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

201–210 of 506 posts

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

#201

Post by Gamemaster1379 »

tyleo wrote: post #162
steelbrain wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is the game p2p or dedicated infra? Best thing you can do is provide the infra files that you can. Doesn't even have to be turn key. Also for the coordinator API service, anything you can provide there as well. Couple those with a configurable base url and the hackers ought to get it the rest of the way

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

#203

Post by knollimar »

dminik wrote: post #70
phyzix5761 wrote: post #20

So now it becomes way more expensive for small studios to come out with games that have online features. This is a huge win for big studios who will suck up all that market share. Handing over a standalone server to the public is a massive engineering, financial, and legal headache. Modern multiplayer games rarely run on a single isolated program. They rely on a huge network of interconnected cloud microservices. A s…

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive was a game running all of these things (matchmaking, skins, anticheat ...). After Counter-Strike 2 was released, the servers for CS:GO were shut down. Yet, the game remains mostly playable. Sure, the skins no longer work and there's no official matchmaking, but third parties have stepped up. That's because Valve released (and have always released) server software. I find this argument…

CS:GO's server architecture makes perfect sense for a game that would be easy to release server software.

What do you do for, say, a failing MMO built on a proprietary game engine you're trying to make a sequel for?

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

#205

Post by tyleo »

Gamemaster1379 wrote: post #201
tyleo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is the game p2p or dedicated infra? Best thing you can do is provide the infra files that you can. Doesn't even have to be turn key. Also for the coordinator API service, anything you can provide there as well. Couple those with a configurable base url and the hackers ought to get it the rest of the way

Dedicated but our multiplayer is a P2P-like API because our original game server provider was Photon.

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

#206

Post by knollimar »

Ukv wrote: post #125
strags wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. That might be fine for very small titles - where the "game server" is a relatively simple binary that can be run anywhere. Larger titles depend on a huge amount of infrastructure, for authentication, progression, matchmaking, etc... It's not feasible to open-source all of that, especially given that it may well still be in use for…

> It's not feasible to open-source all of that, especially given that it may well still be in use for more recent titles If they're still running their authentication server (for example), then they wouldn't need to release that service. Patching the game to no longer contact the authentication server would also be acceptable, for services that aren't a core part of the game. It's pretty likely the game already allow…

So do games just have to have a perpetual endowment to fund any shared component costs? This seems like a logical conclusion. You wouldn't get scalability from reuse (e.g. reusing an auth library).

Or what's likely cheaper is budgeting for that patch in the game.

You may bemoan "oh they just don't want to release the auth service", but it functionally shuffles the cost math.

I'd personally rather the 5% cheaper games than trying to play a multiplayer only game 20 years later wtih 6 people on the server.

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

#207

Post by tyleo »

Thaxll wrote: post #167
pointlessone wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Tbh I think engineers gladly would. I think most folks want the content out. It’s the legal obligations that always get in the way.

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

#208

Post by tyleo »

thayne wrote: post #196

> 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 Well, I predict we'll start seeing more games offered "solely for the duration of a subscription". And also games spun out into their own subsidiary that will just go bankrupt and not comply.

Subsidiary is what I was thinking too. Imagine you were just some indie dev freelancing and all of a sudden you have a big shutdown bill.

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

#210

Post by Gigachad »

throwawayk7h wrote: post #153
whartung wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution here is for publishers to give away the client, and simply charge a subscription. Keypoint: > would require a digital game operator to communicate specified information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of a digital game 60 days before the operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the game, and, beginning on the date an operator ceases to provide services necessary for…

the bill explicitly doesn't apply to games that are free or are on a subscription system. (I assume free-to-play with microtransactions would be covered by this bill though, unless those microtransactions are subscription-based or time-limited.) I am indeed worried that this will push games to be subscription-based, so I would advocate making the bill apply even to subscription-based games. Though that would require…

A subscription is at least more honest. When you pay for an online game you aren’t buying an item, you are paying for a service for a time period. With a subscription that time period is explicitly laid out.
Post reply on HN