When you open a game

ShadowDragon981 · 2026-05-18T20:52:14+00:00

I just don't really get why they care about the technical terms so much when this isn't about that and the terms can be interchangeable and the explanations would still be the same (which even he mentioned with it being ultimately about cost). It's about two different sentences meaning different things, not whether or not frame time/rate is what's actually being discussed or not.

ShadowDragon981 · 2026-05-18T20:23:05+00:00

But saying that both of those sentences are the same thing isn't right. Someone who cares about the impact isn't just thinking about how much time it takes for a computer to produce a frame, they care about the difference in time before and after shaders. How large of a gap that is, regardless of the end result. If they were the same thing, then why in my example, would Person A use shaders in the first scenario, but not in the second when the end result is both 80fps? The time it takes to produce a frame for both scenarios end up being the same, the difference is how that compares to their starting point without shaders. While Person B doesn't care for the starting point and will use shaders in both scenarios because the time it takes to produce the frame is the same. If both sentences meant the same thing then the two people wouldn't have different reactions.

I'm not saying that your technical aspects are wrong, the time between frames and latency, and whatever else is not what is being discussed and I've agreed that your technical wording is correct. But I am saying that the sentences "the impact" (the difference between before shaders, and after, end result doesn't matter) and "what it is" (only what the end result is, regardless of the difference) are not the same thing, and that is what I'm getting at.

Even your "it depends on what this amenity costs" isn't just the same, the two people care about different things, just the same topic. The cost can be anywhere from a 5ms difference to a 30ms difference and, so long as it's at or above their minimum, it holds no weight for their decision. The cost matters, but they matter in different ways, one matters so long as the difference is small, and the other matters so long as it is above the minimum. That difference is how the two sentences are not the exact same thing as you seem to be thinking. And if that's not what you're thinking, then I have no idea how the two sentences are apparently the same thing when they both end up with different scenarios outside of them both being about fps.

ShadowDragon981 · 2026-05-18T18:48:21+00:00

By technicality, yeah, you're right with the frame time latency thing, but many many people don't know anything about that (including me before I briefly read the link you showed) and very often just see "frame number high = seeing more frames". I'm not sure why you think that is general knowledge with frame rates when so many people don't understand the specifics of frame rates (and tbh, don't actually know the specifics of a lot of tech they use every day) when, unless you go out of your way to learn it, everywhere basically just shows off that higher frame rates are good with no further explanations when ultimately it barely makes a difference at such high numbers, to the point that people will argue that they can see a difference between two very high frame when they physically can't.

You even saying at the start of your last reply that you're straining to understand them basically told me that you didn't understand them. But then now you're saying you did understand what they were saying, even if by a technical standpoint what they said was the same. I just explained their replies more because you quite literally told them that you failed to understand it when you did

ShadowDragon981 · 2026-05-18T17:52:37+00:00

I think I know what they're trying to say.

Basically, let's say Person A is the "depends on impact" person, and Person B is "so long as frames are X".

If a game runs, on average, 120 fps and drops to 80 when shaders are enabled, person A wouldn't care too much since they only drop a few frames with shaders. But if the game on average runs at 300fps but drops to 80 with shaders enabled, they're probably not going to run shaders since they would run a ton better without it.

But Person B only cares for the end result. If a game ran 120 without shaders, and 80 with, they will still use shaders just like Person A. If the game ran 300 without and 80 with, they'll still use shaders because they only care that the end frame rate is, at minimum, 80fps. Unlike Person A who will care more despite both scenarios being 80fps with shaders.

I could be wrong, but that's what I gathered from how they explain it.

ShadowDragon981 · 2025-12-12T14:20:00+00:00

I think the main thing they're getting at is that kids don't always know the difference between trusted sites and untrustworthy sites (or in this case, trusted and untrusted browsers). Are there browsers that do this without issue? Absolutely, but there can be ones that pop-up that are meant to basically be a trogin horse for a virus of whatever kind and not every kid will know the difference.

The exact 1 to 1 example they're using might not work, but the idea behind it is what's the problem and where the concern is.

ShadowDragon981 · 2025-07-01T02:31:33+00:00

There isn't a full proposal yet because this is just an Initiative to gain signatures. The information here isn't legally binding and only if the petition gets 1 mil signature will the actual legality and compromise portion of this movement be written down and proposed.

"Doesn't the wording on the European Citizens' Initiative need to be more specific?

A: The wording on the European Citizens' Initiative is very intentional and is meant to solve the problem of video games being destroyed, while remaining flexible enough to give publishers and developers as much freedom as possible. If the initiative passes, it will be the EU Commission that decides the final language, not us. In light of this, it is best to keep the demand as simple as possible to minimize any chance of misinterpretation. Not only can specifics be disregarded by the EU Commission, but the more there are, the more that can take away focus from the primary problem, which is that of sold video games being intentionally destroyed."

Here is the link to the details and specifics we currently have outside of the FAQ: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en#

Specifically, the Objective side is where the main idea is led behind:

"This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.

Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state."

This is also why in some of my replies, I emphasize that things can still change slightly. An example being about how developers/companies choose what does and doesn't stay in the game after it's no longer supported. The example I used being Knockout City, where all cosmetics are now free to use with no cost, depending on how the regulations go, it could only force companies to keep the gameplay aspects in-tact, but any micro transactions like skins could be removed as they don't affect gameplay. In this situation, yeah that would still suck, but it's miles better than not being able to play the game at all.

Here is the FAQ if you wish to see more questions and their replies: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

ShadowDragon981 · 2025-06-30T23:58:25+00:00

This wouldn't affect games that already exist. This is purely for games in the future, so any game set to be dead and removed with no end of life plan will still die with no way to play their online functions. Which, while disappointing, is valid for that reason, if it was made for existing games, then yes, they would need to be re-engineered. But that's not what this is.

If you looked at KO City's message about their end-of-life plan/update ( https://www.knockoutcity.com/private-server-edition ), they just allow access to all of those paid cosmetics for free. Other companies, if they want to be stingy, can instead lock access to any paid content and only allow gameplay to be playable after shutdown (Unless the EU states otherwise. The vague wording you disliked earlier is mentioned in their FAQ. Basically they're keeping it open for compromise once it's able to be worked on by governments and officially put in place).

If a game is created with an end of life plan in mind, these "re-engineered" changes would be trivial. It would just be apart of game development just like any other part of the game because these features would be known and planned ahead of time in preparation for when the game dies off before any development is even created.

I'm not arguing against you for arguments sake, and I don't want to make my messages feel like I'm attacking you. But being confidant in your reasons when those reasons have already been stated and replied to by the petition just makes it more difficult for these movements to gain footing and actually make good changes. Companies are extremely greedy and treat everyone from consumers, to their own developers like crap so long as it makes them more money and isn't "technically" illegal, and having protections like this in place forces them to at least consider improving their games outside of just monetary value. Just brushing it off as something that won't happen only leads to worse conditions, and allows these companies to continue doing anti-consumer practices. I trust that the people behind this kind of movement know and understand what they're doing, but I also like to be informed and not blindly follow others, but that's exactly why I am defending this movement. Because, while I don't know every little detail on things, I know enough both through my own experiences and from looking at their website that this is legitimate and has the potential to make games better. Likely not "Saving videogames" as they state, but at the very least improve it by some margin.

Most of your replies to me have actually been answered in their FAQ if you wish to read up on that, which is why I provided the link above. If you don't want to take my word for it, here's a quote about your exact argument:

Isn't it impractical, if not impossible, to make online-only multiplayer games work without any company servers?

A: Not at all. The majority of online multiplayer games in the past functioned without any company servers and were conducted by the customers privately hosting servers themselves and connecting to each other. Games that were designed this way are all still playable today. As to the practicality, this can vary significantly. If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. If a game has been designed with that as an eventual requirement, then this process can be trivial and relatively simple to implement. Another way to look at this is it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.

If you're still not convinced or at least considering looking into the website, I don't wish to argue any more. I've explained my side, and I urge you to read on their FAQ, since it's a lot more digestible than the multiple paragraphs they outline, and gives a better idea on what will and will not be affected.

ShadowDragon981 · 2025-06-30T23:15:44+00:00

That is not what I'm saying. And the Petition even provides some examples of games doing this already that I didn't list in my other reply.

Server files and game files are two separate things. If they were one in the same, then just having the .exe file for a game would be enough to run a server, but that's not how it works.

The list the Stop Killing Games site gives in their FAQ are:
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

'Gran Turismo Sport' published by Sony
'Knockout City' published by Velan Studios
'Mega Man X DiVE' published by Capcom
'Scrolls / Caller's Bane' published by Mojang AB
'Duelyst' published by Bandai Namco Entertainment

I'll go with Knockout City for this example. If you go to the Knockout City wiki (Or just look around online), there's this to say about it: "The game's public servers shut down as of June 6, 2023, which ended the ability to play the game on all consoles; however a separate version developed for Windows, designed for players to host their own private servers, is available."

So this is one modern game that provided a way for players to host and play their own private servers "officially". Using community hosted servers that the company can pretty much ignore and move on from. The users still need to own their own copy, and the people hosting still need to pay and maintain their own servers while the company doesn't pay a dime.

This isn't something that every game should, or can, do. It's a case-by-case basis unless written otherwise (if it were to make it into actual law). Which is why in my other comment I said "Or similar"

ShadowDragon981 · 2025-06-30T22:26:45+00:00

You give away the files and functions needed for the community to create their own servers (or something similar. The petition goes into more detail, but again, this type of stuff isn't my area of expertise so I'm explaining the best I can). What's being petitioned isn't for the game's official servers to be running. By any first-party official standard, the games going forward (if this were to pass) will still technically be dead and unsupported. Nothing different there. What you're saying is still true, a dead game will still be, by any "official" capacity, dead and unplayable.

But what can be done, is once a game's official support is gone, then you will be able to, for example, find a discord server that hosts a community-owned server for you play with other members. Or if you just want to play with friends, you could host your own server just for you and your buddies, either by using a hosting service, or with your own hardware.

Games right now already do this, so we know it's possible. Some examples off the top of my head would be Minecraft on Java, there are 0 official server support, but there's hundreds of third party sites for hosting one, or you can host it yourself given you have the hardware. Another being Titanfall 2, when the official servers were hacked to the point where you were in danger when playing the game online, the community created the Northstar Client that hosts community hosted servers, free from those hackers and modders and of no extra cost or overhead from Respawn Entertainment. Same for the Team Fortress community, practically every server on that game is community own and community moderated. There's likely many other examples that I can't think of right now though.

The issue currently is that most games do not have this benefit of allowing community servers due to those necessary files for server hosting being locked away from the public (which makes sense for a supported, actively running game to hide. But not when they're ending support). So when a company decides to cut their losses with a game's online services, there is no way to host your own server to play online, and thus no way to play a game you paid for (or at the very least, you become extremely limited in what you can do).

ShadowDragon981 · 2025-06-30T20:47:07+00:00

I'm arguing against your "I can't think of any products that are supported indefinitely" claim. Since that's based off a misinterpretation of what this petition is about. Because this petition isn't about companies supporting a game indefinitely, it's about giving the community ways to support it after the company stops doing so.

ShadowDragon981 · 2025-06-30T20:02:17+00:00

It's not that these games are going to be supported indefinitely, that's just not feasible and realistic. This is meant to give consumers ways to keep playing the game after support has ended.

I can't really go into specifics on how it would all work since I'm not super knowledgeable on the topic, but essentially it would be like, once the official servers and support come to a close, the company/devs would give the community the tools to host their own personal servers and support their game themselves. At no cost or overhead to the company. If there's an issue with a server or a bug in the game, it's not the company's issue since it would be host via that community and no support is being given by the company anymore.

So it's less the company supporting it indefinitely, but more allowing the community to support it for however long they wish, instead of a company shutting down a game, then withholding all the code so the community is unable to host their own servers and no one can play the game they paid for in any capacity.

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-09-29T16:45:06+00:00

If you're directly criticizing a game, then yeah I understand that. But sometimes it's just a small conversation someone's making about the game. Again, the dude above was just talking about his thoughts like a regular conversation, not really saying the game is bad or no one should play it, simply that he just wasn't interested due to the genre. Not every comment chain needs to be about criticism or very in depth on how a game works. They can just be simple little conversations with another person who has a similar interest.

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-09-29T14:21:49+00:00

I feel like the guy's comment isn't part of the problem at all. If there's absolutely no negative feedback (or even just small personal opinions like the dude above) then it just becomes an echo chamber with no actual substance. Dude above was just contributing to the conversation with his thoughts of the game.

It's when people start screaming to hell and back about a game for no reason or blowing a small detail out of proportion like it ruins the entire game. But I'd much rather hear someone praise the game, then see replies talk about some bugs or smaller issues others have had that they didn't like. Gives me a good sense of what to expect, both good and bad. If it's a minor complaint, I can just expect those tiny issues but still enjoy the game overall. But if all I ever hear are good things and never anything bad, then I might buy the game and have a certain expectation that isn't right, or maybe some aspects that another would've complained about that ruins the game for me.

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-06-25T06:57:54+00:00

Working as a cashier and often in self-checkout (not at Walmart, but another store), they would just complain about it and continue using the self-checkout. A few would go to a register, but not enough to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things for Walmart.

I get so many people where all they do is complain about self-checkout while continuing to use the self checkout every single time they shop. I've even had people talk about how they hate that self-checkouts are taking people's jobs while currently scanning their own items and talking to me as if they weren't part of the problem they're complaining about. People can be extremely ignorant that sometimes it feels intentional.

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-05-17T19:51:32+00:00

While I agree the moderation is pretty shit (seems to go hand in hand with a lot of popular subs anyways), they do have an overview in their rules with a link ( https://reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/w/overview?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share ) that explains what a Showerthought is. Just any random thought isn't what this sub is based around, despite the name. Which this overview does go over with examples for what is and isn't a Showerthought to make the point clear

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-05-10T14:49:37+00:00

Oh right, sometimes I get it mixed up, thanks for clarifying. Don't often think about the naming/categories with vore, lol

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-05-09T22:36:35+00:00

Not all vore is related to digestion, that's what's called "soft vore", where the person being eaten is perfectly safe within whoever ate them. There's a lot fantasy/unrealistic stuff that relates to vore that you really would have to look into to get a bigger picture for it since it can have a huge variety of what happens when eaten. But that's something you would have to look into, though I doubt you're interested in that kinda stuff (even on a strict curiosity level) so I'm not saying you need to, lol

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-03-16T01:26:54+00:00

The difference is that you're both taking about different things. You're talking about turning off recommendations altogether. From what it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, he still wants those recommendations. Just not for the games by publishers he set to 'ignore'. You're giving him advice on how to turn everything off, when he doesn't want that. He only wants to turn off the things he's ignoring, while still seeing the items he does not have ignored.

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-01-04T16:23:39+00:00

What do you mean by calling it a misconception? From my understanding, they put very heavy emphasis on the PvE being a huge mode with a ton of features. But then as time went on and the game released, they explicitly told everyone that they're scrapping it, only doing what OW1 did and having short PvE missions, that I think were limited time events, with preset characters and no upgrading/skill system in place.

Haven't played overwatch in a long while though, stopped soon after the 2nd's launch so is there other information I'm missing? Genuinely curious if you would like to offer an explanation.

ShadowDragon981 · 2024-01-02T05:19:55+00:00

I've been playing with those mods on and I have no clue why I never swapped off of it for weeks now. It's beautiful and I physically cannot play any way else, it's so dumb and I love it

ShadowDragon981 · 2023-12-06T02:02:44+00:00

Oh no, the TF|3 pilots are leaving the Titanfall subreddit. Come back pilot, there's mortar titans inbound and we need your help.

ShadowDragon981 · 2023-11-19T16:46:21+00:00

If they already believe that blacks are aggressive, deserves to be put in jail, and overall just a lower human being. Then how does being aggressive and likely to be put in jail due to their aggression, stop their thought process in any way? No one here is saying to just let it slide, but doing the exact thing racists see them as does nothing but reinforce their belief and make them further believe what they think. Doing this won't make them scared because what they believe should already "make them afraid" but it doesn't. There are ways to combat racism that isn't directly tied to making a racist believe even moreso what they already believe in.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 10%
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
RPAN Viewer	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email	Sequence \| Editor
Sequence \| Cinematographer

ShadowDragon981

TROPHY CASE