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

141–150 of 506 posts

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

#141

Post by thombat »

dudul wrote: post #128
mrandish wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Is your argument that companies would be forced to obey the laws if they are mandated to open source discontinued games? And it's a... bad thing?

Not OP, but it's more the warning not to underestimate the cost required for compliance, and apprehension of this cost may deter their creation.

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

#142

Post by malfist »

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.

GOG has a whole business around making old closed source binaries run

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

#143

Post by hparadiz »

fluoridation wrote: post #137
brobdingnagians wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And makes it more expensive. There is the seen benefit and then the unseen cost. Every game released will have to account for the possibility of it, and will create issues for people who really didn't want those issues. After awhile people will forget there are associated issues and costs, but they will still be there.

Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture . It's not like this is going to hurt the little three-man teams making games on shoe-string budgets. Yeah, it's going to make big budget games a little more expensive, just like how cars with seatbelts are a little more expensive to build, and like how it's a little more expensive to do proper waste management…

What? This a mandate in law that requires a company to do work in order to comply. Studios will spin out LLCs for a game so that if it fails it doesn't end up as a liability. Unintended consequence: more dead games.

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

#144

Post by guelo »

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…

If the bill is properly worded open sourcing the code shouldn't imply that all 3rd party libraries also have to be open sourced.

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

#145

Post by jquery »

kube-system wrote: post #106
darkwizard42 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately consumers can then make a better choice, to simply drop those subscription based games.

They could, but there is very little evidence to show that a dislike for subscription models outweighs people's desire to consume quality content. Evidence is strong that people follow the content they want, and then secondarily choose the least friction delivery model.

I still support this law. If they move to subscriptions to “dodge” this law, that’s fine in a way. At least consumers won’t be under the false impression they own something in the rare case they’re paying a subscription to play a game.

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

#146

Post by jcranmer »

parliament32 wrote: post #121
jayd16 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game engines/code aren't all open source. The game developer might not have the legal rights to release the source. Also, does this stop at games? Why not any online service ever? Why not any program at all?

Gaming might be unique in the sense that it's the only industry where 1) consumers make a one-time purchase of a product, but then 2) the manufacturer remains responsible for the online component.. forever? I can't think of any other examples in real life where this happens across an industry (maybe a few niche products). Maybe this is the reason MS has been pushing Game Pass so hard, to get rid of the "purchase" par…

> I can't think of any other examples in real life where this happens across an industry

Vehicles? Maybe not necessarily forever, but I'd expect the large car manufacturers to all still have some level of support for a 20-year-old car...

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

#147

Post by voidifremoved »

parliament32 wrote: post #121
jayd16 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game engines/code aren't all open source. The game developer might not have the legal rights to release the source. Also, does this stop at games? Why not any online service ever? Why not any program at all?

Gaming might be unique in the sense that it's the only industry where 1) consumers make a one-time purchase of a product, but then 2) the manufacturer remains responsible for the online component.. forever? I can't think of any other examples in real life where this happens across an industry (maybe a few niche products). Maybe this is the reason MS has been pushing Game Pass so hard, to get rid of the "purchase" par…

Amazon just ended support for older Kindles. Not sure how that's any different.

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

#148

Post by fluoridation »

hparadiz wrote: post #143
fluoridation wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture . It's not like this is going to hurt the little three-man teams making games on shoe-string budgets. Yeah, it's going to make big budget games a little more expensive, just like how cars with seatbelts are a little more expensive to build, and like how it's a little more expensive to do proper waste management…

What? This a mandate in law that requires a company to do work in order to comply. Studios will spin out LLCs for a game so that if it fails it doesn't end up as a liability. Unintended consequence: more dead games.

It's impossible for the law to cause more games to die, because already the default fate of online games is for them to die. If, with the law, a studio chooses to use an LLC to create the game to conditionally release sources once it shuts down, that was a game that without the law would have died anyway because the studio wouldn't have chosen of its own volition to release sources.

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

#149

Post by Lonestar1440 »

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…

What if an Indie developer wants to make a game, where the primary mechanics and state live in a "service" they control? Why should they be burdened with this stuff if they move on, if indeed they sold a "service" and not a piece of software?

My view has nothing to do with Corporations... I just really don't understand what players feel they are entitled to here. If you want "software" then buy that, and don't use the Service games.

Unpopular view I suppose. Maybe it would mean more games you could actually own, but I think it would just have bad effects.

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

#150

Post by varenc »

Found this quote from the game industry interesting and depressing:

> Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work

Could the game industry just side step this legislation by moving games entirely to a subscription model, with no upfront purchase? When they stop offering the subscription, you lose access to the game. Similar to how various online SaaS businesses work.

Post reply on HN