So what's preventing companies from giving games for free and requiring a subscription or one time membership fee for online play? They'd only be required to refund the full price of the game: $0.
Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
181–190 of 506 posts
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to hear about your situation. For the game you're shutting down online services for, forgive my nieve question but how much work is it to expose an environment variable called `GAME_SERVER_URL` and then document the API contract it expects on the other end? Servers have a real cost, nobody is denying that, but I think the people who bought the game should have an option/alternative in case the servers are down.
We looked into it. Hackers got part of the way there so we decided not to make a change. They might be able to do it after the title is fully sunset and the team disbanded. We basically have to get as much done on a 3/4 month timeline as possible and it isn’t a priority like saving content or refunding gift cards is. Shutting down is a lot of work.
Anything you can add to the knowledge pool is already going to be of immense help for your community reverse engineering in the future. Be it as simple as stuff like "Our in-game chat runs over IRC" for example - that already simplifies that entire part of figuring it out of machine code out once servers are gone. ANY knowledge you can share no matter how small it is always helps when all you have is a binary file and no server to respond to your requests.
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#183This makes the Minecraft model look all that much better than it already was, users pay for an account, the servers are self hosted by the community, as far as I can tell on the surface level Minecraft would already comply with this legislation.
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly the benefit of a law - it’s a forcing measure to require businesses to invest in processes to understand open sourcing, and to go forward when otherwise no one would make a business case for approval.
And makes it more expensive. There is the seen benefit and then the unseen cost. Every game released will have to account for the possibility of it, and will create issues for people who really didn't want those issues. After awhile people will forget there are associated issues and costs, but they will still be there.
If you plan for it from the start, it's a small cost. And the simpler the game development process the cheaper it gets.
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm old enough to remember a time when you bought a copy of a game and played it locally. Most games were around $60 and we paid it. It is only more recently that someone decided that viewing ads was a better way to pay for games - you got what you wanted and no one values games anymore. Even back in the day, if I paid 60 bucks and spent less then 40 hours solving the game I was disappointed and felt like I paid too…
If you paid $60 bucks for a sega genesis game in 1990 you were paying about $156 adjusting for inflation. Different figures for different values of "back in the day" obviously.
I valued the games and the time I spent playing them. Tons of people on handheld devices, that have little money for games, is a whole different world. Seems like gaming is a tough business, I have to wonder how this applies though: https://bothsidesofthetable.com/most-startups-should-be-deer...
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if an Indie developer wants to make a game, where the primary mechanics and state live in a "service" they control? Why should they be burdened with this stuff if they move on, if indeed they sold a "service" and not a piece of software? My view has nothing to do with Corporations... I just really don't understand what players feel they are entitled to here. If you want "software" then buy that, and don't use th…
It's not difficult not to lie to your customers. If you are actually selling a subscription then don't claim the customer is buying the game, and this law won't apply to you.
Fair enough, if you're certain the final bill will only penalize "false advertising" like this. I see how the article supports this view and maybe I did read too much into it. My concern would be if games "sold as a subscription" did end up covered by it.
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies are forced to expend resources just so a few niche hobbyists are not inconvenienced. Yeah those poor companies. They should just be allowed to take our money and then stop providing a service we paid for. Won't someone please think of the corporations???? What kind of weird argument is this? If I pay for a game then I, you know, want to be able to play the game. You know what I don't care about? Whether o…
So game should be playable forever then? You bought an online game 20 years ago, it should still work today. For 20 years you need to support, patch, keep people and infrastructure. Why the tech industry does not do it? I still want to use windows XP. Why my Nexus 5 does not work anymore ect..
Allow community servers then. Then the company doesn't have to pay anything to maintain it. They don't even need to release the source; just release a proprietary binary and then people can happily keep playing and not feel ripped off.
This has been happening unofficially for decades, on a volunteer basis.
I play games that are 20+ years old all the time. I play Quake and Doom online pretty frequently.
You can still use Windows XP if you really want. You're not artificially locked out of it. You can also use your Nexus 5 if you want. I had one plugged in
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#188This what California's political machinery is focused on? Rather than the colossal waste that is the high speed rail project, or rampant corrupt use of State and local funds for social welfare projects?
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#189Seems to me like this will incentivize upgrades in a game being very limited time, tied to an event or season (though many games already do this)
Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Gaming might be unique in the sense that it's the only industry where 1) consumers make a one-time purchase of a product, but then 2) the manufacturer remains responsible for the online component.. forever? I can't think of any other examples in real life where this happens across an industry (maybe a few niche products). Maybe this is the reason MS has been pushing Game Pass so hard, to get rid of the "purchase" par…
Well I don't want the company I bought the game from to be completely in charge of the online component. If it helps them make more money then good for them but they need a winddown plan.