The Stop Killing Games Movement

[wonderfullife]

Which raises the question, did anybody try just asking Ubisoft what was the situation with the state of this game? I believe if approached amicably this would all have been resolved now. Instead the moral mob who have rallied behind Ross and Ubisoft are set to rape each other to death in court. Won't that be fun?

I suppose it depends on what you define as "amicably" but part of Ross's spiel was to have people contact Ubisoft to ask them to reenable access, refund, or to have ubisoft provide some sort of resolution on a case by case basis to the whole debacle. Personally I never got a response, and as far as I am aware this was a standard experience for others that also reached out.

Do you believe that Ubisoft are actively conspiring to stop people playing old games

Speculating of course, but yes. I would not put it past them.
I am not sure what is stopping ubisoft from enabling access now to the offline mode that exists in the game. I don't believe they've even responded or offered a reasoning to anyone. So, my assumption is at best they could not be bothered, or they would rather I just suck it up and purchase the latest and greatest release and stop worrying. Both reasons to me are greedy.

My guess remains that they didn't think people would care

Maybe initially, but given the response and outcry now, I don't see how they could reasonably believe this still.

Monetising your backlog just makes much more sense than trying to kill it. It is almost certainly the move that makes more money.

True, but I don't think they could monetize much more in its current state, maybe now they'll put out a remake to appear "based" given the current backlash.

Working in the corporate sector (not gaming granted) has made me aware of how important the current years profit and budget is. Generally old items past their peak won't sell significantly again, so baring a remake I can see why ubisoft would rather I buy the new version of The Crew. It would give the current exec and sales team a KPI they can use to justify any bonuses, or budget increases they may want for the next financial year.
Disabling access to original The Crew puts those old owners in a predicament. Either we go without the game, or we buy the next closest thing, the new releases. Personally I'll go without, but I think Ubisoft's speculation was that more people would just suck it up and buy the newer version rather than care which I assume they thought would generate more sales. Obviously an unplanned outcome was that one of the people that didn't want to buy the new release was a reasonably well known public figure who decided to make his disdain known.

Is that greed? It is subjective to say one way or the other. Personally I say it is greedy, and I will continue to believe this unless ubisoft decides to address the reasoning behind not enabling access to the offline mode that exists in the game, maybe there is a good reason. I think ultimately most companies goals are to move towards subscription services, which if I had a concern with this whole push to "stop killing games" movement is that it will accelerate this and make subscription services for games much more prominent, causing games from big publsihers to only become available through subscription services.

 

[Antoine]

Working in the corporate sector (not gaming granted) has made me aware of how important the current years profit and budget is. Generally old items past their peak won't sell significantly again, so baring a remake I can see why ubisoft would rather I buy the new version of The Crew. It would give the current exec and sales team a KPI they can use to justify any bonuses, or budget increases they may want for the next financial year.
Disabling access to original The Crew puts those old owners in a predicament. Either we go without the game, or we buy the next closest thing, the new releases. Personally I'll go without, but I think Ubisoft's speculation was that more people would just suck it up and buy the newer version rather than care which I assume they thought would generate more sales. Obviously an unplanned outcome was that one of the people that didn't want to buy the new release was a reasonably well known public figure who decided to make his disdain known.

Is that greed? It is subjective to say one way or the other. Personally I say it is greedy, and I will continue to believe this unless ubisoft decides to address the reasoning behind not enabling access to the offline mode that exists in the game, maybe there is a good reason. I think ultimately most companies goals are to move towards subscription services, which if I had a concern with this whole push to "stop killing games" movement is that it will accelerate this and make subscription services for games much more prominent, causing games from big publsihers to only become available through subscription services.

I really doubt that existing Crewheads were a serious consideration at Ubisoft. Did it occur to you to look at this at any point during this whole thing?

I suppose one of these 286 dedicated Crewheads was you. Do you think Ubisoft conspired to change the nature of how we access media for the rest of time forward from now to get another 286 sales on The Crew? Assuming that you're all cycling playtimes broadly we can generously spin that 286 up to 2000 even. Let's say there are 2000 dedicated fans of The Crew by this point. Are you a serious commercial consideration? To the point strange and risky new plans have to be made to incentivise and control you?

This game sold at least two million units according to a quick google around. What the hell do they need you for? You're a drop in the bucket.

Another thought I would seriously entertain as a motivation, they didn't want two online games called 'The Crew' up at once. They want their to be one Ubisoft MMO driving thing to avoid confusion, people thinking the new one is some weird sidegrade thing, etc. I think most people would genuinely want the new one (most people are numb to "value", FIFA sells every year, etc) and this is actually for their sake.

 

[wonderfullife]

I suppose one of these 286 dedicated Crewheads was you

I don't own the game on Steam. I have seen the steam graph used to justify ubisoft removing access to the Crew.

Regardless, I don't think popularity should determine whether a game remains usable. If it were such little concern for ubisoft, and a tiny playerbase worth nothing, why not just enable the offline mode? I think they'd rather compel the playerbase to just move on, and buy the newest version.

 

[Antoine]

I don't own the game on Steam. I have seen the steam graph used to justify ubisoft removing access to the Crew.

Regardless, I don't think popularity should determine whether a game remains usable. If it were such little concern for ubisoft, and a tiny playerbase worth nothing, why not just enable the offline mode? I think they'd rather compel the playerbase to just move on, and buy the newest version.

Yes, this is what it comes back to. "Why"? Gamers love to imagine deranged malevolent reasons. I suspect that this is a pathological drive. Ross seems merely concerned with the fact they did it, because he wants to play it. We can only speculate on the why. And there's only so much to say about the simple fact the game is cut off for now. I think we've exhausted this discussion until Ubisoft say something.

 

[Some_porcupine]

I really doubt that existing Crewheads were a serious consideration at Ubisoft. Did it occur to you to look at this at any point during this whole thing?
View attachment 97090
I suppose one of these 286 dedicated Crewheads was you. Do you think Ubisoft conspired to change the nature of how we access media for the rest of time forward from now to get another 286 sales on The Crew? Assuming that you're all cycling playtimes broadly we can generously spin that 286 up to 2000 even. Let's say there are 2000 dedicated fans of The Crew by this point. Are you a serious commercial consideration? To the point strange and risky new plans have to be made to incentivise and control you?

This game sold at least two million units according to a quick google around. What the hell do they need you for? You're a drop in the bucket.

Another thought I would seriously entertain as a motivation, they didn't want two online games called 'The Crew' up at once. They want their to be one Ubisoft MMO driving thing to avoid confusion, people thinking the new one is some weird sidegrade thing, etc. I think most people would genuinely want the new one (most people are numb to "value", FIFA sells every year, etc) and this is actually for their sake.

So you'd like late stage capitalism and or are scared of socialism, or even socdem, then? Where would you put yourself, which country is the most similar to where are your stands on capitalism and society? (Also, Norway 2000 and 24 are different countries as times and opinions change, by 2024 Europe got its rightwing phase, after leftist utopia dream has fallen off and there was no return to moon, trip to space, mars, or underground by layman in this century (by year 2000, 200...5 yet, as popsci techzines and prophets promised by ad2000 in 50s-80s))
Let's say that yes, soy doublechins like to be heroes who save 90/60/90 type chick Lara Croft type (ironically, LC don't need saving) and save world from muh degeneracy. So what, men like that, what a surprise. Only by 50s or 60s women went on par with men, it take longer. Geez, even that Marcuse, Deleuze and others wanted to by their Critical theory, to destroy definition and distinguition of gender - why we don't have all tentacles down there and even care about our differences, by 60s, we don't have to, "there is neither of!"
And now you see, it all come to vuvu and peepee! So?

 

[Some_porcupine]

Yes, this is what it comes back to. "Why"? Gamers love to imagine deranged malevolent reasons

Blame American movies and media for that. ",They gotta get you", but "Power to people, kill bourgeoisie!" up and down the theme goes.

 

[turntableToothache]

Videogames, am I right fellas?

 

[Jade]

Relevant to the thread
Ross's work might help address a lot of problems with the industry beyond just killing games

‘Helldivers 2’ PC Players Mad About PSN Account Linking, Arrowhead Responds

Helldivers 2 players have just been informed that if they're playing on PC, which the majority of them are, they will now need to link a PSN account to Steam

www.forbes.com

 

[MindControlBoxer]

Politics thread over there >>>>>

I mean, it is kind of doubtful that using the same idea alone can kill the game. Especially a racing game - the idea of racing is quite basic and simple.

Gameplay concept =/= game

Mario kart, burnout 3 and forza are all racing games but obviously not the same game.

All of the assassins creed games were mostly the same with stuff added on or taken away but still the same game, the thing they had going for them was the story + the innovative gameplay for the time, as time goes by the game play its not innovative anymore and the game relies solely on the story (which they also fucked it up but that is a different issue)

Is it dragging the game through 32 titles which kills it? Then it doesn't quite apply to The Crew - it was the sole title which was a decent racing game.

The gameplay concept for the crew is a online-only racing video game with a persistent open world environment for free-roaming.

It had an expiration date from the start, Ubisoft its not gonna keep the servers running after because that comes from their pockets, its a mmo.

From what I've seen, since I never tried it.
It's like, I overall do not feel that your argument can be applied to The Crew. It was a solid racing game, the first out of only two titles, Ubisoft or whatnot, and people played it, and they liked it, and now Ubisoft closes it and people who played the game don't like it. Simple as.

Tough shit should've bought a game that doesn't depend on outside servers.

Cs 1.6 still has players because it does not depends on valves servers the official ones are long gone, yet the game its still playable.

It was just as alive as Fallout or Arcanum. Well, granted, without a modding comunity, but with a solid playerbase. Not sure if The Crew could've become a classic if Ubisoft haven't closed it, but things are as they are.

Fallout and arcanum are single player games. They own your shit and they can do whatever they want with it, you signed the terms and conditions like a bitch (which i doubt any of these people ever read because if they did they would've complained them ).

Every single one of those players, CHOOSE to play the crew despite being on foreign servers beyond their control. You don't see that problem with split/second which the studio who made it WENT OUT OF BUSINESS in 2011 yet the game its totally playable online still.

You get what you pay for.

What has happened to that game would be equivalent to Ubisoft locking you out of ever playing assassin's creed 1 and forcing you to buy the most modern example, Assassin's Creed 32 as you say. I wouldn't put it past Ubisoft, if they could, to disable the old assassin creed games like with The Crew.

Assassins creed one is a single player game and they already disabled the online for the other games.

Nobody ever bought the assassins creed games for the online though, neither nobody ever expected them to have the assassins creed 2 ps3 online to be there forever.

The crew is a mmo there are plenty of mmos that die and never come back.
If you buy it again its your fault for being a sucker and falling over and over again for the same scheme.

There is no legacy version of The Crew as it was the original, there is no way to play offline, even though a single player mode is hidden within it, unless someone manages to mod it (which hasn't happened yet despite attempts), or the publisher goes back on their update that disabled it. So in essence it has been killed.

Tough shit. Should've bought forza or something, not the always online game that dies whenever its not online anymore.

Regardless, if I bought a game I would like to be able to continue playing it, I shouldn't have to settle for a substitute just because the publisher wants me to buy the latest and greatest and just because you think the game is slop, I don't think that should determine whether or not a publisher can arbitrarily block people from playing it or if it should be preserved or not.

They can , they did, and they will continue doing it.

They pay for the servers, they can get hookers to shit on them and lick the motherboards if they want to.

Someone out there probably enjoys Assassins Creed 24 pre historic finland edition like Ross (accursed farms Ross) and I enjoy The Crew and would much rather play that than asscreed 32.

Personal issue. I myself enjoy games where I own it and its not an always online mmo that lives or dies on the whims of a coked out ceo.
My point is that they sold exactly what they said they would, and the people who bought it bought it and now they are doing exactly what they said they could do.
Companies are selling you games with expiration dates, Which they tell you mind you, none of that stuff is hidden and you the eternal retard buys it, over, and over, and over again.

They will stop making killable games once people stop buying them.

 

[wonderfullife]

The crew is a mmo there are plenty of mmos that die and never come back.
If you buy it again its your fault for being a sucker and falling over and over again for the same scheme.

The Crew had a singleplayer mode. It would be nice if this is added to the game, through modding or an official patch.

I won't buy it again, not that I can anyway.

Tough shit. Should've bought forza or something, not the always online game that dies whenever its not online anymore.

I prefer TDU2, and The Crew. I would also rather only 10 years of The Crew over a lifetime of Forza.

They can , they did, and they will continue doing it.

They'll continue if nothing comes of this. Which will be unfortunate.

I myself enjoy games where I own it and its not an always online mmo that lives or dies on the whims of a coked out ceo.

Personally I enjoy games based on the gameplay. It is a shame when good games are locked behind always online services.

We'll see what happens going forward. If anything gets put into law then I'm happy. Valve was forced to allow refunds based on Ausland laws, and the EU forced Apple to use a USB standard. Can't see why this wouldn't be possible.
If this makes games stay playable after official server support ends then hey, maybe you'll get a wider range of games you can own, and subsequently enjoy.

Companies are selling you games with expiration dates

They're not, at least not currently. This was another point Ross raised in the vid. If they so adamantly do not want to provide options for people to host their own servers or provide some sort of singleplayer mode then the proposal would force companies to at least place a literal expiration date on the box or online store.

 

[MindControlBoxer]

The Crew had a singleplayer mode. It would be nice if this is added to the game, through modding or an official patch.

I won't buy it again, not that I can anyway.

Always online =/= multiplayer
It only works if its always online regardless of single or multi.

Personally I enjoy games based on the gameplay. It is a shame when good games are locked behind always online services.

That's how they make money and people give it to them. Don't give them the money and they won't make them.

We'll see what happens going forward. If anything gets put into law then I'm happy. Valve was forced to allow refunds based on Ausland laws, and the EU forced Apple to use a USB standard. Can't see why this wouldn't be possible.
If this makes games stay playable after official server support ends then hey, maybe you'll get a wider range of games you can own, and subsequently enjoy.

You cant make a law that forces a business to keep operating if they don't want to. Unless you literally want to have Ubisoft be government owned and ran.

If you told the ubisoft ceo in 2014 that he would have to keep the servers for the crew online past the year 2099 and beyond the crew would've never been made because that is a bad business decision, because it is unlikely that a significant amount of people would buy and/or still play the crew at that date.

They're not, at least not currently. This was another point Ross raised in the vid. If they so adamantly do not want to provide options for people to host their own servers or provide some sort of singleplayer mode then the proposal would force companies to at least place a literal expiration date on the box or online store.

They are and they do tell you, you just click on it that you agree with their terms and don't read it.

TERMS OF USE OF THE UBISOFT SERVICES

legal.ubi.com

Spoiler

16.1 Modification of the Terms. We may revise these Terms at any time for security, legal, best practice and/or regulatory reasons. We will not use this right to make substantial changes to the Terms, affecting your rights, without giving you a chance to agree. If you do not agree to the changes made to these Terms, you shall terminate your Account as set out in Article 8.1. You should check for revisions to the Terms regularly as they are binding on you. Any use of the Services subsequent to revised Terms coming into force implies acceptance of the revised Terms.

^this means they can do whatever the fuck they want btw



4.1 General. We do not guarantee that the Services will be available at all times, in all locations worldwide, and/or on all devices. We do not guarantee that we will continue to offer any Service for any minimum period of time. We reserve the right to terminate all or part of the Services at any time.

4.2 Modification of Services price. We reserve the right to modify the prices of the Services, including from a paid Service to a free-to-play one and vice versa. The new price applies only to orders placed after it has come into effect.

4.3 Modification of access to Services and Content.

a) We may modify the Content for any reason, at any time, in particular for technical reasons such as updates, maintenance operations or resets to improve or optimize the Services.

b) We may ask or enable you to download software, updates, patches and/or other utilities and tools supplied by us or our licensors (the "Ubisoft Software"). We grant you a personal, non-transferable and non-exclusive license enabling you to use Ubisoft Software solely for the purposes of use of the Services, throughout the world and for the legal period of protection of the Ubisoft Software under Intellectual Property Rights. We may specify terms of use for this Ubisoft Software at the time at which it is made available to you. The performances of the Ubisoft Software and Services may vary depending on your equipment. We may from time to time supply you with updates or modifications of the Ubisoft Software that may be necessary for you to continue to use the Services.

c) Such modifications may affect the Services and/or your acquired rights or result in setbacks in the game environment.

d) We may also:

• set a maximum number of days for which a Content will be stored as part of the Services;
• set a maximum volume of messages which can be sent or received by an Account;
• set a maximum memory capacity which will be allocated by our servers for your Account;
• set a maximum number of times you may access the Services, together with a maximum duration for each access during a given period.

 

[wonderfullife]

Always online =/= multiplayer
It only works if its always online regardless of single or multi.

Fair enough, but there is an encrypted portion of The Crew that supports offline play. I genuinely do not see why ubisoft cannot enable this besides a desire to have people only be able to purchase the latest release. I suppose currently they're within their rights to do this, but I would like it if this movement makes it mandatory to leave a game playable after official support ends.

That's how they make money and people give it to them. Don't give them the money and they won't make them.

Again, fair enough. I would still like to play good games that are locked behind an always online system.

I bought the crew 10 years ago now, and stopped "buying" online only games a while ago.

You cant make a law that forces a business to keep operating if they don't want to.

It isn't forcing them to keep operating a server indefinitely if they don't want to, it would force them to leave a game in a playable state after official support ends (private servers, offline play, community run servers). I would recommend watching the video from Ross as he mentions what the outcomes are envisioned by having this pass.

My only concern with this push is that it makes gaming subscription services more common, and games get locked behind these subscription services. Though to me this is not much worse than the current state of affairs, at least you know how long a subscription lasts.

They are and they do tell you, you just click on it that you agree and don't read it.

Semantics I suppose, but to me an Expiration Date explicitly tells you when something will expire, prior to purchasing. Not after and not a vague this may or may not continue to work in an undefined amount of time in the future.

 

[MindControlBoxer]

Fair enough, but there is an encrypted portion of The Crew that supports offline play. I genuinely do not see why ubisoft cannot enable this besides a desire to have people only be able to purchase the latest release. I suppose currently they're within their rights to do this, but I would like it if this movement makes it mandatory to leave a game playable after official support ends.

Because they're evil and they don't need to? All they need to do do its put another game out and people will buy it so that they can afford their cocaine and hookers.

Again, fair enough. I would still like to play good games that are locked behind an always online system.

Then buy those.

It isn't forcing them to keep operating a server indefinitely if they don't want to, it would force them to leave a game in a playable state after official support ends (private servers, offline play, community run servers). I would recommend watching the video from Ross as he mentions what the outcomes are envisioned by having this pass.

That is not what the crew is, the crew is an always was a mmo.

They make money by selling stuff they, can simply scorch earth If its mandatory its gonna be the most barebones shit ever and then people will still complain that is not the same and buy the new game. It runs deeper.


You don't own it, you choose and agreed to the terms to not to own it and now you need a government bailout? Gamers are pathetic.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, This again, easily solvable by making better choices.

DOOM has been alive since its inception there are maps that go back to when it launched it. If doom was online only would you buy it, spend the time making the maps, speed running, doing the challenges yadda yadda yadda knowing its can get axed at any minute if they decided to or would you buy a different game that does not require that?

The crew is that, and they told you its that, and you still bought it.
Only one is to blame here as far I can see.

My only concern with this push is that it makes gaming subscription services more common, and games get locked behind these subscription services. Though to me this is not much worse than the current state of affairs, at least you know how long a subscription lasts.

Just don't buy it.

Stop buying games from companies shitty practices movement its too long of a name though.

Semantics I suppose, but to me an Expiration Date explicitly tells you when something will expire, prior to purchasing. Not after and not a vague this may or may not continue to work in an undefined amount of time in the future.

If the crew had the same a mount of players at Fortnite it would still be up.

Would you rather that the game suddenly expired even if it had a giant playerbase?

 

[wonderfullife]

That is not what the crew is, the crew is an always was a mmo.

Oh well, if this works then Ubisoft will have to provide us with a playable crew again. Given there's already an offline mode baked into the game it shouldn't be too much work for ubisoft to implement.

and now you need a government bailout? Gamers are pathetic.

Too bad, corporations love hiding behind copyright laws and government intervention. I'll gladly abuse it too.

Anyway, I have stated my opinion. We're going around in circles. I hope this works, feel free to come back to this thread and laugh at me in a years time when nothing changes.

 

[MindControlBoxer]

Anyway, I have stated my opinion. We're going around in circles. I hope this works,

I hope it doesn't its introduces a bunch not very well thinked trough government regulation by people who regret their choices to something that can be fixed by making people have good financial decisions and being able to use their power as individual against big corporations without having to rely on the government, the same government that whenever gets a chance to regulate videogames fail catastrophically and has multiple times.

But it doesn't matter until it happens then we can get ??? to bail us out when they want to ban gta again or witcher again, postal 2? mortal kombat? Or maybe were just gonna get butchered versions of a game like the final fantasies or silent hill were due to the increased power of government regulations over what you can and cannot put in a video game.

All of those years people fought for game companies to be able to operate freely outside government power brought back by something that can be easily solved by telling people:

"Just don't buy it lol"

feel free to come back to this thread and laugh at me in a years time when nothing changes.

 

[Ross_Я]

Gameplay concept =/= game

Mario kart, burnout 3 and forza are all racing games but obviously not the same game.

Yea, you've cherry-picked three games that have different gameplay. But there are tons of racing games with the same concept that lasted for years and still were cool. Burnout alone started with 3 and was all good until Paradise. Well, maybe with the exception of Dominator.
Racing is racing, you cannot invent much about it, and yet the genre will remain fresh as ever for those who like racing games.

Fallout and arcanum are single player games.

So are Assasin's Creeds. Or they were last time I've checked. Yet you call Assassin's Creed 32 a dead game. Why?

They own your shit and they can do whatever they want with it, you signed the terms and conditions like a bitch (which i doubt any of these people ever read because if they did they would've complained them ).

Every single one of those players, CHOOSE to play the crew despite being on foreign servers beyond their control.

So, I assume, ultimately this is your answer to the question of what separates alive game from the dead one, that the corporation has the power to literally kill them? Well, that's why this movement is named "Stop Killing Games".
Overall, I do not quite disagree with this position - my answers are right there, on page 1, and I said it from the start that the best way to fight such kind of a practice would be to ignore games like this, never buying them, never playing them.
But - once again, as I already wrote on the first page - I'm just glad that there is finally a bridge too far and that people are fighting it at least somehow.
Like, true, they - the buyers, the consumers - could just not create this problem in the first place, but at least they are trying to do something about it, whether they will succeed or not.

 

[Some_porcupine]

I hope it doesn't its introduces a bunch not very well thinked trough government regulation by people who regret their choices to something that can be fixed by making people have good financial decisions and being able to use their power as individual against big corporations without having to rely on the government, the same government that whenever gets a chance to regulate videogames fail catastrophically and has multiple times.

and this is how wef and ecb got to power....

 

[幽邃森林]

The biggest injustice brought about by DRM is that the vendors advertise that you can buy their product when the reality is you only have the option to buy a license to use their product.

Maybe action should be taken to prevent this false advertisement, but then again I don't think it'd have an impact. That's because gamers are by far the most witless consumer demographic.

The biggest gamer move is to mope, complain, and maybe throw a tantrum about a company's bad practices and then subsequently continue to buy products from the same company. This has been happening for over a decade and I bet that the same people bitching about "The Crew" will continue to buy Ubisoft games. It's fascinating how powerful an IP can become.

Just buy some indy games or discover some awesome retro titles.

 

[Ashman]

The biggest injustice brought about by DRM is that the vendors advertise that you can buy their product when the reality is you only have the option to buy a license to use their product.

Maybe action should be taken to prevent this false advertisement, but then again I don't think it'd have an impact. That's because gamers are by far the most witless consumer demographic.

The biggest gamer move is to mope, complain, and maybe throw a tantrum about a company's bad practices and then subsequently continue to buy products from the same company. This has been happening for over a decade and I bet that the same people bitching about "The Crew" will continue to buy Ubisoft games. It's fascinating how powerful an IP can become.

Just buy some indy games or discover some awesome retro titles.

Is indolence the nature of men or just a mark of this age?

 

[punisheddead]

Just don't buy it.

Stop buying games from companies shitty practices movement its too long of a name though.

This unfortunately does not work. For every person not buying you'll have 10000 people with no self control buying it. Doesn't mean that you should buy it (buy an indie instead) but overall it doesn't do anything to the corpo.

The biggest injustice brought about by DRM is that the vendors advertise that you can buy their product when the reality is you only have the option to buy a license to use their product.

Maybe action should be taken to prevent this false advertisement, but then again I don't think it'd have an impact. That's because gamers are by far the most witless consumer demographic.

Steam was the first one to do this, you don't really own any of the games on steam and they can take them away at any moment. Valve knows that's stupid and needless so they don't do it but they can and other corpos that don't care do it all the time.