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

Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 506 posts

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#71

Post by traderj0e »

ssenssei wrote: post #60
traderj0e wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care about the topic from a legal and technical standpoint and am interested to see the outcome, just have no skin in the game and no sympathy for the industry or a bunch of children (both literal and figurative) who will whine whichever way it goes.

Imagine buying a TV. The TV works perfectly, but some of its features depend on the manufacturer’s servers. Years later, the company decides those servers are no longer profitable to maintain. Instead of allowing users to keep using the product in a limited form, releasing server software, enabling community maintenance, or transferring support to another party, they remotely disable the functionality entirely. Now i…

The answer is I wouldn't buy a TV that depends on online services. Just like I already wouldn't buy a video game like that, unless maybe it's very cheap. Some people do it anyway because it's still way less bad than the TV example.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#72

Post by bluGill »

weberer wrote: post #65
georgeecollins wrote: post #40

It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. I also really support giving 60 day notice if an online game is going to shut down. Places I have worked have had policies like that for games they are sun setting and I think the best game publishers th…

It doesn't need to be open source, you only need to provide server binaries to download. This was the standard until circa 2010. People were able to host dedicated servers themselves.

I want to host a closed search server that's not being updated on today's internet. It might be good enough for home use, but definitely not if I want my friends to connect.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#73

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

weberer wrote: post #65
georgeecollins wrote: post #40

It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. I also really support giving 60 day notice if an online game is going to shut down. Places I have worked have had policies like that for games they are sun setting and I think the best game publishers th…

It doesn't need to be open source, you only need to provide server binaries to download. This was the standard until circa 2010. People were able to host dedicated servers themselves.

Although I get the idea of providing server binaries but if one has to absolutely do it, then provide great modding efforts behind it.

But I have found that the greatest modding efforts/community can be generated by open source. Balatro for example is easily modified in the sense that although it might not be open source but iirc its lua files are visible.

There are other games as well which have something similar imo although that being said its possible to create modding efforts without open source in general too with say something like for example old versions of counter strike.

Personally I would prefer open source though if its possible but I understand that some game studious might be worried about it but I don't quite understand it if they are shutting down the game anyway though. I think that @mjr00's comments are nice about third party library etc. which cause issues in open sourcing so its good to have a discussion about that too (imo)

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#74

Post by Melatonic »

johnea wrote: post #4

Not a bad idea, but why does this only apply to games? I prime example of other software this would have benefited is AutoCAD. People who refused the conversion to a subscription, and maintained their "lifetime" licenses, where shut down after a couple of years.

How were they shut down? Like as in the old software refuses to start or they cant renew maintenance / no security updates?

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#75

Post by okanat »

imzadi wrote: post #48

> As currently amended, the act would not apply to completely free games and games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription. Any other game offered for sale in California on or after January 1, 2027, would be subject to the law if it passes. So they just make their game free two months before they want to close?

Law systems contain open-ended clauses and lawsuits analyze the intent. If you make your game free, just 2 months prior or even after selling it, just telling that you made it "free" will harm you more in the lawsuits due to obvious malicious intent.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#76

Post by EdwardDiego »

mdavidn wrote: post #18
jfengel wrote: post #5

Do they need to put some funds in escrow? Or will they just shut down the entire company and let the players sue for it. (I know that big publishers won't do that, but I'm sure the lawyers could create shell corporations to solve that problem.) Or they could just demonstrate that they have an offline play capability right from the moment they sell it.

The entertainment industry has a long history of making successful movies appear unprofitable on paper to avoid paying royalties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

The massive battle Peter Jackson had with the studio after none of the LoTR movies made a "profit" was very telling.

Oh, and it's even an example in that Wiki article you linked lol

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#78

Post by collingreen »

Ukv wrote: post #56
jfengel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bankruptcy is a universal get-out-of-punishment free card. At least, if you're a corporation large enough and foresighted enough to shove your liabilities off onto a fictional subsidiary before starting.

If the bankruptcy process already involves identifying and administering the company's assets, I feel releasing the server software (as-is) to owners of the game could be part of that.

I don't think most game owners could take the server side software and assemble it into working servers their game could contact and use. This isn't realistic and needs something to change at the fundamental server design side and the game development side. A silly answer is regulations about how you can and can't make a game. Another silly answer is a cottage industry doing game server hosting that's required to be third party by law. I don't have any good, realistic ideas that aren't just trying to force game developers to build games differently (or build different games). Maybe that's the cost here but is that better than just letting angry customers influence the market?

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#79

Post by dbt00 »

> The ESA also said the bill would impose unreasonable expectations on publishers regarding licensing rights for music or IP rights, which are often negotiated on a time-limited basis. “A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely could place publishers in an impossible position—forcing them to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or alter games in ways that may not be legally or technically feasible,” they wrote.

Wah wah munchie wah.

This would kick in next year. You have time to make contingency plans including a kill switch to put in shitty royalty free music if you need to.

> “Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work,” the ESA wrote. The eventual shutdown of outdated or obsolete games is “a natural feature of modern software,” the group added, especially when that software requires online infrastructure maintenance.

Go fuck yourselves.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#80

Post by 1123581321 »

ssenssei wrote: post #53
kkukshtel wrote: post #37

This is the road of stupid that stop killing games has paved.

why do you have to be negative? currently there's a huge risk Marathon might get shut down like high guard or concord because of player numbers. If they shut it down, nobody could play it anymore. If there's a system in place for us to be able to host our own servers, or... I don't know? OWN the game we bought and play it because we OWN it because we PAID for it. Then yeah, that's good and it's a good movement and I…

The main no argument is that it makes risky games riskier for the developer, publisher and IP holder. Games like Marathon never get approved.
Post reply on HN