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

Post by dijit » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:01 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #245

dijit wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some things. For others you may not be able to license it. Example: have you seen a street racing game with Toyota’s in it? There’s a reason that Need For Speed games fell off after Most Wanted (original) and it’s because they themselves don’t get total artistic license on their works. And part of the agreements is a reasonable expectation that you will not assist anyone else to violate the agreement - and, the a…

Somehow game companies managed to deal with this when games were sold on CDs. They’ll figure it out again.

Post by happymellon » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:02 PM UTC

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #165

layer8 wrote: post #135

If any of this goes through in terms of legislation, it will mostly just have “buy” change into “lifetime subscription” (where as usual, “lifetime” means the lifetime of the service). I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be done, and the article itself alludes to that outcome, but it also means that it won’t stop the killing of games.

[flagged]

Post by dijit » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:03 PM UTC

foobarchu wrote: post #123

meheleventyone wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by mrangle » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:05 PM UTC

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #237

mrangle wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Points for the most insane answer possible, no offense. No idea what you are talking about. Given that you work for the video game industry, perhaps your comment is in a sense perfect.

The last part of it is just me going off the rails, but do you really think only the game industry is bad?

Post by _aavaa_ » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:08 PM UTC

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #250

_aavaa_ wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legislate the that your license What we should be doing is applying the laws that already exist: when I purchase a physical book I own a copy of it and can sell it, lend it, modify it. Amazon and the publishers have zero say in the matter. Buying a digital copy should be no different. I more of this stupid “you bought a license to access a copy” crap.

Let's step through this example. All Xbox games around 2004 were physical CDs. Many had online services attached to them. Eventually, those servers were turned off. You can still play LAN and singleplayer. You still have your access to the physical bytes on the disk (though there is copy protection). What should companies be required to do regarding the servers?