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

161–170 of 294 posts

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

#161

Post by dtdynasty »

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…

I would describe them as pessimistic rather than irrational. They just believe that instead of going with an option like you proposed, companies will push toward unregulated options.

Since I don't know their backgrounds and don't have any background working with video game company executives it's hard to tell which options are more likely.

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

#162

Post by Manuel_D »

XorNot wrote: post #115
Manuel_D wrote: post #57

Releasing server-side code would be a non-starter for lots of companies. For one, many of them don't actually own all of the code they use to implement the game server. There's lots of proprietary middleware in use in online games. Perhaps a workaround is to just have 1 server online indefinitely. Technically the online services are still functional - the match queue times would just be very, very large.

Its not pressure to release the source code. Its that they need to release the server so anyone can run it. From Day 1 any Doom client could be a multiplayer server and this is how it worked for almost all games - Descent, Quake, C&C etc...

Right, but presumably the Doom and Quake server code was written by id Technologies themselves. That's not the case with a lot of modern multiplayer games. They license middleware like Photon Engine and don't have the rights to redistribute the server software, even in binary format.

I guess they could just strip our the parts of the server code that they don't have the rights to redistribute, but then it wouldn't be functional.

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

#163

Post by wsve »

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…

>See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs.

All this says is that it's possible for regulations to have negative, unintended consequences. It's about as relevant as reminding your friends that some restaurants are not very good when you're picking a place to eat. It's not relevant when we're talking about something specific and the field of things is varied.

> WRT regulation the only thing that matters is the incentives that it creates.

Sure. What are the negative incentives?

>If this is how the bill ends up being enacted, it will only push more big game developers into making their titles subscription only.

Why? What is the incentive away from one-time purchases? Is it cost? Where is that cost coming from?

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

#164

Post by zdragnar »

wsve wrote: post #163
Dig1t wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs. All this says is that it's possible for regulations to have negative, unintended consequences. It's about as relevant as reminding your friends that some restaurants are not very good when you're picking a place to eat. It's not relevant when we're talking about something specific and the field of things…

> It's about as relevant as reminding your friends that some restaurants are not very good when you're picking a place to eat

Interestingly, restaurant food is typically less healthy, more expensive and less tasty than what you can make at home. Eating out should be the exception, not the rule, which plays directly plays into the anti regulation argument.

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

#165

Post by paulryanrogers »

pokstad wrote: post #138
ryandrake wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, CA should get rid of those loopholes, too! We need to culturally accept things like "zero day law patches" for loopholes and unintended consequences. Legislators, don't just pass a law, see it incentivizing something unintended, and then throw up your hands crying "Well, we tried!" Patch the law as soon as the bad behavior starts!

Loopholes are possible from excessive regulations. Regulating everything will never stop. Vote with your money and support game studios that provide the best online support. Or buy games that are standalone purchases that don’t require online services.

Excessive regulations? Or insufficient regulations and regulatory capture?

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

#166

Post by paulryanrogers »

Rapzid wrote: post #102
jnovek wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they should just write games in a way where they can actually release server code when they it shuts down?

Perhaps "they" can write games however they want? If you don't like it, don't do business with them? This is a weird thing to be legislating on.

The word "buy" is defrauding people when the thing purchased can be bricked before even getting it home.

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

#167

Post by cityofdelusion »

stouset wrote: post #136
duskwuff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The server binaries will almost always include other proprietary information that the studio will not want to release. Or even information that they are contractually forbidden from releasing. A typical scenario would be a game developed as a fork of a proprietary codebase which was licensed from another company. Forcing the licensee to release material would infringe on the rights of the licensor.

Setting aside for a moment whether or not this specific legislation is a good implementation of the idea, I cannot understand how people don’t comprehend that this only happens because there is currently no obligation to release their server binaries or code. The second that becomes a legal requirement with associated penalties, developers will stop licensing technology under those kinds of terms.

Why would developers stop licensing? They will just tear the middleware out and release as-is, leaving the community to fill the API gaps.

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

#168

Post by duskwuff »

Maxatar wrote: post #42
duskwuff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's reasonable for a law to dictate how software must be developed. If a developer wants to create some software by taking some licensed code and modifying it, that's their prerogative - it seems rather overreaching for the law to mandate that any licensed code must be structured as a library. (And in practice it'd be rather limiting for that to be the case.)

Almost every law that exists about software exists to dictate what a consumer is or isn't allowed to do with software on their own computer using their own hardware. For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certai…

I think you may have misunderstood the situation I'm outlining:

1. Developer A writes some software.

2. Developer B licenses that software from Developer A, under the terms that (for instance) it only be used internally by Developer B and not disclosed.

3. Developer B makes modifications to that software and uses it as part of the implementation of a video game server.

4. Developer B goes bankrupt.

Under this proposed law, Developer B would be obligated to release the modified software, breaching their agreement with Developer A and potentially causing them financial harm.

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

#169

Post by jayd16 »

phreack wrote: post #2

> The bill applies to digitally sold games. However, it excludes games provided via subscription services, free-to-play games, and games that are inherently playable offline indefinitely. It also prohibits the continued sale or distribution of games that have become unusable due to service termination. I believe this is the key paragraph. I wonder if this will be an incentive towards making more games qualify for tho…

You'll just get subscription games with a free year subscription code in the box. If anything I bet it will accelerate the death of free multiplayer.

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

#170

Post by jayd16 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #38
phreack wrote: post #2

> The bill applies to digitally sold games. However, it excludes games provided via subscription services, free-to-play games, and games that are inherently playable offline indefinitely. It also prohibits the continued sale or distribution of games that have become unusable due to service termination. I believe this is the key paragraph. I wonder if this will be an incentive towards making more games qualify for tho…

So this only really applies to games you have to purchase once but are online-only? That's... an incredibly narrow law, that only covers a class of games which are particularly stupid by design. (Continuous cost without continuous revenue.)

Diablo 3 and 4 would be massive examples? Hell Divers. Monster Hunter, perhaps?

Online head to head games like Street fighter? Maybe RTS games like Dawn of War?

Pay Day.

Seems like all of these would be hit and will move to freemium or subscription.

Post reply on HN