This isn't really about ownership in the abstract, it's about honest labeling. Owning a copy has never meant you can duplicate it. You can't run off copies of a book you bought, but nobody thinks that means the publisher can take it off your shelf when they stop printing it. The ESA conflates the copyright they keep with the copy you bought. The real difference with live-service games is server dependency, and that's…
>This bill just forces that honesty: notice, an offline patch, or a refund. According to the bill text I can find, notice does not matter. The exceptions are subscriptions, f2p, or simply already offline games.
The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
231–240 of 294 posts
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition. Please reread my comment. You're doing the exact same thing. You're saying this like it's a given, but it is not. WHY would it be more attractive?
Because doing so gets them out of obligations to release tools that may be difficult-to-impossible to release to comply with the law.
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely not a gray area. MTX are monetary consideration. Free games in this case are more likely advergames.
Gray area, as in it has to be ruled on in court because that's 100% gonna be an avenue for some companies to try and weasel out of obligations.
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#234> 'AB 1921' is one of the first instances of bringing these demands into the institutional fold. Under the bill, companies selling digital games released or resold after January 1, 2027, must provide at least 60 days' notice before terminating service. Furthermore, they must ensure that purchasers can continue to access the game—such as by providing an alternative version or a patch—and must offer refunds if doing so is not possible.
I get that some developers are going to be irked by this, and I get that there will now be some perverse incentive to move to a 'subscription-only' model.
Now that the Stop Killing Games movement has overcome the major hurdle of landing actual legislative change from zero, its not much of a step from this point to extend these protections to anti-consumer practices around subscription-based games too, if they prove abusive.
It's not just about consumer rights, it is also about preserving and promoting arts and culture that can and are passed down through the next generation, which, ironically, helps keep growing and sustaining the industry.
Imagine what arts and culture might be like, seemingly everlasting copyright lifetimes notwithstanding, if Nintendo yanked Super Mario World from everyone because the online services to keep running the game simply costed too much or because the Mario franchise wasn't 'meeting profit expectations'. [Yes, I realise Super Mario World didn't have an 'online' component in the 90s, but imagine if it did...]
Remember that not too long ago it was very common place to self-host servers for games, and for quite a few this is still possible (such as DayZ and Minecraft). Thanks to community efforts, it is also still possible to play long abandoned online games that were once locked behind authentication and server listing providers, such as Battlefield 2 (previously fronted by GameSpy) that has been revived with BF2Hub (bf2hub.com).
Some games[1][2] even have a resurgence after long being forgotten. The revival of Dark Ages wouldn't have happened, and old friendships rekindled, if it was switched off because 'profit'.
Yes, Battlefield 2 had an offline component and could be still played sans GameSpy and BF2Hub, though a big part of the experience and culture around the game was the online community and gameplay against other real humans that made it so successful.
Relatively speaking (and legal/licencing complications aside) it is really not that difficult, especially for games publishers that cash in multiple millions of dollars in raw profits, to patch out authentication server mechanisms controlled by the publisher, and/or release the authentication/game server software binaries or source freely but unsupported after their deprecation date.
The legislation is designed to make these pro-consumer ethics at the forefront of game design. Video games are a big contributor to culture and human connection, and permitting companies to both freely yank a product that someone rightly paid for without compensation - you will own nothing and be happy about it - and kill off parts of our culture, is a horrible place to be as a society.
[1] https://youtu.be/FIFty-O4rOE [2] https://youtu.be/0zNtATsb5eg
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#235I think this will cause a big schism in the Stop Killing Games movement. Game devs who were sympathetic to the movement will expect that this is enough, but a lot of people in the movement will be unsatisfied with the carveouts for MMORPGs and XBOX Game Pass and the like.
As someone in the movement since basically the beginning, this bill is enough in a lot of areas. Subscription games already always had a "no pay, no play" expectation, so I don't see any problem with that carveout. The only real problem I can see is that in-game purchases in free to play games are not additionally explicitly named. (Though, "no monetary considerations" shouldn't include ftp + mtx) Also, most gamepass…
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#236Releasing server-side code would be a non-starter for lots of companies. For one, many of them don't actually own all of the code they use to implement the game server. There's lots of proprietary middleware in use in online games. Perhaps a workaround is to just have 1 server online indefinitely. Technically the online services are still functional - the match queue times would just be very, very large.
> There's lots of proprietary middleware in use in online games If bills like this pass, there'd be financial pressure on middleware providers to allow distribution at end-of-life (or for their component to be easily severed) else they'd lose out on all customers selling games in California/EU/etc.
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition. Please reread my comment. You're doing the exact same thing. You're saying this like it's a given, but it is not. WHY would it be more attractive?
Because doing so gets them out of obligations to release tools that may be difficult-to-impossible to release to comply with the law.
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#238Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what, dedicated hackers will find a way around that. There's bigger fish to fry.
Dedicated hackers already find a way around limitations. By that logic there’s no reason to do any of this.
Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of your favorite movies. Now imagine your kids never being able to watch them. Same for books. Same for music. Games are an art form distinct from the above, and can in many ways be more powerful than they are. I've played games that toyed with my emotions in ways few movies can. As such, they need to be preserved just as all the above categories. I'm incredibly glad I can still play most of my 80's and 90's DO…
An online game isn't the dos game you played as a kid. It's temporal. It's the roller coaster you rode as a kid. A law forcing the any roller coaster built to stay open so your children can ride it is just silly and going to deter interesting rollercoasters people might not like from being built. Moreover, if a game is art, it is a form of speech, no? And compelled speech seems like a moral violation.
Online games are a service that have art in them. That is why they come with licenses and privacy policies. They are an actual service that already has consumer protections.
Hand waving any criticisms or attempts at regulating them because they are "art" is deeply dishonest.