Live data from Hacker News

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

pcgamer.com

151–160 of 452 posts

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

#151

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 things are doesn’t prevent how things could be. Studios could negotiate better licensing deals.

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

#152
post #141

I feel... uneasy about the idea. Are games art? If so, are you comfortable telling artists what types of art they can create? I know not everyone is going to agree with me here but it feels like a slippery slope.

art, shmart. aside the fact that a large part of art is money laundering or tax evasion, what is being asked for is more like banning radioactive or cancerous paint pigment

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

#153
post #141

I feel... uneasy about the idea. Are games art? If so, are you comfortable telling artists what types of art they can create? I know not everyone is going to agree with me here but it feels like a slippery slope.

Depends entirely on the game. Some are art, games designed by people who love games for the sake of games. Others are things that employ the use of art for the sake of long-term financial gain.

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

#154

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

ah, yes, for example quake3 an extremely mediocre game that has server executable along with the client? what is this argument even about?

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

#155

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

> server authoritative video games that are eventually turned off is a legitimate business strategy

It is a legitimate business strategy... for now.

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

#156

Video games publishers don't want you to play the same game for too long without spending more money. They don't want to make games like Terraria where you have a $10 game you can play for a thousand hours. They'd much rather you buy multiple $60+ games, plus expansions, "micro"-transactions and subscriptions. They don't want games that last forever, they want to pressure you into constantly buying the next big thing…

[flagged]

BG3 is quite possibly one of the most modable games of the last five years, and the multiplayer game is self hosted (peer to peer)

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

#157

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

I think there’s a mid ground where industry does nothing except slap a sticker on warning people that game features will sunset in the future, making parts of the game unplayable, perhaps making some commitment like no sooner than December 31, 2030.

It will essentially be the similar thing as the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes or the Parental Guidance logo on an album. The are US things, not sure if EU has similar.

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

#158

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…

All of those things are concerns. But if video game publishers really needed to figure this stuff out in order to sell units, they would. Contracts would change. But they'd still get signed. Everyone wants money too much. The only hard part is trying to fix this stuff for games which have already signed on the dotted line. Or games which have shipped and disbanded their software teams.

But even then, can't they just opensource what they're allowed to? Even if it doesn't build, it wouldn't take the community long to rip out FMOD or whatever and replace it with working alternatives. Or submit a final patch which removed the part where games phone home before launching in singleplayer mode. Why would that interfere with the licence for 3rd party IP?

IMO if I'm "buying" the game, you can't also remotely disable the thing I bought. (And "buy" is the word they all use!). If you want to remotely disable the game at some point in the future, I'm fine with that so long as they list it very explicitly and loudly on the box. "THIS GAME ONLY PLAYABLE UNTIL 2030". Games publishers need to start being honest and upfront about what we're paying for. Its not an unreasonable ask.

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

#159
post #141

I feel... uneasy about the idea. Are games art? If so, are you comfortable telling artists what types of art they can create? I know not everyone is going to agree with me here but it feels like a slippery slope.

what a strawman. its not about "you cannot draw this" but its more like "please dont use dyes that offgas deadly fumes", a technical regulation not about substance

Talk about strawman, it's literally "I paid for something I don't like, there should be a law!" And you're comparing it to poison gas

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

#160
post #147

I think very few people (outside of the industry - important caveat) are opposed to the stated goals of the initiative: > This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union [...] to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state. The concern that I have is that I have no idea what the actual text of the law is going to be. You can look at laws like t…

So don’t even try because it might be bad?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN