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

171–180 of 506 posts

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

#171

Post by mrandish »

Nition wrote: post #165
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…

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.

> so nobody is happy and the law is followed.

An outcome so common they invented a word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance

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

#172

Post by Akronymus »

imzadi wrote: post #48

> As currently amended, the act would not apply to completely free games and games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription. Any other game offered for sale in California on or after January 1, 2027, would be subject to the law if it passes. So they just make their game free two months before they want to close?

> So they just make their game free two months before they want to close?

Which, afaict, wouldn't change anything in terms of liabilities, because of the people that paid for the game before it went free.

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

#173

Post by rexpop »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #123
gbear605 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Not everything that makes a product more expensive to release is the end of the world.

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

#174

Post by Akronymus »

cube00 wrote: post #81

Wish they'd extend it to all apps, I'm over paying money to developers who cut and run while using it as a way to land jobs at Microsoft and AWS https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46768909 JuiceSSH have since shut their site down after that last round of attention so I guess they really have no intention of open sourcing or refunding. https://web.archive.org/web/20260116112028/https://juicessh....

Going for all apps at once is, IMO, an impossible ask. So the better option is to tackle one area first to set a precedent then that can be used to make the fight in other areas easier.

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

#175

Post by Akronymus »

johnea wrote: post #4

Not a bad idea, but why does this only apply to games? I prime example of other software this would have benefited is AutoCAD. People who refused the conversion to a subscription, and maintained their "lifetime" licenses, where shut down after a couple of years.

Because going up against all types of big software publishers at once would invite MUCH more lobbying which would make any progress likely impossible. Better to start in one area, gaming in this case, to get a precedent out there, which then makes the fight against general software publishers easier.

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

#176

Post by poizan42 »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #149
tombert wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

It's not difficult not to lie to your customers. If you are actually selling a subscription then don't claim the customer is buying the game, and this law won't apply to you.

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

#177

Post by Fabricio20 »

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.

That implies the community that builds around it would not reverse engineer and remake the binaries. Which many already do (to be fair), it just so happens that it's way, way harder when the servers are entirely gone already for a game and you have no way to capture server/client traffic for example. Even if the binaries are flawed, just having those in there and being able to spin up a server to see the packet flow already greatly helps in preservation, much more if you have the binary itself and can also peek at server logic for certain things like conflict resolution, instead of having to guess post-game-shutdown!

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

#178

Post by Akronymus »

Thaxll wrote: post #163
tombert wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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..

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

yes

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

No, you should just not make it impossible for people to do so. (via stuff like online activation and such). Most 20 year old games you can still run via a VM or something like that. If it requires online activation and the server for that are shut down, you can't.

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

You can still use windows xp and a nexus 5.

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

#179

Post by traderj0e »

Akronymus wrote: post #168
traderj0e wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

Oh I didn't mean open source, it can be a binary (if applicable), but same problem, they'd need to provide a way to run the online servers locally. The third option is a refund, which isn't feasible.

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

#180

Post by Akronymus »

traderj0e wrote: post #179
Akronymus wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 us…

Oh I didn't mean open source, it can be a binary (if applicable), but same problem, they'd need to provide a way to run the online servers locally. The third option is a refund, which isn't feasible.

Or patch out the online requirements. In many cases, the only real online requirement is a license key check. Also the refund is, afaict, intended to be essentially a last resort option to make the customer as whole as possible.
Post reply on HN