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

161–170 of 506 posts

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

#161

Post by fluoridation »

hparadiz wrote: post #152
fluoridation wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a studio on it's last legs is required to service a failing product instead of working on a new one the studio will simply close and not comply. That's what tends to happen with forced regulations like this.

And it's what would have happened anyway without the law. How is this difficult to understand? It's not like it's only a few games that shut down without recourse for the players. Ross Scott already did the research on this. Something like 95% of all online games that shut down do so without providing any way for the players to continue playing in some way or without issuing refunds.

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

#162

Post by tyleo »

steelbrain wrote: post #158
tyleo wrote: post #156

I happen to be shutting down an online game right now. https://www.tyleo.com/blog/sunsetting-rec-room-how-to-give-a... The sad truth is that these things have high operating costs, especially if they need moderation. I would guess this bill just makes it more risky to make the games in the first place. It’s already brutally hard to make money on games. I feel like the effect of this might just be that shutting an onl…

Sorry to hear about your situation. For the game you're shutting down online services for, forgive my nieve question but how much work is it to expose an environment variable called `GAME_SERVER_URL` and then document the API contract it expects on the other end? Servers have a real cost, nobody is denying that, but I think the people who bought the game should have an option/alternative in case the servers are down.

We looked into it. Hackers got part of the way there so we decided not to make a change. They might be able to do it after the title is fully sunset and the team disbanded.

We basically have to get as much done on a 3/4 month timeline as possible and it isn’t a priority like saving content or refunding gift cards is. Shutting down is a lot of work.

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

#163

Post by Thaxll »

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…

So game should be playable forever then? You bought an online game 20 years ago, it should still work today.

For 20 years you need to support, patch, keep people and infrastructure.

Why the tech industry does not do it? I still want to use windows XP. Why my Nexus 5 does not work anymore ect..

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

#164

Post by tyleo »

pointlessone wrote: post #160
tyleo wrote: post #156

I happen to be shutting down an online game right now. https://www.tyleo.com/blog/sunsetting-rec-room-how-to-give-a... The sad truth is that these things have high operating costs, especially if they need moderation. I would guess this bill just makes it more risky to make the games in the first place. It’s already brutally hard to make money on games. I feel like the effect of this might just be that shutting an onl…

What are the insurmountable obstacles to releasing the server code for the community to run?

As I understand it, the obstacles are mostly legal. Our development team would love to just throw the code on GitHub.

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

#165

Post by Nition »

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…

Nah, you just open source it in a broken state without anything that had separate licensing, so nobody is happy and the law is followed.

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

#166

Post by Akronymus »

varenc wrote: post #150

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 S…

> 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.

Yes. With a subscription there is already an expectation that you will lose access when you stop paying. But I doubt they'd get much buy-in from gamers for that on most games.

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

#167

Post by Thaxll »

pointlessone wrote: post #160
tyleo wrote: post #156

I happen to be shutting down an online game right now. https://www.tyleo.com/blog/sunsetting-rec-room-how-to-give-a... The sad truth is that these things have high operating costs, especially if they need moderation. I would guess this bill just makes it more risky to make the games in the first place. It’s already brutally hard to make money on games. I feel like the effect of this might just be that shutting an onl…

What are the insurmountable obstacles to releasing the server code for the community to run?

Do you think any compagny would want to release some very sensitive / secret sauce code?

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

#168

Post by Akronymus »

traderj0e wrote: post #98
smalley wrote: post #30

This appears to treat subscription style games and free to play with in game purchases differently than other games. I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

Upfront purchase for something that depends on online services to work raises some questions. The problem with the bill is they want either literally infinite support or an open source server in the end. It'd make sense if there were some time limit based on the price of the game, just to guard against scams like asking $50 for a game that's shut down a year later.

> The problem with the bill is they want either literally infinite support or an open source server in the end.

No the bill doesn't state that. From the bill text [1]

(2) Beginning on the date a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall provide the purchaser with one or more of the following: (A) A version of the digital game that can be used by the purchaser independent of services controlled by the operator. (B) A patch or update to the purchaser’s version of the digital game that enables its continued use independent of services controlled by the operator. (C) A refund in an amount equal to the full purchase price paid for the digital game by the purchaser.

Just curious, how did you arrive at the infinite support or open source server interpretation?

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

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

#169

Post by lbrandy »

steelbrain wrote: post #158
tyleo wrote: post #156

I happen to be shutting down an online game right now. https://www.tyleo.com/blog/sunsetting-rec-room-how-to-give-a... The sad truth is that these things have high operating costs, especially if they need moderation. I would guess this bill just makes it more risky to make the games in the first place. It’s already brutally hard to make money on games. I feel like the effect of this might just be that shutting an onl…

Sorry to hear about your situation. For the game you're shutting down online services for, forgive my nieve question but how much work is it to expose an environment variable called `GAME_SERVER_URL` and then document the API contract it expects on the other end? Servers have a real cost, nobody is denying that, but I think the people who bought the game should have an option/alternative in case the servers are down.

At least part of the answer is this doesn't meet the requirement of the proposed law. You need to actually provide the functionality of the server-side, not just its API.

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

#170

Post by Akronymus »

smalley wrote: post #30

This appears to treat subscription style games and free to play with in game purchases differently than other games. I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

> I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

That is indeed a valid way to comply with it. What that changes, at least, is that the consumer has the expectation that access ends with the end of the subscription, as opposed to where the expectation is for the access to never end.

Post reply on HN