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

The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

invenglobal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 294 posts

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#201

Post by slg »

phil21 wrote: post #178
slg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we still talking about negative impacts of this regulation? Because I don't follow the argument that games going free-to-play is bad for the consumer. Consumer pressure has pushed most games with battle passes and microtransactions to limit those to optional expansions of the base game, often merely cosmetic. People can and do spend hundreds of hours playing Fortnite without paying a cent and I don't see how that…

It’s basically going to incentivize gambling and skinners box type implementations to juice revenue. Sure, people can opt out and some will. However the base human psychology is pretty well documented. If the ability to simply not engage in what amounts to addictive behavior was enough we wouldn’t have the crazy online gambling epidemic. That is at least to me obviously bad for the consumer even if you can simply cho…

You are treating multiple related issues as one singular issue. Battle passes and microtransactions aren't inherently a form a gambling. They can be implemented with gambling, but plenty of games aren't setup that way. If we have a problem with a model that specifically relies on gambling, we can regulate it like other jurisdictions have done[1]. But this specific piece of regulation is addressing something else and doesn't do anything to point the market specifically towards gambling.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box#Regulation_and_legisl...

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#202

Post by braiamp »

Wow, this comment section is terrible, lets cut through the noise. The "you're buying a license, not a game" argument is the industry writing its own rules and then citing those rules as if they came from somewhere neutral. EULAs are not negotiated contracts; you cannot counter-offer, you cannot opt out, and there is no competing storefront with better terms. The moment you frame a unilateral "take it or leave it" clause as a legal shield against consumer protection law, you've already lost the moral argument. More importantly, that same "license" framework is what justifies their copyright protection, their anti-piracy enforcement, their DMCA claims. You don't get to invoke ownership-level legal protections against consumers while delivering zero ownership to them. Pick a lane. Also, also, for "technically impossible to preserve", the bill doesn't ask for eternal servers. It asks for an offline patch or a refund. Fan communities do the patch part for free, on weekends with no legal team, for Pete's sake! If a volunteer modder can strip authentication from a dead MMO, a company with actual engineers can do it too. And if they truly can't? Then refund the customer. The "complexity" argument was always a misdirection, the bill already hands them an exit door for genuine edge cases. They're not opposing it because it's unworkable. They're opposing it because it closes a very profitable loophole.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#203

Post by ethin »

Y-bar wrote: post #21
ethin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you proposing then? The government is not allowed to compel speech for good reason.

That’s not a Carte Blanche that forbids the government from everything. The government can compel speech from food and other producers to print content and nutritional labels on their products. The government can compel speech on a yearly basis when we file taxes. The can compel speech such as guidance maps and websites to be accessible to the blind (ADA). They can compel vehicle owners to provide insurance and owner…

> That’s not a Carte Blanche that forbids the government from everything.

I never said it was. Yes, commercial speech has diminished protections, but it is not annulled. It is still protected to a degree, even if less than ordinary speech. You may consider selling a game to someone and then shutting it down Fraud, but I somehow doubt the supreme court would agree with you (although you might be able to convince a lower circuit court to). Compelling speech is usually something that undergoes strict scrutiny. Compelling commercial speech requires that you pass the test established in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (unless SCOTUS decides on one of it's random whims to overturn that ruling, which for all we know it might).

Don't get me wrong: I am in no way anti-regulation. But compelling speech is something that needs to be handled carefully.

Edit: removed the strawman thing (that was inaccurate and I apologize for the accusation).

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#204

Post by lostlogin »

wsve wrote: post #142

I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dunk. Yes, you would have to make sure your server application adheres to software licenses before release, just like you do with the client application, or any other piece of software a compan…

> I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is.

If you wanted to trigger a HN rant, topics should always include regulation, particularly in regard to nuclear power, guns, freedom of speech or taxation.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#206

Post by [deleted] »

maccard wrote: post #191
wsve wrote: post #142

I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dunk. Yes, you would have to make sure your server application adheres to software licenses before release, just like you do with the client application, or any other piece of software a compan…

Here’s a few, as someone who has worked in games for 12 years. Most games have code and design decisions that hark back 25+ years. Every single unreal engine game for example is based code written in the mid 2000s and some parts of the engine really feel like it. Online components are developed the same way. If you made a multiplayer game 10 years ago and it was successful, your next game is going to be built on top…

[deleted]

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#209

Post by bigfishrunning »

maccard wrote: post #191
wsve wrote: post #142

I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dunk. Yes, you would have to make sure your server application adheres to software licenses before release, just like you do with the client application, or any other piece of software a compan…

Here’s a few, as someone who has worked in games for 12 years. Most games have code and design decisions that hark back 25+ years. Every single unreal engine game for example is based code written in the mid 2000s and some parts of the engine really feel like it. Online components are developed the same way. If you made a multiplayer game 10 years ago and it was successful, your next game is going to be built on top…

> we have a GPL’ed library here that we can use but now all of a sudden the vitality of the license means we have to replace it?

The "we're not distributing it" loophole is why the AGPL exists. So yeah, even though you can technically not violate the gpl by not distributing the server, don't do that, it's scummy. Better to just not use gpl code at all.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#210

Post by anonymousiam »

jrmg wrote: post #207
anonymousiam wrote: post #205

[flagged]

I'd love to read the details of the bill It’s all public - you can just look it up: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

Thanks. The article was lacking in details.

Here's the relevant part of the bill, which is quite terse:

20664. (a) The following shall apply only to a digital game first available for purchase or rereleased for purchase on or after January 1, 2027:

(1) (A) 60 days before a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall communicate all of the following information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of the digital game:

(i) The date on which services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game will cease.

(ii) Any services that will no longer be provided by the operator.

(iii) Any game features that will no longer be available to the purchaser.

(iv) Any known security risks that may result from the cessation of services.

(v) How the purchaser can continue to use the digital game, or obtain a refund, pursuant to paragraph (2).

(B) A digital game operator shall communicate the information required by subparagraph (A) by doing both of the following:

(i) Notifying purchasers directly through the operator’s digital game.

(ii) Posting the information publicly on the operator’s internet website.

(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.

(3) Beginning on the date a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall not sell, lease, or otherwise distribute a version of the game that cannot be used by a purchaser independent of services controlled by the operator.

(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(1) Any subscription-based service that advertises or offers for sale access to any digital game solely for the duration of the subscription.

(2) Any digital game that is advertised or offered to a person for no monetary consideration.

(3) Any digital game that is advertised or offered to a person that the seller cannot revoke access to after the transaction, which includes making the digital game available at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet.

Post reply on HN