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

231–240 of 506 posts

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

#231

Post by XorNot »

parliament32 wrote: post #121
jayd16 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game engines/code aren't all open source. The game developer might not have the legal rights to release the source. Also, does this stop at games? Why not any online service ever? Why not any program at all?

Gaming might be unique in the sense that it's the only industry where 1) consumers make a one-time purchase of a product, but then 2) the manufacturer remains responsible for the online component.. forever? I can't think of any other examples in real life where this happens across an industry (maybe a few niche products). Maybe this is the reason MS has been pushing Game Pass so hard, to get rid of the "purchase" par…

Am I the only one who remembers that multiplayer was just peer to peer? Like we had multiplayer before every studio decided they wanted to host their own servers, it was just what the guy with broadband in the neighborhood ran or something my ISP provided.

The issue is nobody gets that option if the ability to run a server is made unavailable to the public.

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

#232

Post by summerlight »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #192
tyleo wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the obstacles are mostly legal. Our development team would love to just throw the code on GitHub.

Sounds like if it was mandatory to make a server release, legal would mostly shut up and it would be low cost. In other words, minimal change in risk. The refund thing is just there to force action by putting a dollar value on inaction. Pretty much no company is expected to actually choose refunds. > Alternatively, it might push multiplayer games towards free-to-play if in-app-purchases are excluded. Good point, the…

This is one of the reason why that law will surely be challenged and very likely invalidated by SCOTUS. Trade secret protection is a very fundamental part and if this is forced to be broken by legally compelled speech, then it needs to have very creative interpretations over judicial precedents.

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

#233

Post by socalgal2 »

gbear605 wrote: post #120
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…

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.

Yes, an many indie devs will not be able to clear it.

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

#234

Post by socalgal2 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #184
brobdingnagians wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you plan for it from the start, it's a small cost. And the simpler the game development process the cheaper it gets.

It is not. Most of the full online game stacks are not open source and most of the open source ones are poor and under featured

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

#235

Post by motoxpro »

speedylight wrote: post #224

I love California for these laws because even though their jurisdiction is technically limited, it makes no sense for the companies to not make the changes available nation wide.

its such a bummer that because of laws like this, less games will be made. Most games dont ever make money and dont succeed.

The alternative to companies shutting games down without supporting them is not them supporting them, it is them not making them in the first place or making them very expensive (price, ads, pay to play, etc.).

The customer now has to pay a tax becasue of the cost this puts on game makers. This is not good :(

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

#236

Post by mifydev »

georgeecollins wrote: post #40

It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. I also really support giving 60 day notice if an online game is going to shut down. Places I have worked have had policies like that for games they are sun setting and I think the best game publishers th…

Based on comments below the solution is to make the API public and publish the architecture design, along with the binaries.

This way the company can avoid spending too much money on open sourcing the code, and the community can just rewrite the server while keeping the original binaries running.

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

#237

Post by happosai »

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…

Sunsetting subscription service is fine IMHO. The deal is clear when buying (you get X months of play). Just like Netflix vs buying DVD. Also the financial incentives align - as long as someone pays monthly, money comes in to keep the lights on the servers.

Micro transactions should be covered tho. If you buy an epic skin for your player in a F2P game and suddenly you no longer can use the skin - money back!

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

#238

Post by lomlobon »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #115
StableAlkyne wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Releasing server code also exposes the inner workings of the company's technology. And yet releasing standalone servers back in the 00s was the norm, rather than the exception. I don't buy the argument.

What you're noticing - that companies suddenly started closed-sourcing their server code, isn't just something that happened for no reason. Internet connections got fast, and it enabled more complex games like MMORPGs and MOBAs which are an order of magnitude more complex than the shooter games you're probably thinking of (Quake III?) A LOT of architectural thinking goes into scaling MMORPGs, and it starts at the dat…

This whole thing doesn't apply to MMORPGs to begin with because they're all already subscription based. If I understand the main grievance correctly, the problem is giving the consumers the wrong impression they're making a normal one-time-payment PURCHASE and then rendering the item they purchased unusable later.

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

#239

Post by scott_w »

selectively wrote: post #108
scott_w wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being able to use a product that was purchased is an “actual problem” that “makes the lives of regular people worse.” This is going to blow your mind, but this kind of stuff is EXACTLY what people elect governments to do.

You were able to use it. Nothing lasts forever. People need help with a world that is hell, not video game related problems.

I don’t know where you’re from but in the UK, consumer protection law sets requirements that your goods last a reasonable length of time. Under your logic, a TV manufacturer could have their TV self destruct after 3 months and you’d be fine with it? Governments should do nothing because “it’s just TV, you can get another.”

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

#240

Post by Capricorn2481 »

gmane wrote: post #217
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. What IP value is there in game server code? I would wager usually none. And I would imagine the amount of games made without open source software somewhere in the stack could be counted on one hand. Open source is a pretty broad umbrella. I doubt a company would say Slay The Spire 2 was poisoned by Godot and that there's no IP value.

I think you miss how sophisticated some game server code is. Taking fighting games for example: they have entire processes to have both clients predict what the other client will do, and then have the server arbitrate the different client solutions into a "fair" result based on latency, player inputs, etc. There are problems that game servers solve that could have applications in other areas, and have a lot of value.

Sure, I didn't say server code wasn't important, but that doesn't make it an IP concern. Not in the way OP was suggesting.
Post reply on HN