Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 452 posts

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#121

Post by simion314 »

umvi wrote: post #113

Vote with your wallet, there are thousands of games that don't do shady stuff.

>Vote with your wallet

I bought Minecraft from Mojang, years later I am forced to setup a Microsoft account to play the game, or risk downloading a cracked version. They did not offer a refund. Minecraft is a video game where you need to login even if you do not play online. (maybe things changed , I think this MS account thing was a few years back, it worked for my account but I read of people having big issues because some MS assholes ahd to force the Java edition players to use an MS account)

This behaviour should not be legal.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#122

Post by bellgrove »

Having worked there in the past, Ubisoft is awful. When I was there previously there was an aggressive push for UPlay (now Ubisoft Connect) integration into all products. Then there were the bullshots for promos/E3/etc. There were often clashes with leadership who would fight against creativity / novel ideas in favour of cookie-cutter mechanics that would not add anything to the experience - certainly there was a mentality of, let's just copy what was recently successful.

I'm blown away that series like AC, FarCry are still big sellers. These games are vapid and designed to be a time sink.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#123

Post by foobarchu »

meheleventyone wrote: post #56
charcircuit wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it more permissive? The product is the same as it was before the official servers went down. Forcing games to be moddable is unrelated to stop killing games.

When you’re licensing content from third parties the more permissive rights you need the more expensive it is. Music is a very good example where it might not even be possible to get a perpetual license. A bunch of games have removed music as their license to it has expired for example. In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content, code and so on n…

This seems pretty easy. If the license to the music goes for X years, then build that expiration into the game. After X years, licensed music goes away, and the game is still playable. This is completely in scope of SKG. Everyone understands that not every feature has to be retained to stay the playable game.

That expiration date should, of course, be on the box. The consumer deserves to know.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#124

Post by tetris11 »

fidotron wrote: post #118

If this happened all multiplayer titles would turn F2P. People do not appreciate quite what a narrow path has to be walked by games from an IP standpoint. Code libraries, licensed property, per platform (and platform category) restrictions, general IP restrictions (not showing vehicles being damaged, or UI overlays on certain parts of licensed objects) and so on. This is why in the recent ROG Ally announcement Micros…

how did they do it in the past? If I can put my Tony Hawks cd from the PS2 into a cd player and enjoy all the DRM music, what changed between now and then?

If music labels refuse to license out their songs like that, then if this law passes, they're going to have to suck it up and play nice again, else lose customers/publishers.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#125

Post by mopsi »

This goes beyond games and calls for regulation of anything sold as a product, but working more like a subscription service. Similar issues also affect an increasing number of appliances that rely on apps and connect through manufacturer-hosted services. If the manufacturer goes out of business or shuts down a service, fully working devices can lose some or all of their features. Manufacturers should be required to open up their devices and provide a documented local API, if for no other reason, then to reduce the huge amount of electronic waste created by making devices artificially obsolete.

I think that approaching the problem from the perspective of a physical product, like a smart lightbulb that doesn't work anymore because the manufacturer shut down its servers, would be easier for non-technical people to understand and would likely have a better chance of success.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#126

Post by josephg »

umvi wrote: post #113

Vote with your wallet, there are thousands of games that don't do shady stuff.

Its not always obvious when you buy them which games will still be around a few years later.

Some singleplayer titles from just a few years ago are no longer playable. (Hello, Ubisoft). Meanwhile there are MMOs like guild wars 1, released 20 years ago, still playable today.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#127

Post by bashinator »

bellgrove wrote: post #122

Having worked there in the past, Ubisoft is awful. When I was there previously there was an aggressive push for UPlay (now Ubisoft Connect) integration into all products. Then there were the bullshots for promos/E3/etc. There were often clashes with leadership who would fight against creativity / novel ideas in favour of cookie-cutter mechanics that would not add anything to the experience - certainly there was a men…

I'll never buy an Ubisoft game again. Instant dealbreaker to see that studio on the Steam store page; I've deleted a $3 sale game from my cart when I realized that it was Ubisoft. No game is worth giving money to a company that hates its customers so much.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#128

Post by nebulous1 »

fidotron wrote: post #118

If this happened all multiplayer titles would turn F2P. People do not appreciate quite what a narrow path has to be walked by games from an IP standpoint. Code libraries, licensed property, per platform (and platform category) restrictions, general IP restrictions (not showing vehicles being damaged, or UI overlays on certain parts of licensed objects) and so on. This is why in the recent ROG Ally announcement Micros…

The issue with most of what you're saying here is that all of that works the way it does because it can, not because it has to. Code libraries, for example, may essentially prohibit what is being requested by SKG because they can. However, if they couldn't then they wouldn't. The companies selling the libraries aren't going to simply shut up shop.

Which is just to say, if there's money to be made then businesses will do so within the regulatory framework.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#129

Post by rcxdude »

jt2190 wrote: post #112

> Even the singleplayer components [of Ubisoft’s “The Crew (2014) were unusable when the servers were turned off]: [Y]ou just wanting to race around cars in a world with you and other NPCs in it, is no longer viable. Essentially, you didn't "buy" the game, but in a sense were "renting" it for an indeterminate amount of time, a lease that expired due to the publishers and developers no longer wanting to provide that s…

Maybe they just stop adding hard requirements for online connectivity to their single-players games, which is something which takes more effort to do in the first place?

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#130

Post by phoronixrly »

qoez wrote: post #117

> the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers Nice way to make publishers stop making multiplayer services available to the EU in the first place because deactivating it is illegal when costs outweigh profits.

Sounds good to me! EU gamers will not be taken advantage of.
Post reply on HN