Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

Post by chickenzzzzu » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 3:56 PM UTC

heckelson wrote: post #213

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Post by chickenzzzzu » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 3:57 PM UTC

akimbostrawman wrote: post #229

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re subscription marketing messaging, totally agree. Re mediocre, ok that's fine. Re the "how", then we arent really talking about anything here. Until there is a how, there is nothing to firmly agree or disagree with, so we have to talk in hypotheticals, which we are, and which is semi valuable. Re making your own, when a company sells you a toilet and it breaks, you fix it yourself or buy a new one. When your 1999 g…

>the small ones will go bankrupt and the big ones will find a loophole. you mean the loop hole that was industry standard before 2000 and a handful of dudes in basements solved?

Post by archagon » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 3:58 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #84

cwillu wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the law is that you can't do this, then those terms will just disappear from licencing agreements. It's not like there's a shortage of textures and sounds in the marketplace.

For some things. For others you may not be able to license it. Example: have you seen a street racing game with Toyota’s in it? There’s a reason that Need For Speed games fell off after Most Wanted (original) and it’s because they themselves don’t get total artistic license on their works. And part of the agreements is a reasonable expectation that you will not assist anyone else to violate the agreement - and, the a…

Post by gruturo » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #162

calibas wrote: post #137

Video 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?

Post by archagon » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

foobarchu wrote: post #123

meheleventyone wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you’re licensing content from third parties the more permissive rights you need the more expensive it is. Music is a very good example where it might not even be possible to get a perpetual license. A bunch of games have removed music as their license to it has expired for example. In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content, code and so on n…

This seems pretty easy. If the license to the music goes for X years, then build that expiration into the game. After X years, licensed music goes away, and the game is still playable. This is completely in scope of SKG. Everyone understands that not every feature has to be retained to stay the playable game. That expiration date should, of course, be on the box. The consumer deserves to know.