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

301–310 of 506 posts

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

#301

Post by zarzavat »

summerlight wrote: post #232
Dylan16807 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like if it was mandatory to make a server release, legal would mostly shut up and it would be low cost. In other words, minimal change in risk. The refund thing is just there to force action by putting a dollar value on inaction. Pretty much no company is expected to actually choose refunds. > Alternatively, it might push multiplayer games towards free-to-play if in-app-purchases are excluded. Good point, the…

This is one of the reason why that law will surely be challenged and very likely invalidated by SCOTUS. Trade secret protection is a very fundamental part and if this is forced to be broken by legally compelled speech, then it needs to have very creative interpretations over judicial precedents.

As long as there is an option to give refunds then nothing is being compelled.

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

#302

Post by VorpalWay »

furyofantares wrote: post #256
fluoridation wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture . It's not like this is going to hurt the little three-man teams making games on shoe-string budgets. Yeah, it's going to make big budget games a little more expensive, just like how cars with seatbelts are a little more expensive to build, and like how it's a little more expensive to do proper waste management…

> Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture. Huh? Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. And you (usually[1]) do it in service of multiplayer, not because you're big budget or just want to complicate things. Among Us was literally a three-person team. [1] I find there are some major benefits to…

Remember back in the old days when you could just run your own game server, even though it wasn't open source? That would work too. Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more?

Designing a game to use developer hosted servers is a choice they made. Probably to squeeze money from microtransactions.

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

#303

Post by motoxpro »

LightHugger wrote: post #273
motoxpro wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its such a bummer that because of laws like this, less games will be made. Most games dont ever make money and dont succeed. The alternative to companies shutting games down without supporting them is not them supporting them, it is them not making them in the first place or making them very expensive (price, ads, pay to play, etc.). The customer now has to pay a tax becasue of the cost this puts on game makers. This…

this is absurd and untrue. this is like being told you have to pour a concrete pillar 2 meters to the left of where you were planning so that you're not destroying some vital infrastructure, then bemoaning the loss of the concrete pillar industry. Stop building games to self destruct. Once you fix your bad practices (which, you should not have been doing to begin with, pay for them once with some retooling and moving…

I am not arguing its RIGHT to stop supporting games. It's just a sad situation where people frame these things as moral/ethical debates when they have real world costs to players who get less games and game makers who will go out of business and the big business that people want to hurt will be just fine.

I think your analogy is a great one. I had a plan to pour a pillar that wouldn't exist without me somewhere (lets say this is online matchmaking), and you come and tell me I cant do my plan anymore, or if I do, I have to pour a second/different one (self hosted servers or p2p) or give away the pillar I make for free.

Games take money to maintain, if you make a law that forces people to maintain them for longer (or forever), that increases the costs. Higher costs -> less games. Most game makers are not Electronic Arts or Rockstar. Those companies will be 100% fine and will pass any costs onto you.

It just seems crazy that a company should be forced to give a refund to all players or spend 1000s of person-hours implementing outdated multiplayer features becasue only 50 people are playing their game once a month.

I won't enjoy it, and things aren't perfect as they are, but I will think back to this thread when the articles of layoffs, price hikes, ads, dark patterns, and "lack of quality games" become more and more prevalent because this law will have directly influenced it.

Theres no free lunch.

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

#304

Post by Mordisquitos »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #286
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.

It won't. Most games bought on steam will never be played, not even once. Customers won't splurge on subscriptions they won't use.

> Most games bought on steam will never be played, not even once.

How did you gain access to my Steam library statistics?

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

#306

Post by auggierose »

fyredge wrote: post #297
phendrenad2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Unintended consequences is the price of progress. The alternative is to continue farming by hand, and carry after from the river for your daily needs. We legislate away unintended consequences, that is the job of government. We put in laws and remove them if they are unsuitable. Analysis paralysis does no one any good.

I don't see how you can legislate away a move to subscriptions. That's not unintended consequences, that is an entirely foreseeable and direct consequence.

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

#307

Post by auggierose »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #285
throwawayk7h wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the bill explicitly doesn't apply to games that are free or are on a subscription system. (I assume free-to-play with microtransactions would be covered by this bill though, unless those microtransactions are subscription-based or time-limited.) I am indeed worried that this will push games to be subscription-based, so I would advocate making the bill apply even to subscription-based games. Though that would require…

Vast majority of games don't rely on any server.

And those will be made subscription based anyway.

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

#308

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

Reason077 wrote: post #111

This happened to me back in 2024 when Supercell abruptly shut down the game “Clash Mini”. Lost $100+ in in-game purchases. They did offer to transfer things to other Supercell games, but that had no value to me as I didn’t play those. I complained to the App Store, but Apple refused to refund purchases made more than 60 days ago (IIRC). I know things don’t necessarily last forever , especially digital assets, but to…

>Lost $100+ in in-game purchases.

You lost the money the moment you made in-game purchases.

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

#309

Post by darkwater »

VorpalWay wrote: post #302
furyofantares wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture. Huh? Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. And you (usually[1]) do it in service of multiplayer, not because you're big budget or just want to complicate things. Among Us was literally a three-person team. [1] I find there are some major benefits to…

Remember back in the old days when you could just run your own game server, even though it wasn't open source? That would work too. Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more? Designing a game to use developer hosted servers is a choice they made. Probably to squeeze money from microtransactions.

> Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more?

This. I mean, modern game companies could setup a common (for every game) Headscale or similar solution, let group of friends create their own private VPN between them punching through any NAT and host their own distributed multiplayer game. Yes there is still some involvement server aide from the company but it could be easily shared between games. And if support ends, you still leave players with the option to use their own LAN/VPN system.

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

#310

Post by wsve »

avarun wrote: post #133
dudul wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that companies would be forced to obey the laws if they are mandated to open source discontinued games? And it's a... bad thing?

Huh? The point is that game developers would never be able to use commercial libraries again. Thus making all development significantly more expensive.

But what commercial software licenses are you using to write backend server architecture for a video game? There's no need for a dependency on FMOD or anything (unless you're doing something very unusual)
Post reply on HN