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

Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 313 posts

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#251

Post by hodgehog11 »

Schiendelman wrote: post #249
hodgehog11 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's what working state means here. It's not a full snapshot or even necessarily multiplayer support. It means minimum functional, which to me is just barely enough to see the assets used in the game. Not necessarily networking, matchmaking, online services, or the relevant tooling. Developers have already proposed making helpers that would introduce an effective switch to do this. Also what you said…

I think you're right from what I remember reading about them. But I think in practice it costs significant engineering time to package up what they are asking for. For a small game studio it may be incredibly prohibitive.

It just requires game engines to develop a tool to make this much easier to do. The rule won't apply retroactively, so it just means different design choices from the start.

> For a small game studio it may be incredibly prohibitive.

Alright, you lost me here. All of the games that do not follow what this law would suggest are AAA (or scams, essentially). The smaller studios always have some acceptable end-of-life plan from my experience.

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#252

Post by ezwoodland »

spl757 wrote: post #242

When a corporation makes playing by the rules harder than pirating, especially after "selling" you a movie, then people are going to pirate. Corporations bring it on themselves by acting poorly and just being greedy and giving the consumer no quarter as they movies they "purchased" are removed without refund. Pirating is easy. Why should I deal with thieves that sell you something then steal it back from you when, wi…

> Pirating is easy...

That reasoning is why companies would prefer it be more difficult.

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#253

Post by throwaway85825 »

M95D wrote: post #185
throwaway85825 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Considering the kind of people that get voted into Parliament, I consider that a very good thing. I only consider true democracies those countries where citizens can force new legislation by national referendum, bypassing parliament. There are very very few countries that allow it, and even fewer where the requirements are low enough to actually allow it to happen. Anyway, back to the subject. If Stop Killing Games w…

The replaceable batteries is only a mandate that it retain 80% capacity after n charge cycles, which phones already meet. Toothless and useless regulation, the EU strikes again.

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#254

Post by ytoawwhra92 »

Schiendelman wrote: post #250
ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, Stop Killing Games isn't looking to mandate any one solution to this problem. There are many possible ways to enable game preservation and SKG is pushing for game studios to pick one and implement it, instead of not doing anything and letting games die when they become unprofitable.

Practically speaking, I think the best way to do something like this is to enforce an auction when a studio shuts down an online game. That way the people that care get to vote with their dollars, rather than costing the studio.

Doesn't seem fair to the people who have already paid for a product that will stop working.

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#255

Post by Schiendelman »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #251
Schiendelman wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right from what I remember reading about them. But I think in practice it costs significant engineering time to package up what they are asking for. For a small game studio it may be incredibly prohibitive.

It just requires game engines to develop a tool to make this much easier to do. The rule won't apply retroactively, so it just means different design choices from the start. > For a small game studio it may be incredibly prohibitive. Alright, you lost me here. All of the games that do not follow what this law would suggest are AAA (or scams, essentially). The smaller studios always have some acceptable end-of-life pl…

I'm not sure AAA studios are as large, or as profitable, as you think. The studio itself is often small, large publishers just own many of them.

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#256

Post by Schiendelman »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #254
Schiendelman wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practically speaking, I think the best way to do something like this is to enforce an auction when a studio shuts down an online game. That way the people that care get to vote with their dollars, rather than costing the studio.

Doesn't seem fair to the people who have already paid for a product that will stop working.

I'm not sure I get this. A game costs about the same as watching a few movies - the cost per hour of entertainment is vanishingly low. For these long running games, the cost per hour of entertainment is down to pennies for these users. The same users who are still playing years later are also the ones who have gotten the most value for that same number of dollars already.

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#258

Post by hodgehog11 »

Schiendelman wrote: post #255
hodgehog11 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just requires game engines to develop a tool to make this much easier to do. The rule won't apply retroactively, so it just means different design choices from the start. > For a small game studio it may be incredibly prohibitive. Alright, you lost me here. All of the games that do not follow what this law would suggest are AAA (or scams, essentially). The smaller studios always have some acceptable end-of-life pl…

I'm not sure AAA studios are as large, or as profitable , as you think. The studio itself is often small, large publishers just own many of them.

Small like 30 people? I don't think so. Genuinely small studios are able to preserve their games for the long-term, so there is no excuse.

AAA gaming isn't something that needs to be protected. Anything of sufficient magnitude and budget should be made responsibly or not at all. If a game is unable to exist without screwing over the user in a very legal sense, it has no right to exist. The requests of SKG are not only sensible, they impose a serious legal ambiguity in the current system that needs to be corrected one way or the other.

AAA was always an untenable monster that brought obscene risk; this was clear even in the mid-2010s and the industry is rapidly moving away from that model for good reason. The user-base clearly does not look kindly on AAA anymore either. That's why they are not profitable anymore. The SKG requirements would make very little impact overall compared to this.

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#259

Post by unselect5917 »

someonebaggy wrote: post #240
unselect5917 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Ublock on Brave (chromium). Ublock is supposed to be unnecessary with brave alone, but I use it all the time to delete annoying UI elements mostly permanently. Why anyone still uses vanilla Chrome for personal use is beyond me while brave exists and is actively maintained. It's essentially youtube premium for free even on mobile.

Well first of all, uBlock is a version that was sold to advertising companies many years ago, which is why uBlock Origin was created. uBlock Origin is the one that Google blocked on Chrome by redesigning how extensions work, creating a big fuss. You could try uBlock Origin Lite but, well, it's called Lite for a reason, as it can't block as much stuff. Or you could switch to a browser that supports adblock extensions,…

I meant ublock origin. I use firefox and brave pretty interchangeably. Firefox is better in some ways but utterly infuriating in others.

Fun fact: internet speed tests have been reliably faster in firefox for years for whatever reason. And the volume boost extension I use there doesn't work in fullscreen on brave for some reason, which is mostly why I watch videos predominantly in firefox.

o7

Re: Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

#260

Post by Schiendelman »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #258
Schiendelman wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure AAA studios are as large, or as profitable , as you think. The studio itself is often small, large publishers just own many of them.

Small like 30 people? I don't think so. Genuinely small studios are able to preserve their games for the long-term, so there is no excuse. AAA gaming isn't something that needs to be protected. Anything of sufficient magnitude and budget should be made responsibly or not at all. If a game is unable to exist without screwing over the user in a very legal sense, it has no right to exist. The requests of SKG are not onl…

I got my start at a game studio in 2001, after they were bought by Microsoft (and their game went from Mac to Xbox, if you get my drift). They're "big" now, but they regularly lay off large portions of their staff, because game development is boom and bust.

I don't think what you say in your first paragraph follows. Are you really, really interested in learning more about why, with an open mind?

Post reply on HN