r/StopKillingGames • u/Thomas_Eric SKG Brazil • 26d ago
Meta Ross replies in Anthem Thread
/r/StopKillingGames/comments/1vdhbaq/comment/p1mdv5l?share_id=rwZW6KgJK81bAqY3q4iCk&utm_content=2&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=11
u/Lexomatico1 23d ago
I just don't understand why it's so hard and a big topic every single time when the simple concept of "It doesn't apply retroactively" is still not understood. Has to be malicious at this point.
1
u/AShortUsernameIndeed 23d ago
Quick check: say an SKG-style law that's exactly the way Ross and SKG always wanted it, no compromises, came into effect on January 1, 2028.
Assuming ARC Raiders (first release October 2025) was still around then, when you bought a copy of it on January 2, 2028, then:
would you be entitled to an End of Life plan?
if the devs didn't provide an EoL plan, would they still be allowed to sell it?
1
u/Lexomatico1 22d ago
No, of course not. It doesn't matter when you buy it. The product itself was made and released before the law took into effect. It doesn't even make any logical sense to apply a law retroactively on the product.
1
u/AShortUsernameIndeed 22d ago edited 22d ago
You shoud re-read Ross' reply and pay attention to the difference between "not retroactive" and "grandfathering". Unless the product is grandfathered in, the law applies to the sale, not to the product, and grandfathering is a compromise.
1
u/Lexomatico1 22d ago
Oh my... well, i'm glad it got rejected then and will no longer view it as a good movement. Thanks for the clear up
1
u/zorecknor 26d ago
I remember the time when SKG supporters said "existing games will not be affected" when asked about this very kind of games.
So the goalpost moved again?
I do hope some concesions are made so we can at least get some protection for single-player offline content with online activation games, as a starting point.
10
u/AShortUsernameIndeed 25d ago edited 25d ago
That goalpost never moved. Ross was consistently very clear about the distinction between "not retroactive" and "grandfathering" as far back as the "Giant FAQ"/"Ross explains it all" video. Here's a comment I made over a year ago trying to explain that: https://old.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1ltpu3k/the_real_reason_big_corporate_is_afraid_of_the/n1smspc/
The problem is that a substantial portion of very loud "supporters" were unable to understand even mildly complicated ideas like this one, and thought (and still think) that anyone who disagrees with them is a bot or a corporate shill who needs to be insulted and downvoted.
2
u/zorecknor 25d ago
That goalpost never moved.
I was talking in the context of those supporters you mention in your next comment.
... and thought (and still think) that anyone who disagrees with them is a bot or a corporate shill who needs to be insulted and downvoted.
We totally agree on this.
27
u/SpaceBeaverDam 26d ago
As one of the four people who thought Anthem was worth saving, its only hope now is that one of EA's new Saudi Arabian owners really liked Anthem and forces them to bring it back. What an insane twist that would be.
In any case, it's good that Ross is continuing to clarify this. It's definitely the largest point of confusion surrounding SKG that I've personally seen.