Live data from Hacker News

Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

arstechnica.com

101–110 of 506 posts

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

#101
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?

Adobe turned the license servers off that the installers used to verify your CS6 installer key. No check pass, no install. Of course, you can just use an LLM to build a patch, or pirate a copy, but it's the principle I suppose.

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

#103
This is the main reason I never bother playing new MMOs or online-only games, after a few that I liked shut down after barely 1 year.

Hellgate London, Paragon...

The law should go further: If an IP isn't revived within N (say 5) years, release the source code for the servers.

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

#104

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…

> open source server code if you are going to cease support

When I was a senior exec at a big public tech company, there was a product we decided to discontinue and we thought would be nice to just open source. Somehow I ended up in charge of managing that process and was shocked at how complex, time-consuming and expensive it was in a multi-billion dollar, publicly-traded corp vs some code my friends and I wrote.

Legal had to verify that there was no licensed library code used and that we had clear, valid copyright to everything there. The project had been written over several years, merged with a project we'd acquired with a startup, some key people weren't around any more, the source control had transitioned across multiple platforms, etc. And even once we nailed all that down sufficiently, we didn't get an "all clear" from legal, we just got a formal legal opinion that any liability was probably under $1M. And then we had to convince an SVP to endorse that assumption of $1M potential liability and make a business case for approval to the CEO.

For a public company, the default assumption for any online game would be "the server side code WILL be open sourced" (under threat of prosecution). That means legal would mandate "No commercially licensed libraries can be used, any open source libraries will have to be vetted to ensure the license is compatible and everything else will need to pass IP and compliance audit." That will certainly have an impact on development time frames and economics.

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

#105
I don't see any world in which these "stop killing games" laws result in anything close to what the proponents are asking for, for multiple reasons, one of the biggest being that the proponents don't have a clear, coherent, cohesive vision that takes into account all of the side-effects, and everyone you talk to in this space has a slightly different idea of what they want, and even the main proponent, Ross Scott, has a vague vision that changes from month to month, and shifts in mututally-exclusive ways depending on what objection is currently being responded to. I think what will happen is we'll get (A) a law that doesn't work due to some glaring loophole (such as being able to skirt the law by simply giving the community the server binary with no documentation) or (B) a law that DOES work but is so impossible to ahere to that companies simply accept that they'll be sued and bake it into the price of the game.

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

#106
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.

They could, but there is very little evidence to show that a dislike for subscription models outweighs people's desire to consume quality content.

Evidence is strong that people follow the content they want, and then secondarily choose the least friction delivery model.

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

#107
post #18
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

From the movie "Bowfinger" [0]

  Dave: But movies cost millions of dollars to make.
  Robert K. Bowfinger: That's after gross net deduction profit percentage deferment ten percent of the nut. Cash, every movie cost $2,184.
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131325/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_1_acc...

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

#108
post #62

Can't say I support this. Legislative bodies should be dealing with actual problems in the world that meaningfully make the lives of regular people worse, not gamer entitlement.

Not being able to use a product that was purchased is an “actual problem” that “makes the lives of regular people worse.” This is going to blow your mind, but this kind of stuff is EXACTLY what people elect governments to do.

You were able to use it. Nothing lasts forever. People need help with a world that is hell, not video game related problems.

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

#109
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.

It would be fair in general to disallow charging a one-time fee for something that's shut down soon later. I don't expect perpetual support, but there should be some target based on the price that any well-intended software maker will exceed.

Also if you advertise "lifetime license," that should mean lifetime.

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

#110

Can't say I support this. Legislative bodies should be dealing with actual problems in the world that meaningfully make the lives of regular people worse, not gamer entitlement.

The law is exactly the place to deal with entitlements.
Post reply on HN