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

121–130 of 294 posts

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

#121

Post by markstos »

ryandrake wrote: post #103
vl wrote: post #61

They are going to do what movie industry is already doing: create shell company for release of each game. Then they will shut down the company when they want, and there will be nobody to come for.

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!

And how you would craft a law to prevent a company from forming sub-companies for specific games to isolate risk? Or make it illegal for a company to go bankrupt?

Creating sub-companies is common business practice that even small businesses use. Like if a small company wants to buy a building, they may form an LLC to hold the property to isolate that risk from the rest of their business.

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

#122

Post by agoodusername63 »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #104
mh- wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no. Just like other purpose-built vehicles (like the ones for motion picture productions), they will transfer rights to other entities before shutting down.

How is something like that not considered when a law like that is passed?

Despite the good intentions of SKG, their efforts are being heavily shaped by the intense lobbying against them.

This law has a lot of weird omissions and obvious loopholes because industry lobbyists want it that way for their clients. It's a very clever law in the studio and publisher's favor. It changes pretty much nothing. The worst GaaS plagues on the industry will be able to keep trucking along as usual and the few service games remaining that have an upfront cost will slap on the tiniest singleplayer function to meet the law. Hell a model viewer might even meet it, or at the very least bait people into trying to waste time in court over it.

All while making nice headlines implying that SKG is making meaningful progress (they're not)

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

#123

Post by xingped »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #98
wilg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it will make everything a live service game

Good luck with that. The industry already tried to make everything a live service game in the 2020-2022 period and it was financially disastrous because gamers rejected it. Gamers have made it clear that they don't want a market full of live service games unless they are free to play (and even then, very few will survive). They'll make rare exceptions for things like GTA6, but these will be unicorns.

That certainly won't stop out of touch CEOs from choosing to do just that anyways. CEOs and making the stupidest possible decisions are also a match made in heaven.

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

#124

Post by Ukv »

wilg wrote: post #100
tapoxi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But right now we have games that you have purchased for a one-time price, the developer revokes your ability to play it years later, and you have no recourse.

Why would you be entitled to infinite support? For a game with an online component? Why does the game's purchase price extend to infinity instead of "for as long as the developer supports the game"?

You still can sell X months access, if that's what you plainly state is being bought.

I don't think you could sell "for as long as the developer supports the game" specifically, since that'd be an illusory promise (no actual obligation if the product can be revoked immediately), making the contract unenforceable and the customer entitled to restitution (a refund).

"infinite support" is pretty much just "leave the customer with the product they bought working". There doesn't need to be any ongoing costs.

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

#125

Post by sowbug »

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.

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.

Sometimes laws have unintended consequences.

https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...

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

#126

Post by slg »

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.

The natural incentives had already pointed to subscription based games, these companies attempted it, and consumers mostly rejected it. I'm extremely dubious that this regulation would be enough to reverse that. It's a much easier decision for a company to put a small development team on readying the server tools for public release than brute forcing a new business model on a resistant consumer base and all the associated risks that come along with it.

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

#127

Post by Ukv »

markstos wrote: post #121
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!

And how you would craft a law to prevent a company from forming sub-companies for specific games to isolate risk? Or make it illegal for a company to go bankrupt? Creating sub-companies is common business practice that even small businesses use. Like if a small company wants to buy a building, they may form an LLC to hold the property to isolate that risk from the rest of their business.

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.

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

#128

Post by throwaway85825 »

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.

The market for subscription games is vastly smaller than the market for offline games. The industry learned that when everyone tried to make a wow killer.

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

#129

Post by wsve »

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.

Consumer protection laws are "weird"? I'd hate to live in your world...
Post reply on HN