Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice • Hacker News Board

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#101

Post by meheleventyone » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 1:22 PM UTC

surgical_fire wrote: post #88

meheleventyone wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The framing was your own so it’s not the gotcha you feel it is. I also don’t know what you think I’m exposing because I’m broadly in agreement that games at their EOL, particularly single player should continue to work. I am interested in discussing where that breaks down but I think that’s probably where we differ. You seem more interested in being combative and making up gotchas.

> You seem more interested in being combative and making up gotchas. Only because you are being purposely obtuse, gesturing at licensing as something that makes game development impossible without making games previously purchased by consumers unavailable . If you make cakes that are poisoned with lead, and regulations say that you cannot sell lead-poisoned food, you cannot say "but all egg suppliers only sell lead-p…

> Only because you are being purposely obtuse, gesturing at licensing as something that makes game development impossible without making games previously purchased by consumers unavailable.

Please show me where I said that! If that’s what you think I’ve been saying it’s definitely not. And you accuse me of arguing against straw men!

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#102

Post by Fargren » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 1:29 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #81

surgical_fire wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With online distribution games can be made unavailable for purchase. You are not distributing it anymore. Only people that previously purchased can still download the game. There are multiple such cases in stores such as Steam or GoG. I own games that are not available for purchase anymore. Those games were not killed. I can still download and play them.

Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.

That's a solvable technical problem. If your game needs a online server to work, either patch it to not need it, or distribute the server. IF your licensing prohibits you form doing it... well, don't enter that kind of licensing, negotiate different terms. There might be a small fraction of games that stop being financially viable. That's what we call a tradeoff.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#103

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 1:35 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #85

tehbeard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. Mojang (creators of Minecraft ) is an unfortunate good case study for this. It's sale to Microsoft is in part down to not being able to balance freedom for server owners and the PR issues caused by people scamming others, in this case children, while obscuring it under the Minecraft…

> Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. That isn't how liability works. The judge isn't going to let you sue the wrong person because you're confused.

$developer/publisher’s lawyer still has to show up and explain the confusion to the judge. Not a legal liability but a financial one. Then if one judge somewhere says something something trademark? they would also have to appeal.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#104

Post by wizzwizz4 » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 1:38 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #100

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need the ability to grant perpetual licenses.

We’re talking about distribution so maybe you’ve come in to the conversation in a weird way there. To be clear the developer cannot continue to distribute content they no longer have rights to. With physical media you don’t go back to the publisher to get new copies but with digital media you do. And hence falls foul of changes in distribution rights.

"Distribution rights" aren't laws of nature. If you're making physical media, you get a license to sell physical copies of the game (containing the licensed material) for a limited time, to people who are allowed to keep them once your sales license has expired.

The digital equivalent would be: you get a license to sell digital copies of the game (containing the licensed material) for a limited time, to people who are allowed to re-download them once your sales license has expired. (And you are allowed to provide that downloading service, but not continue to sell the games, nor make them available to people who have not purchased them.)

It's not that hard – and the existence of Steam demonstrates that many people are already doing things this way.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#105

Post by swat535 » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 1:43 PM UTC

pointlessone wrote: post #34

poisonborz wrote: post #25

These are weak arguments but there are valid ones why I would not think this has a footing, even if I support the attitude. What about games where the world is fully generative, tied to a licensed engine? You can't just rip/disable licensed items out, they may form a significant part of business code. Code and APIs would be needed to be documented. Why just games? What about abandoned Saas offerings? These restrictio…

Saas offerings are safe as they don’t let you Buy a thing. They’re very transparently a service. Same with timed licenses. It’s clear what you’re paying for. Most of the time. With games it’s often not the case. You buy them and then at unspecified moment you might lose a significant portion of functionality or the whole game. At the time you buy a game you don’t know if it’s for a time, what time, or what will stop…

Yea I think the problem is that people don't realize how expensive the upkeep of live games are.

Most new releases rely on Multiplayer, the publishers have to come up with creative ways to monetize it.. so they introduce cosmetics, stores, etc in order to fund the ongoing development and cost.

This causes a backlash and eventually the game gets dropped because people don't want to pay a subscription.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#106

Post by Stopurbs » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 1:44 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #10

jjani wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you know? If I cmd+S the HN front-end and throw my own backend behind it, host my own instance, and post something illegal on it, then YC is liable! Obviously they're not, but hey, just joining them in making things up. Protect the children!!

It’s more complicated than that. I work in games and in my last workplace I was CTO of a racing simulation; that means I was working with brands that were not only my own in a pretty big way. The stipulations that were put on us was pretty strong. For example (and it’s not just these guys), Mercedes will not permit you to allow the logo to fall off; If you have a damage model in the game this is annoying. Some won’t…

[dead]

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#107

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 1:49 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #63

surgical_fire wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’ll make licensing more expensive because the net result is more permissive The current state of affairs is that the net result is such that consumers are stripped of their rights. I find it more unacceptable. If the licensing costs without fucking over consumers is prohibitive, then maybe those games should not exist. If no one is licensing the brands/assets/music/whatever because the licensing costs are too hig…

> If the licensing costs without fucking over consumers is prohibitive, then maybe those games should not exist. Wow, who is killing games now?

That is a separate issue from what the Stop Killing Games political movement is bringing attention to. Few people are bemoaning that they can’t play the game that was never made. The rest are complaining that games they’ve played for years are being made unavailable when the authentication servers are killed.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#108

Post by surgical_fire » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 2:03 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #96

surgical_fire wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the licensing agreement does not differentiate in between "customers purchasing new copies" and "previously purchasing copies being available" then therein lies the problem. Looks like the possibility of regulations will fix that. That in the Year of our Lord 2025, when online channels are many times the only possibility of purchasing a game, licensing agreements do not cover that, it seems that proper regulation…

That’s because distribution is seperate from sale. For example Spotify has a license to distribute music but not sell it. I suspect if you’re expecting to undo decades of IP law with this then you’ll be disappointed. I also suspect that the requirement to be functional rather than complete could also mean as long as the game continued to work removing the content would be fine.

> I suspect if you’re expecting to undo decades of IP law

No, I only expects regulations that dictates I get to own the games I purchase. As any other consumer good.

And if that is not possible, then the agreement should be that games are leased for a set number of years, no gotchas to the consumer.

For some reason I think that the second would be much worse for the videogame industry. I don't think many people would be super excited about leasing a game for a few years for 60+ USD.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#109

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 2:03 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #79

surgical_fire wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline Then the solution seems simple. Making the game available offline does not seem to have any impact in terms of licensing.

I don’t think you’ve followed the discussion then.

If you’re saying that because they said the solution is simple, then it would seem you have not followed the discussion.

To them, it is as “simple” as not using the things that require onerous licensing. Whether the game is offline or online only matters as much as the licensor might prefer one or the other; obviating the onerous licensor (making your own assets and/or doing business with more agreeable people) is a simple solution. Simple meaning the complexity to understand it, not to implement it.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#110

Post by ozgrakkurt » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 2:42 PM UTC

dmurray wrote: post #60

chithanh wrote: post #52

I don't buy these arguments. If game developers don't want to sell games that way then don't. Sell subscriptions instead. Like instead of $60 for a game, $60 one-time fee for a two-year subscription, which afterwards renews automatically in 3 months intervals at no cost until further notice . Same applies to all paid in-game content. That way the developers can continue offering both games and subscriptions where eac…

I don't think this would have any significant impact on the industry. Publishers would just advertise their games as coming with a 2-year subscription, or whatever. People would have the same expectations as now: the game will be supported for a couple of years, and it will be supported much longer if there's an obvious way that is profitable to the developer. No publisher would unilaterally want to start advertising…

The publishers that already apply the model can be forced. And some might decide to do another model instead of doing this model because it affects user’s view. This is the whole point.