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

The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

invenglobal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 294 posts

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#151

Post by setr »

sowbug wrote: post #125
Sharlin wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It incentivizes subscription-based games.

Not exactly the same thing, but a few years ago the law changed to require a sesame-allergen notice on foods that had sesame. Some manufacturers starting adding sesame to foods that didn't need it, because they concluded that including the notice was easier than guaranteeing that their product was sesame-free. The intent of the law was to protect people with sesame allergies, but the result was fewer choices for them…

If a manufacturer is unwilling to guarantee/monitor the lack of sesame in their food, and you having a presumably severe sesame allergy… isn’t it correct not to be eating that food?

Like previously you trusted their lack of sesame based on vibes, which you probably shouldn’t have been doing, and now they’re explicitly telling you not to trust them on this; this seems to me strictly better. You’ve lost a choice that never really existed in the first place

An actually unintended consequence would be if they introduced sesame because they were going to have to put the label on it anyways

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#152

Post by Telaneo »

I wish subscription games could be preserved too, but this is probably about as good as it's going to get.

I doubt companies are going to go all in on subscription games, since that's more or less been tried and failed, and only WoW and a few others are left standing from that. Or maybe they'll try and fail, since the temptation is just too great (think Sony and Concord trying their luck with hero shooters, even though everyone with threw or more brain cells knew it would never make back what it cost).

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#153

Post by jandrewrogers »

markstos wrote: post #131
Ukv wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Besides bankruptcy there is also shutting a business down, in which case are no new owners. Lavabit and Silent Circle being examples of businesses that shutdown rather than comply with laws they didn't like.

How would this solve anything?

Performance under existing contracts is still required to shutdown. The mechanisms for getting around contract performance without bankruptcy essentially require handing control of the company to the contractual counter-parties.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#154

Post by frankdlc222 »

This isn't really about ownership in the abstract, it's about honest labeling. Owning a copy has never meant you can duplicate it. You can't run off copies of a book you bought, but nobody thinks that means the publisher can take it off your shelf when they stop printing it. The ESA conflates the copyright they keep with the copy you bought. The real difference with live-service games is server dependency, and that's where the dishonesty lives. If a game can't run without an online service the publisher controls, people deserve that caveat before they pay. Don't sell it with the word "Buy" and a one-time price and then treat it like a subscription you can end. This bill just forces that honesty: notice, an offline patch, or a refund.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#155

Post by Telaneo »

Dig1t wrote: post #149
wsve wrote: post #142

I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dunk. Yes, you would have to make sure your server application adheres to software licenses before release, just like you do with the client application, or any other piece of software a compan…

It’s not irrational, the comments literally explain in great detail the downsides of the regulation. For example one commenter in this thread said: >See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs. This is an objectively true and prove-able statement. What is irrational about that? WRT regulation the only thing that matters is the incentives that it crea…

Bad regulation should't be reperesentaive or regulation as a whole. If you don't get it right the first time, you're allowed to try again, and that's what should be done with regulations providing bad incentives.

Gaming has already gone though a period of pushing subscription games, and most died, since people generally didn't want to pay a fee per game they played. That only left the big players in that space, while everybkdy else went back to releasing games the normal way. I fail to see why things would go a different way this time around.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#156

Post by crooked-v »

Dig1t wrote: post #149
wsve wrote: post #142

I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dunk. Yes, you would have to make sure your server application adheres to software licenses before release, just like you do with the client application, or any other piece of software a compan…

It’s not irrational, the comments literally explain in great detail the downsides of the regulation. For example one commenter in this thread said: >See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs. This is an objectively true and prove-able statement. What is irrational about that? WRT regulation the only thing that matters is the incentives that it crea…

The "in favor of SUVs" part only exists because light trucks were specifically exempted from regulations to pander to specific subsets of voters.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#157

Post by wsve »

wilg wrote: post #110
vitally3643 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be able to sell something and then take it away when you're tired of it. Would you feel the same if your phone permanently bricked itself because the vendor decided it was out of date and they just don't feel like supporting it anymore? If you sell a product for money, you don't have the right to take that product away and keep the money.

Well, they're not selling you the game. They're licensing you the ability to play their game. And yes, I think it should be legal for a hardware product (like Spotify's "Car Thing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Thing ) to stop working because they don't want to support the online component. It's fine to get mad at the company, but I think it should be legal to do.

> Well, they're not selling you the game. They're licensing you the ability to play their game.

I don't think that's a reasonable reading of what it means to "buy a game", by most people's interpretation of the word "buy".

Regardless of that, the neat thing about regulation is that we don't have to settle for that interpretation, and instead force the one that's better for the consumer!

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#158

Post by qotgalaxy »

Dig1t wrote: post #149
wsve wrote: post #142

I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dunk. Yes, you would have to make sure your server application adheres to software licenses before release, just like you do with the client application, or any other piece of software a compan…

It’s not irrational, the comments literally explain in great detail the downsides of the regulation. For example one commenter in this thread said: >See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs. This is an objectively true and prove-able statement. What is irrational about that? WRT regulation the only thing that matters is the incentives that it crea…

[dead]

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#159

Post by gs17 »

gopher_space wrote: post #143
wagwang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they dont want to release the source then just keep running the servers! I think its ridiculous that people can buy games and the games just stop working and its ok because of some legalese that literally no one reads. Alternatively, why not just align your incentives with the user and charge subscriptions. Games are interesting because players will sink a lot of time and sometimes money in and so it goes beyond a…

> I think its ridiculous that people can buy games and the games just stop working and its ok because of some legalese that literally no one reads. It's entertainment. It's ok for entertainment to end, especially when it's this cheap. There aren't any situations where I haven't gotten my money's worth out of a title I've played for 1000+ hours. > Alternatively, why not just align your incentives with the user and cha…

> It's entertainment. It's ok for entertainment to end

Sometimes it ends right after you bought it with no way of knowing it would, or before you bought it. Not everyone gets 1000+ hours out of a title, sometimes the day you install they announce that the servers are going down forever.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#160

Post by gs17 »

Sharlin wrote: post #84
jnovek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will the negative impact of this law be, exactly? Hurting live service games which are already cancer?

It incentivizes subscription-based games.

If people dislike subscription-based games, companies will adapt by making non-subscription games designed with end-of-service in mind. It only creates an incentive as much as people are willing to pay for the subscription.
Post reply on HN