Half-Life YouTube legend Ross ‘Accursed Farms’ Scott, of Freeman’s Mind, is planning a lawsuit against Ubisoft over The Crew’s shutdown.
Half-Life YouTube legend Ross ‘Accursed Farms’ Scott, of Freeman’s Mind, is planning a lawsuit against Ubisoft over The Crew’s shutdown.
this is for public coverage, the original source is here
You're viewing a single thread.
I liked his essay on live service bullshit long ago but I actually think this guy is a bit dumb and twitter pilled... Couldn't stomach rest of content.
I don't think he fully understands the sisyphean nature of what he wants to do, not to mention the naivety of his belief in the American justice system.
I watched his video and I get the impression that even he doesn't think he stands the slightest chance to accomplish anything.
It seems like he wants to learn about something to defend something else he is passionate about even if he has no chance.
At the very least he is encouraging discussion and attempting bring awareness to the issue of live services affecting games and other aspects of modern life.
I'd be wary if he was promising things beyond sensible reason but that wasn't the vibe I was getting from that video. He seems genuine in the direction he would like to take. He made it quite clear there is no concrete plan and an expectation that nothing can happen or it will end in failure if he even goes through with it.
He is asking and he is trying to learn. If Ross doesn't understand what he's up against now, he will after people begin throwing him more information. I get the feeling he'll make an update video with what he learned and I will be interested in what he has to say.
I don't fault him for trying. Things are bleak and people are looking for any reason to resist or fight back. Maybe something will happen. Maybe not.
I'm a person who doesn't enjoy rolling over for the status quo so I'm happy seeing more people wanting to take a stand. Let's hope he stays sensible.
It's always better to try, learn, and fail for your convictions.
I've been in a situation before where I went up against something bigger than me for reasons that would affect not only myself but the people around me. It was both shocking and frustrating to find out that the people who would gain to benefit from my proposed actions, were the first to turn their backs on me.
Questioning my intelligence, telling me it's impossible and a waste of time, telling me to just roll over and accept how things are.
I pushed forward and in the process learned a lot. Understood the inner workings of a social machine. I did so mainly by myself with very little positive support behind me.
In the end, I achieved my goal of removing someone from a position of power. It came at many costs. Some included social exclusion from people who should have been supportive.
Those people were afraid and projected that fear on to me. That projected fear came in the form of anger and resentment towards me. That fear causes people to drag down others who try to improve things. It feels like insanity because it's hard to make sense of it when everything is playing out in real time.
In the video Ross made, it appears to me that he is being open, honest and realistic of what he wants to do and is asking to learn. He wants to do something for the benefit of others and not only himself. Unsurprisingly, some of the first reactions are to question his intelligence and say what he wants to do is impossible.
Even if he tries and fails, he'll be a wiser person for it. He's also a content creator so it's almost expected to anticipate a follow up video detailing what he has learned. More available knowledge is always a good thing.
As long as Ross and people like Ross who want to make honest, sensible attempt at changing the world, I will be supportive of that. Fracturing our own collective strengths will cause more harm than good.
The issue isn't even just "him vs corporation with expensive lawyers". There's also no legal basis for any kind of action.
I've said in another post that I'm all for legislation that changes the obligations software developers have when selling software, such that abandoning hosting for software that requires access to their server comes with the obligation that they enable third parties to replace the functionality and consumers don't lose access. But there aren't any laws that can be interpreted that way. At absolute most, some very recent purchasers might be entitled to a refund. And if you could write such a law in a coherent way, and find a way to get it passed, it would still almost certainly only be able to apply to future software sales, not be retroactive.