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

91–100 of 506 posts

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

#91

Post by lovehashbrowns »

collingreen wrote: post #78
Ukv wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And yet kids take Java server components and mod components and assemble them into Minecraft servers for their friends, and there’s a whole industry around providing pre-configured servers for games like Minecraft, project zomboid, rust, etc. and those services have been around for decades. So I don’t know what the issue is.

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

#92

Post by braiamp »

mrandish wrote: post #85

I doubt it's possible for legislation to mandate meaningful compliance regarding something as dynamic and rapidly evolving as online games. Despite good intentions, such legislation often results in unintended consequences including distorting the market, creating perverse incentives or even making the problem worse. Serious problems are already apparent. Games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription." a…

You know what? I'm tired of unintended consequences fear mongering. You know what else had a tons of unintended consequences? Mandating seat belts. This is the industry kicking and crying because they don't want to be told that they can't abuse the consumer blatantly. Joke Bloke would still be able to release their game without wondering if this kind of law exists because the law will never apply to them. These kind of laws are targeting a massive abuse by big companies with a bag of money to figure it out.

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

#93

Post by tshaddox »

neksn wrote: post #90
weberer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Closed source binaries rot.

No worse than the closed source binaries of the games themselves, surely.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #83
sheept wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction makes sense, but I wonder if the bill will inadvertently incentivize games to move to subscription based models, which would be ultimately be a worse experience for consumers.

Ultimately consumers can then make a better choice, to simply drop those subscription based games.

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by jayd16 »

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…

Game engines/code aren't all open source. The game developer might not have the legal rights to release the source.

Also, does this stop at games? Why not any online service ever? Why not any program at all?

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

#96

Post by phendrenad2 »

braiamp wrote: post #92
mrandish wrote: post #85

I doubt it's possible for legislation to mandate meaningful compliance regarding something as dynamic and rapidly evolving as online games. Despite good intentions, such legislation often results in unintended consequences including distorting the market, creating perverse incentives or even making the problem worse. Serious problems are already apparent. Games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription." a…

You know what? I'm tired of unintended consequences fear mongering. You know what else had a tons of unintended consequences? Mandating seat belts. This is the industry kicking and crying because they don't want to be told that they can't abuse the consumer blatantly. Joke Bloke would still be able to release their game without wondering if this kind of law exists because the law will never apply to them. These kind…

[flagged]

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

#97

Post by throw_a_grenade »

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.

Why not? They'll spin a new LLC for every title and leave it empty shell, without capital to be recovered by the users should they sue.

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

#98

Post by traderj0e »

smalley wrote: post #30

This appears to treat subscription style games and free to play with in game purchases differently than other games. I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

Upfront purchase for something that depends on online services to work raises some questions. The problem with the bill is they want either literally infinite support or an open source server in the end. It'd make sense if there were some time limit based on the price of the game, just to guard against scams like asking $50 for a game that's shut down a year later.

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

#99

Post by kube-system »

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.

Presuming that the code is the company's asset, and doesn't use third-party licensed assets. Otherwise you'll be in line for a refund with all of the other company's creditors. Or you get part of the code that you can't use.

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

#100

Post by MobiusHorizons »

norman784 wrote: post #39
MobiusHorizons wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree with you that allowing the community to keep games running would be a more desirable outcome, but I don't believe California could make such a law. As I understand it, reverse engineering is already illegal federally because of things like the DMCA. California can't just make the DMCA not apply in this case because its not a California law. However they can pass consumer protection laws making there b…

I don't know about California, but AFAIK reverse engineering is legal, but breaking DRM protection isn't, so what companies did was to put DRM in their software, hence the reverse engineering became illegal.

yep, that is what I meant by the DMCA, but I should probably have been more clear.
Post reply on HN