[dead]
Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
211–220 of 452 posts
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#212Video 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?
It’s pretty easy to solve static content like ebooks and video games; just legislate that your license is transferrable between services and media. Then I can legally torrent a game that is unsupported.
Content subscriptions like Netflix are different because you are not paying face value for one title. The better analogy here would be the game streaming services like XBox online. It’s clear you are not doing anything like “buying a game”, it’s the whole point of the business model. As you say, it would be a lot harder to make these laws apply there (but I bet that wouldn’t stop the EU from trying).
I think any legislation on this subject would have to reckon with the second-order effects; on the margin you’d be adding pressure for publishers to move to pure subscription services, if these laws don’t apply in those cases.
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
ah, yes, for example quake3 an extremely mediocre game that has server executable along with the client? what is this argument even about?
Ok, so your idea is that we will require all companies to release server and client builds, and also the source code as well (?), at some clearly defined point in the future, if they decide to terminate the live service? Will we also require the same of the smart fridge companies? Will we also require the same of companies that don't sell live services, such as toilets?
good idea! we need to give rights to the consumers!
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#214Earlier 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? This is such and odd thing to suggest. People want to play the games they paid for, _obviously_ they aren't going to make their own game.
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.
>What you have paid for is not a physical copy of something that is guaranteed to work forever.
untested legal ground in the EU
>All you will achieve with this initiative is that that will be clearly labeled now, instead of implied.
maybe or maybe not. creator of the infinitive has already acknowledged that its possible but still preferable to a surprise rug pull grey area.
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#215I 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…
Your games are mediocre now. It's better to have a mediocre game that one can play, than an exceptional game that one can't. You're free to make games now, and yet it's most often hard to justify money for a game that isn't a skin on a version of solitaire (on sale). That's how bad your industry is. So, please, with your warning. As if you have work product to bargain with. You act as if your industry is busy. Outsid…
I agree with you that there is a mountain of shit in the gaming industry.
Is any other industry different? Are Instagram and Tiktok literally not brainwashing hundreds of millions of people? Do defense companies care that innocents are murdered with their weapons? Do airplane companies face any enforceable moral judgment that they encourage relatively rich people to engage in idle leisure in other countries rather than being productive with their time for society, to which they owe some level of production in exchange for the society that raised them?
The argument knows no bounds. It is a matter of taste.
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#216Video 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?
The FTC is currently suing John Deere over this kind of thing.
Also, Netflix is a weird comparison here. That seems like it should be an online-only service, they're not selling the actual movies to you. It's one of the situations where the model actually makes sense, unlike single-player video games.
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>requiring companies to release server builds, client and server sourde code
you did not read the initiative. they do not mention any of that and explicitly state that this won't be required (even if they wanted because of copyright laws).
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've updated the Link with the right one.
https://baldursgate3.game/news/the-final-patch-new-subclasse...
So it looks like they've released free content update and after this is is going to be hot fixes?
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It’s pretty easy to solve static content like ebooks and video games; just legislate that your license is transferrable between services and media. Then I can legally torrent a game that is unsupported. Content subscriptions like Netflix are different because you are not paying face value for one title. The better analogy here would be the game streaming services like XBox online. It’s clear you are not doing anythin…
> legislate the that your license
What we should be doing is applying the laws that already exist: when I purchase a physical book I own a copy of it and can sell it, lend it, modify it.
Amazon and the publishers have zero say in the matter.
Buying a digital copy should be no different. I more of this stupid “you bought a license to access a copy” crap.
Re: Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That announcement is about BG4 not BG3.
I've update the link. It seems they've released a bunch of free content instead in recent patches, which contradicts what they previously said somewhat.