Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 452 posts

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#201

Post by Hojojo »

throw10920 wrote: post #143

I think very few people (outside of the industry - important caveat) are opposed to the stated goals of the initiative: > This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union [...] to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state. The concern that I have is that I have no idea what the actual text of the law is going to be. You can look at laws like t…

This vague handwringing isn't any better. None of us know what the law will end up turning into. But we shouldn't let that stop this being addressed properly in our political institutions. That's what they're there for.

Also, bringing up the DMCA is sort of rich, since it was always just a vehicle for the biggest content companies in publishing, film, television, music and software to protect their property online.

Now we have something that was brought into being by consumers and may finally do something to curb anti-consumer behaviour by companies like this, and you're against it because you have no idea what it'll look like. I just can't, man. What's even the point of legislation if we have to be afraid it'll all be corrupted? Why even have political institutions at all at that point?

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#202

Post by zamalek »

bellgrove wrote: post #122

Having worked there in the past, Ubisoft is awful. When I was there previously there was an aggressive push for UPlay (now Ubisoft Connect) integration into all products. Then there were the bullshots for promos/E3/etc. There were often clashes with leadership who would fight against creativity / novel ideas in favour of cookie-cutter mechanics that would not add anything to the experience - certainly there was a men…

> I'm blown away that series like AC, FarCry are still big sellers. These games are vapid and designed to be a time sink.

They are like junk food. Everyone has the junk food that they enjoy. FarCry is certainly the McDonald's of games. I enjoy some junk food once in a while, problems arise if I make it my staple diet.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#203

Post by conductr »

donatj wrote: post #141

I feel... uneasy about the idea. Are games art? If so, are you comfortable telling artists what types of art they can create? I know not everyone is going to agree with me here but it feels like a slippery slope.

Once art get sold, it becomes a product and your customers have legal rights in that transaction

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#204

Post by DrillShopper »

PoshBreeze wrote: post #179
artemonster wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowling Larian I dont think that will be the case. what are you basing your assumptions upon? there is already extensive modding for bg3

Larian are no longer involved with development of BG3: https://www.ign.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coast-not-to-bla... EDIT: Updated Link. It seems they've added free patches and won't be working on BG4.

Your article doesn't say "Larian are no longer involved with development of BG3". It in fact says they're still developing it, but won't be making BG4.

The official Larian BG3 Discord server is promoting a mod competition, and they're still adding content, bug fixes, and new features to the game as well.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#205

Post by SamuelAdams »

At a macro level, killed games are a good thing for gaming companies. It creates a shortage of playable games so that new games sell and continue to make money.

The biggest competitor to the video game industry is movies (Netflix, Disney plus, etc) and past games.

Think about it - what does the gaming industry look like 100 years from today? If players can play thousands of high quality games for free, why bother paying for a new game?

I suppose the book industry has the same problem, maybe there are some parallels to study from that.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#206

Post by chickenzzzzu »

masfuerte wrote: post #183
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you have paid for is not a physical copy of something that is guaranteed to work forever. All you will achieve with this initiative is that that will be clearly labeled now, instead of implied.

If that's all that will happen, why do you have a problem with it?

If that was the end of the road, then I definitely don't have a problem with it. Like another poster said, it would be like labeling for cigarettes, and that is totally fine.

What I do fear however, is that they will go a step further, requiring companies to release server builds, client and server sourde code, and then of course the ultimate dream, "well no you actually can't turn it off, we require you to maintain it forever even if it loses you money because gaming is a right".

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#207

Post by pyrale »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #194
pyrale wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you like video games so much but don't like the terms of serivce and price, have you tried making your own? No need to go that far, there's plenty of games sold with better terms of service than the ones your company offers. Forcing companies to be upfront about this aspect will help concerned consumers choose these instead of yours.

And which company is that?

e.g. Factorio. e.g. Hades.

Both games available offline and DRM-free.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#208

Post by akimbostrawman »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #139

I work for a game company. I am ardently opposed to this idea. All you will end up with, in the best case scenario that isn't even guaranteed to happen, is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client. Whether you like it or not, thanks to piracy and competition (and yes I've heard Gabe Newell's quote on piracy), server authoritative video games that are eventually turn…

>is extremely mediocre games for which you will have the server executable along with the client.

opposed to absolutely nothing? yeah i think we can do with "mediocre"

>video games that are eventually turned off is a legitimate business strategy

if they aren't misleading customers about it sure. make the game a subscription and you can shut it down whenever you want :)

>And no, "just release your source code then" is not a valid rule to enforce either.

nobody said that. the petition explicitly leaves out the "how" because it could possibly run against existing copyright laws.

>have you tried making your own?

ad hominem and irrelevant to the topic. i don't need to have every build a roof to be against building it with asbestos.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#209

Post by shminge »

donatj wrote: post #141

I feel... uneasy about the idea. Are games art? If so, are you comfortable telling artists what types of art they can create? I know not everyone is going to agree with me here but it feels like a slippery slope.

Would any art gallery pay for a piece that the artist could walk in and take away whenever they wanted?

This isn't so much about art, more about what you deserve when you pay money for something. People are still free to make whatever they want.

Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

#210

Post by sheepolog »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #162
calibas wrote: post #137

Video games publishers don't want you to play the same game for too long without spending more money. They don't want to make games like Terraria where you have a $10 game you can play for a thousand hours. They'd much rather you buy multiple $60+ games, plus expansions, "micro"-transactions and subscriptions. They don't want games that last forever, they want to pressure you into constantly buying the next big thing…

This is literally every industry now. Shall we "regulate" all industries to be like this, then? Is that achievable? Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point? "That's not what this is about. Ok, where are we heading then?

A more accurate analogy would be: you bought a physical DVD and DVD player, but now the film studio is preventing you from playing the DVD that you own on the hardware you own. In which case yes, we should regulate. Paying for access to a constantly changing library is not the same as paying to permanently own a single product.
Post reply on HN