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

111–120 of 506 posts

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

#111

Post by Reason077 »

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 spend a lot of money on something only to have it shut down and made unusable within months really stings.

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

#112

Post by mzajc »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #96
braiamp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what? I'm tired of unintended consequences fear mongering. You know what else had a tons of unintended consequences? Mandating seat belts. This is the industry kicking and crying because they don't want to be told that they can't abuse the consumer blatantly. Joke Bloke would still be able to release their game without wondering if this kind of law exists because the law will never apply to them. These kind…

[flagged]

Please do not needlessly denigrate the poster you're responding to.

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

#113

Post by whartung »

notJim wrote: post #64

The article is really vague and a bit misleading, but the bill text appears to be surprisingly readable, and honestly not much longer than the article. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

The solution here is for publishers to give away the client, and simply charge a subscription.

Keypoint:

  > would require a digital game operator to communicate specified information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of a digital game 60 days before the operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the game, and, beginning on the date an operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the game, require the operator to provide the purchaser with an alternate version of, a patch or update to, or a refund for, the game,
"or a refund for the the game".

"Here's your $0 back, thanks for playing!"

That makes it a bit tricky for games like WoW that charge for expansions, as well as subscription. But I'm sure MS can figure something out.

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

#114

Post by pests »

Terr_ wrote: post #84
weberer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to be open source, you only need to provide server binaries to download. This was the standard until circa 2010. People were able to host dedicated servers themselves.

That would be an improvement over nothing, but closed-source means that the game is still going to die as soon as someone finds a security vulnerability (or even just a gameplay glitch) that can't be feasibly patched. Imagine an MMO where special text in the chat causes viewers' clients to crash, or a glitch exists to duplicate items or money, or where anybody can crash the server to run arbitrary commands.

I play SubSpace (a MMO spaceship game released in the 90s) to this day. It was shut down soon after release.

The original server binaries were left on the original CDROM by a programmer.

Then PriitK, a creator of Kazaa and then Skype and Joost!, went on to re-create the client due to cheating/hacking, naming it Continuum.

Years later the server is reimplemented as A Small Subspace Server (ASSS), making it a complete fan remake of the original game (sans graphics). This is also when we finally got server side mods, everything before that was client only or a hack.

We even got on Stream Greenlight.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/352700/Subspace_Continuum...

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

#115

Post by phendrenad2 »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #52
phyzix5761 wrote: post #20

So now it becomes way more expensive for small studios to come out with games that have online features. This is a huge win for big studios who will suck up all that market share. Handing over a standalone server to the public is a massive engineering, financial, and legal headache. Modern multiplayer games rarely run on a single isolated program. They rely on a huge network of interconnected cloud microservices. A s…

> Releasing server code also exposes the inner workings of the company's technology. And yet releasing standalone servers back in the 00s was the norm, rather than the exception. I don't buy the argument.

What you're noticing - that companies suddenly started closed-sourcing their server code, isn't just something that happened for no reason. Internet connections got fast, and it enabled more complex games like MMORPGs and MOBAs which are an order of magnitude more complex than the shooter games you're probably thinking of (Quake III?)

A LOT of architectural thinking goes into scaling MMORPGs, and it starts at the data model. I've watched quite a few interviews with WoW devs, and the data model for their system is counter-intuitive. That constitutes a trade secret in my mind.

And that's something that companies that produce MMORPGs/MOBAs/etc. can conclusively demonstrate in court.

That said, it's possible that companies could release a "nerfed" version of their server code with trade secrets removed for the community to run once the official game servers are taken down. It isn't clear if that'll be in scope of the law, or if that's even what proponents of Stop Killing Games would be okay with. We'll have to see.

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

#116

Post by phendrenad2 »

tombert wrote: post #59
Lonestar1440 wrote: post #22

The "final boss" of bad legislation. Often, Government intrusion into the markets is worth the side effects. But in this case, even the best-case outcome is extremely dumb. Companies are forced to expend resources just so a few niche hobbyists are not inconvenienced. And there will be side effects, ultimately including geo-fencing of games to exclude California. It's a big market, but you can't make up for a net loss…

> 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…

Yeah I have no sympathy for companies, but unfortunately companies just pass their costs along to the consumer, and I do have sympathy for those.

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

#117

Post by papichulo2023 »

neksn wrote: post #90
weberer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to be open source, you only need to provide server binaries to download. This was the standard until circa 2010. People were able to host dedicated servers themselves.

Closed source binaries rot.

It would like a month to the community to figure out the APIs and few years to decompile it... If they really want to.

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

#118

Post by traderj0e »

sheept wrote: post #58
norman784 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK the issue is with one time purchase games, where is not clear if you will be able to play forever or whenever they want to pull the plug, if they change to subscription based model or free to play, then it will be clear for the players what they are paying for.

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 would basically mandate subscription model for online games. Also wonder if it'd introduce legal risk for online mode in a game that also has local play, say Call of Duty or the newer Super Smash Bros, or if "ordinary use" is clearly not that.

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

#119

Post by golemotron »

mrandish wrote: post #85

I doubt it's possible for legislation to mandate meaningful compliance regarding something as dynamic and rapidly evolving as online games. Despite good intentions, such legislation often results in unintended consequences including distorting the market, creating perverse incentives or even making the problem worse. Serious problems are already apparent. Games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription." a…

It seems like California is the furthest country in the EU.

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

#120

Post by gbear605 »

mrandish wrote: post #104
georgeecollins wrote: post #40

It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. I also really support giving 60 day notice if an online game is going to shut down. Places I have worked have had policies like that for games they are sun setting and I think the best game publishers th…

> open source server code if you are going to cease support When I was a senior exec at a big public tech company, there was a product we decided to discontinue and we thought would be nice to just open source. Somehow I ended up in charge of managing that process and was shocked at how complex, time-consuming and expensive it was in a multi-billion dollar, publicly-traded corp vs some code my friends and I wrote. Le…

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.
Post reply on HN