hindustani classical music, this seems to be a foundational structure. Each time the circle reached completion, the musicians looked at each other, smiled, and received applause. While this took place, I realized how temporary much of our striving and ambitious goal orientation really is.
The circular shape of the music did not hinder it from being connected with the surrounding world. During the discussion after the concert we learned, for example, that Hindustani music assigns the melodic scales to certain time periods during the day. The music of the morning is characterized by softer notes. As the day proceeds, the notes become sharper.
It was a most interesting event and very well attended. We wish to thank the musicians, as well as Ravi Swamy and Uma Narasimhan, the Director of AIM, who also attended the concert. If you are interested, check out the Academy's website at www.aimarts.org.


text:
An in-house bank acts much like a commercial bank, but is not a regulated or licensed financial institution. These banks offer a number of services, including inter-company lending and external payments. In-house banks can take deposits, manage inter-company loans, and make foreign currency payments. In-house banks are usually used by multi-national corporations in order to centrally manage the liquidity, foreign currency and interest rate risk.
When an in-house is established, subsidiaries or affiliates all hold accounts with the In-House bank. This avoids the need from having a separate bank account and increase the overall cash visibility to the organization. In-house banks lower costs by reducing the number of bank accounts that are needed, reduce transaction costs through the elimination of cross-border payments for internal transactions, and reduce the overall foreign exchange risk through centralized management. In the latter, treasury has the ability to aggregate and net before determining when to execute an FX transactions.
Multi-national corporations should consider establish an in-house bank not only to save money, but for better control. While it may seem intimidating, establishing an IHB can be simple.


text:
Ameneh works as a hairdresser and is attending the Operation Mercy English classes. Here is a bit of her story in her own words:
"I am a graduate of the Operation Mercy Hair Dressing course. Now I am working as a hairdresser and I have a source of income for myself. With this income, I pay the fees of my English class, commuting expenses and things I need to improve my small business. I am quite satisfied with this profession.
"Since I am earning an income myself and paying for my own expenses, my husband allows me to attend the English language classes through Operation Mercy and purchase the books I need to improve my English. Before attending the English course, I used to be deceived when purchasing hair dressing equipment. The brand names and other details are all written in English and, as I could not read English, I had to ask the sellers to give me whatever they thought was good. However, the sellers often deceived me. After losing money and business because of this, I decided to join the English course.
"It is a year since I first attended the English classes in the Institute. Now I can read most of the words that are written on the products. The English course has taken me into a totally different world! If God wills, I will join the computer course also.
"In the future, I would like to teach English to my son who is currently attending first grade at school. I hope my son will be able to learn English well and hopefully not be deceived as I was because of an inability to read English."
Operation Mercy Iran believes economic empowerment is a significant driver of economic growth and prosperity. Ameneh's ability to participate in the formal economy in a fair way promotes her human dignity and quality of life.


text:
Pine Trail rides on the Wisconsin riverbank. It's filled with woods and prairies.
The Pine Trail is mostly gravel but has some trail attributes in some areas. Some parts do come close to roads and houses so be sure to keep dust and sound low. There are some places that look like trails linked to this, but it wasn't verified if those were public or not so don't take them.
Join or Log In to see the printable maps, downloadable GPS tracks/waypoints and write reviews/send trail reports. Funds are used to build more trails.
Map listings are subject to change at any time for any reason. Please respect all property, pick up trash, report abuse and be an ethical trail advocate. Your actions speak for all of us. Trails are mapped via the Universal Trail Rating System. If you find the rating system to be wrong, please write a review to correct (send pictures if possible).
Call your local chapter club, trail guide, or ask about trails you're thinking of going to before you go there. Please travel with a buddy, never alone. If a trail is closed, please write a review ASAP to inform others of what you saw. Read the map listing reviews as people will post things that may aid you in your visit.
We're all the eyes and ears of the trails so your reviews are crucial to keeping trails in open and expanding.
Use your discretion before attempting to crawl or maneuver over trails & waypoints. The Road Legal 4WD Association, Chapters, Trail Guides, Elders, Land Owners, Sponsors, and Members are not responsible for your course of action, only you are.
Do not attempt anything beyond your capability, get proper training and never travel alone.
NEVER POST UNETHICAL or ILLEGAL ACTIVITY TO ANY WEBSITE OR SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNEL. Those who oppose us, are always watching us.
We recommend you carry a first aid kit, ABC automotive fire extinguisher, recovery gear and communication with you at all time when on the trail. Please take the time to ask questions and get training on vehicle and equipment use.


text:
Welcome to Angusfield House Care Home
A major refurbishment has been completed at Angusfield House Care Home, located in Aberdeen's exclusive West End, with great access to the city's shops and Hazlehead Park.
We have several lounges including a quiet lounge, a cinema, and a choice of dining rooms – meaning peace and quiet, entertainment or good conversation are never far away. Our en suite bedrooms are all furnished with your comfort in mind. We are very proud of our well-maintained garden which has a patio area for warm days outside. We also have a seated potting shed for residents with green fingers.
A home to be proud of
Our home is set across two buildings, one a former Ministry of Defence building, and there is a lounge and dining room in each wing, as well as ample outdoor space.
We offer brighterkind care – a person-centred approach that is delivered through quality care, recreation and activities, and food and dining.
brighterkind has been awarded 'Residential Care Provider of the year 2017'. Judges described our 'Magic Moments' and 'Wishing Well' activities as 'inspirational'.


text:
Dallas Male Medical Clinic, DMMC, is an erectile dysfunction clinic that offers drug therapy to improve issues of premature ejaculation and inability to achieve or maintain an erection. They have treated over 34,000 patients for over a decade. Their all male staff is motivated to help patients achieve the good sex they desire.
Professionals at DMMC have collectively over 50 years of experience in creating custom treatment solutions for ED. Our successful erectile dysfunction clinic specializes in advanced drug therapies to stop premature ejaculation and achieve penetrable erections that last from 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the needs and desires of each patient. We confidently guarantee their solutions or there is no charge for the visit.
DMMC offers better solutions than standard ED drugs. Cialis and other drugs can react negatively with other medications. Cialis and other one-pill-fits-all solutions are not for everyone and even when they work can over or under perform relative to the patient's desires. The DMMC erectile
dysfunction clinic provides alternatives to these overly simple single-pill solutions. We customize our solutions for each patient and their other prescriptions.
A patient came to DMMC who was taking anti-depression medication and was worried that this was contributing to his ED problems. He had searched the Internet and had found some correlations between his medication and ED. His depr
ession deepened because he thought that he might need to choose between a healthy sex drive and his anti-depression medication.
The professional DMMC staff empathized with his worries and worked to allay them. He did not need to choose because they could work with his current prescriptions. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) are anti-depressants that can cause ED such as impotence and premature ejaculation, which cannot be solved with standard oral ED pills. DMMC doctors prescribed a custom compound of vasodilators for use locally that provided superior safe and long term results.
The patient experienced more than relief from his ED. His mood improved right away as he contemplated his future of pleasure and hope. He had his anti-depression medication and his local ED solution to take home to his partner. His head tipped up, and his step obviously lighter, the patient had only thanks for the skills and care given to him by DMMC.
DMMC staff members are caring and highly experienced medical professionals. We strongly guarantee that you will experience a successful erection on your first visit. If you don't, we don't charge you. Our skilled, all male, nurses will speak with you confidentially about all of your ED issues, and prescribe an effective treatment that will satisfy you and your partner. Call DMMC today and learn how we can help you.


text:
It's not every day that I get to agree with conservative writer Bill Kristol, so I grab the chance when it comes. In his column at the New York Times yesterday, Kristol seconded the proposal of an un-named friend that the bailout proposal before Congress include this provision: "Any institution selling securities under this legislation to the Treasury Department shall not be allowed to compensate any officer or employee with a higher salary next year than that paid the president of the United States." Bravo.
If you doubted Kristol was repeating a GOP heresy, ask why his interlocutor wished to remain anonymous?
Kristol believes that this provision would prevent companies that did not really need help from applying for it. I suspect that determination will be made by investors in the weeks ahead. Any company that does not dump its bad, bundled "financial instruments" by selling them to the Treasury will be eaten alive in the market.
The bundling of home mortgages into securities on the belief that housing prices would only go up turned Wall Street brokers into corrupt agents of a complicated ponzi scheme: So long as everyone kept buying, all would be well, but once the buying stopped, the whole game would be exposed and the house of cards, in this case a house of credit cards, would come tumbling down. There is no reason, repeat no reason, to respect or reward these barons of high finance who sold their souls and are now reaping the whirlwind. They either knew what they were doing or, as the law states it, they should have known. There was something pathetic about Treasury Secretary Paulson's concern for these fast-falling oligarchs. If they have to forfeit their multi-million dollar mortgages on their vacation homes in the Hamptons, at least it is only a vacation home. Many average Americans lost their only homes this year, and those homes were not in Amagansett.
Democrats in Congress are pushing for a less punitive restriction than Kristol's. They are also insisting that mortgage companies be forced to negotiate lower rates for average homeowners who risk losing their homes. And, in this morning's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne highlights a proposal by Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island to give taxpayers stock in the companies that participate in the bailout: if the taxpayer is taking the risk, she should get the reward. If the GOP plan can properly be called "socialism for the rich" the Reed proposal is "capitalism for the taxpayer." Through the looking glass Alice!
It will be fun to see how fast the free-market rats flee jump from the sinking ship. The Bush administration has signed on. John McCain, who told us in his acceptance speech that he wanted government to get out of the way will certainly endorse this instance of government getting in the way. A few principled conservatives in very safe districts are begging off the bailout, but the fact is something must be done. At his ranch in California, Ronald Reagan, who famously stated that "government is not the solution, it is the problem" is turning over in his grave. Government is now the only solution because the businessmen Reagan celebrated as the very embodiment of Americanism have failed both financially and morally.
Politically, the real winner last week was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Whenever an economic crisis brings comparisons to the Great Depression, Americans, especially older Americans, turn their thoughts to FDR who pulled America out of that crisis, psychologically, politically and, finally, economically. The "invisible hand" of market forces has created a mess and the visible hand of government must restore balance to the free enterprise system.
Obama is Roosevelt's heir in this election, so the benefit will accrue to him if he plays his cards right. If I were working on debate preparations with the Illinois senator, I would be having him read Roosevelt's fireside chats. FDR understood that in times of crisis, Americans want their government to do something. In one of those fireside chats, on May 8, 1933, FDR told the nation "I have no expectation of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average, both for myself and for the team." If Obama can channel the spirit of FDR that resides in those words "for myself and for the team" he will win the election.
Michael Sean Winters
Commonweal Local Communities, Since You Asked...
3 years ago


text: 17:00 – Tuesday 25 December, 2018 New York Knicks NBABasketball Milwaukee Bucks NBABasketball Aired onSky Sports Main EventSky Sports ActionSky Sports MixNowTV Christmas Day in the NBA begins as the New York Knicks take on the Milwaukee Bucks at the Madison Square Garden. Bucks have star players including Giannis Antetokounmpo. Add as favourite NBA New York Knicks Milwaukee Bucks Share Facebook Twitter


text:
Luxury Quad room
4 Twin beds which 2x2 pushed together, 42 inch flat screen TV, air conditioning, safe, sitting area and terrace or balcony.
Bath, shower and wash hair.
Long-term parking:
Parking is free during your stay, if you want to park the car for a longer period of time, you must book the Park Sleep & Fly package.
This is prohibited in all rooms and public areas.
In case of violation, the hotel can impose a fine up to € 250.00
Baby bed:
A baby cot can be booked for a child up to 3 years old.
The costs are € 7.50 per night.
Unfortunately pets are not allowed.
- 2 Twin beds
- Flatscreen television (42 inch)
- Desk and sitting area
- Coffee and tea facilities
- Airconditioning
- Shower
- Separate bathtub
- Telephone, hair dryer and safe
- Own terrace or balcony
- Roomservice
- Candles and balloons are not allowed due to fire regulations.
Facilities in and around the hotel
- Our free shuttle will fetch you from and take you to Schiphol quickly. You will start your holidays in a carefree and rested manner.
- A modern wellness centre, luxury gym and spacious indoor pool. You can relax in style.
- An elegant restaurant and cosy hotel bar. You will enjoy delicious food and drinks at fair prices.
All other rooms
Superior room
Be surprised by the space and experience the luxury feeling that is generated by the intense and warm colours. These rooms guarantee a great night's sleep. With the grand view, the many extras and the beautiful design you will simply wake up with a happy feeling.Availability
Luxury Standard room (We only accept cards for payment)
The luxury standard rooms are located nearby the reception. These rooms have a balcony or terrace and a comfortable twin bed. The extra spacious luxury style bathroom has a bath and a separate shower.Availability
Single room
All single rooms are equipped with a 1.60 m wide single bed and shower. The rooms are quietly located at the end of the corridor.Availability
Luxury Triple room
Would you like to share the room with your children? Or would you like to enjoy luxury and conveniences together with your friends at an attractive price? In that case our three-bed room is ideal for you. The three-bed rooms can accommodate 3 persons.Availability


text:
Nothing says bad-ass gangsta like killing a defenseless puppy. The toughest guy in all of San Francisco settled an argument with his girlfriend by taking her puppy and slamming it on the ground, killing the poor thing. I'm sure when he gets to prison all of the other inmates are going to have mad respect for this OG thug and his puppy-killing badassery.
The San Francisco Police Department issued a statement involving a domestic dispute in the city's Tenderloin District last Saturday. 23-year-old Delos Pierre Gallon got into an argument with his girlfriend in a convenience store. He threw canned goods at his girlfriend, but for some reason that didn't settling things. Using the training he must have received at anger management class, he grabbed his girlfriend's 4-month-old cocker spaniel, which was being held by another person.
Gallon acted like he was going the throw the puppy, but several people in the store stopped him. It appeared like customers were trying to appeal to this madman's sense of decency, but it was no use. Gallon backed off, took a swig from his drink, and posted up in his baddest of ass stances.
Gallon raised the puppy up and then slammed it into the floor like he was spiking a football. Police were called, but Gallon had fled before they arrived. The police transported the puppy to an animal hospital where it died from its injuries. The puppy-slamming scumbag is still at large.
The police report that they are seeking Gallon on domestic violence, kidnapping and felony animal cruelty charges. I know it may be a shock, but this loser has a criminal history including a firearms violation. Police say he should be considered armed and dangerous. He should also be considered a dick.
The incident was captured on surveillance video, but I reuse to imbed it here. It's very disturbing, but if you must watch it, follow this link. Remember, it's hard to watch, so you've been warned.
I was going to ask what kind of man could kill a helpless puppy like this but I realize the question is flawed. The truth is, anyone who would do this is not a man. I think an argument could be made that this asshole isn't even human. He certainly doesn't have emotions or empathy that we normally associate with being human.
I sincerely hope that when they catch this scumbag and put him in prison that the other inmates do to his butthole what he did to that puppy. Before any delicate snowflake SJWs have a fainting spell that I'm making a gay prison rape joke, understand that I'm not joking. I really do hope this guy is raped in prison.
Then again this is San Francisco, California we are talking about, so this muthaf*cker probably won't see a day of jail-time for the multiple felonies he is accused of. They'll probably let him plea bargain down to a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct and give him a suspended sentence. It's not just humans killed by illegal aliens who can"t get justice in the Golden State; puppy lives don't matter either.
Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter


text:
File storage is a rather different beast from structured (meta)data about a user's personal digital life:
These considerations further play with the requirements for file storage to be reliable, secure and cost-efficient especially if we want to make HAT PDAs affordable. On top of that, we still want to be able to attach metadata to files, and maintain fine-granularity access control.
APIs are also rather different from web pages in terms of how file uploads tend to be or can be handled. Not going into a lot of detail here, but there are plenty of reasons why uploading using multipart forms mostly sucks as well as pretty good examples on how file uploads could be done, e.g. YouTube Resumable Uploads. As a building block to satisfy all the requirements, we picked AWS S3
This guide details how HAT handles file management in 4 key aspects: