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

The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

invenglobal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 294 posts

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#261

Post by wsve »

rafram wrote: post #259
wsve wrote: post #220

Earlier 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 the alternative now costs more. That is just a basic function of human decision-making. If there are two options, and one becomes more expensive, it will become more common to pick the other. It very slightly tips the balance toward the option that hasn’t become more expensive.

Please reread my initial comment. That's the assumption everyone is making, but WHY would it actually cost so much more? What's so much more expensive? Some games already do this, why would it be so much more expensive for others?

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#262

Post by rafram »

wsve wrote: post #261
rafram wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the alternative now costs more. That is just a basic function of human decision-making. If there are two options, and one becomes more expensive, it will become more common to pick the other. It very slightly tips the balance toward the option that hasn’t become more expensive.

Please reread my initial comment. That's the assumption everyone is making, but WHY would it actually cost so much more? What's so much more expensive? Some games already do this, why would it be so much more expensive for others?

I can only reread your initial comment so many times. You’re still incorrect.

Yes, a small subset of games have downloadable server software; the ones that do are able to do so because it’s self-contained and unencumbered by proprietary components that can’t be redistributed.

Most games don’t, and they won’t be able to.

Licensing restrictions aside, how are you supposed to package a modern microservice-based network of servers into a single package that can be run on consumer hardware? And abstract over the specifics of the cloud environment you targeted so it can be run elsewhere? It’s pretty much a nonstarter.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#263

Post by Dylan16807 »

Dig1t wrote: post #149
wsve wrote: post #142

I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dunk. Yes, you would have to make sure your server application adheres to software licenses before release, just like you do with the client application, or any other piece of software a compan…

It’s not irrational, the comments literally explain in great detail the downsides of the regulation. For example one commenter in this thread said: >See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs. This is an objectively true and prove-able statement. What is irrational about that? WRT regulation the only thing that matters is the incentives that it crea…

In what way is "see also" objectively true?

I mean in a literal sense I guess it's true but only in a way that has zero connection to the post. They might as well have told me a fun fact about crickets. If it's supposed to argue against this regulation then their actual point stops being objectively true and it probably is irrational to bring up those car standards without way more justification.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#264

Post by Vaslo »

ang_cire wrote: post #215
wsve wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gives the game developers a perverse incentive to further embrace more exploitive revenue models such as free to play and subscription based services? This is what I fail to see an explanation of anywhere in these comments. WHY would this law make a subscriber-based revenue model so much more enticing? WHY would this law make single-purchase games with multiplayer servers suddenly so non-viable from a business pers…

Yep, this is the "higher taxes will drive new yorkers to florida!" fear-mongering (sometime, sadly, even by people who don't actually know better but automatically shill for companies). There are so many games (like Hitman: WoA, which I love btw) that "require" online access in order to provide the same functions that previous games by the same devs provided fully offline (e.g. keeping track of your weapon unlocks).…

Your example about New York and Florida is a terrible one because it’s true statement. Why would you use that example? Are you saying it’s not true (demonstrably true with residential data)? Or are you saying it’s happening but not to the extent that the fear-mongerers express it?

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#265

Post by Vaslo »

ryandrake wrote: post #103
vl wrote: post #61

They are going to do what movie industry is already doing: create shell company for release of each game. Then they will shut down the company when they want, and there will be nobody to come for.

So, CA should get rid of those loopholes, too! We need to culturally accept things like "zero day law patches" for loopholes and unintended consequences. Legislators, don't just pass a law, see it incentivizing something unintended, and then throw up your hands crying "Well, we tried!" Patch the law as soon as the bad behavior starts!

There are always ways around it. Especially laws around business.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#266

Post by rafram »

ang_cire wrote: post #215
wsve wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gives the game developers a perverse incentive to further embrace more exploitive revenue models such as free to play and subscription based services? This is what I fail to see an explanation of anywhere in these comments. WHY would this law make a subscriber-based revenue model so much more enticing? WHY would this law make single-purchase games with multiplayer servers suddenly so non-viable from a business pers…

Yep, this is the "higher taxes will drive new yorkers to florida!" fear-mongering (sometime, sadly, even by people who don't actually know better but automatically shill for companies). There are so many games (like Hitman: WoA, which I love btw) that "require" online access in order to provide the same functions that previous games by the same devs provided fully offline (e.g. keeping track of your weapon unlocks).…

In both cases, it’s true. Higher taxes will drive some New Yorkers to Florida! That’s why the state government has to research the impact of a tax increase and set the brackets at a point where the amount they bring in, after subtracting lost revenue from people who move away, is maximized. A sensible tax increase won’t drive many New Yorkers to Florida, and it’ll make up for the few who do leave.

In this case, studios will need to do the same calculation with the cost to package and release server software / the income they’ll lose from going to a subscription model.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#267

Post by Dig1t »

wsve wrote: post #200
Ferret7446 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad regulation is representative of regulation as a whole, because most of it is bad, or at least ineffectual, particularly in California.

Blanket dismissal of regulations is about as silly as a blanket dismissal of laws. Some laws are "bad", some are "good", but the point is who do they hurt, and who do they serve? Regulations are tools, like laws, and can be written to serve the needs of the people, for good things.

I'm not even saying this should be dismissed with a blanket dismissal.

First example is a reminder that regulation can be bad.

Second is an actual concern about this specific regulation. This is a concrete concern about the incentives it creates. There wasn't a single response to this comment about exactly WHY questioning effectiveness of it is irrational.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#268

Post by ang_cire »

rafram wrote: post #266
ang_cire wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this is the "higher taxes will drive new yorkers to florida!" fear-mongering (sometime, sadly, even by people who don't actually know better but automatically shill for companies). There are so many games (like Hitman: WoA, which I love btw) that "require" online access in order to provide the same functions that previous games by the same devs provided fully offline (e.g. keeping track of your weapon unlocks).…

In both cases, it’s true . Higher taxes will drive some New Yorkers to Florida! That’s why the state government has to research the impact of a tax increase and set the brackets at a point where the amount they bring in, after subtracting lost revenue from people who move away, is maximized. A sensible tax increase won’t drive many New Yorkers to Florida, and it’ll make up for the few who do leave. In this case, stud…

'Some' is a meaningless non-metric. Some people do anything.

Actual studies [1] show that the rich are not moving in response to wealth taxes, and in fact when they do move, it's almost never due to taxes.

> As we get more data on the post-pandemic period, we increase our knowledge of the major upheavals that took place in New York between 2020 and 2022. Despite the state suffering a deep recession and massive out-migration during the pandemic, data show that New York’s tax base remains resilient. When taxes on millionaire earners were raised in 2021, tax revenue to the state increased by an estimated $3.6 billion and there was no detectable increase in high earner out-migration.

1: https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009...

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#269

Post by ang_cire »

Vaslo wrote: post #264
ang_cire wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this is the "higher taxes will drive new yorkers to florida!" fear-mongering (sometime, sadly, even by people who don't actually know better but automatically shill for companies). There are so many games (like Hitman: WoA, which I love btw) that "require" online access in order to provide the same functions that previous games by the same devs provided fully offline (e.g. keeping track of your weapon unlocks).…

Your example about New York and Florida is a terrible one because it’s true statement. Why would you use that example? Are you saying it’s not true (demonstrably true with residential data)? Or are you saying it’s happening but not to the extent that the fear-mongerers express it?

You're wrong. There is no wealth-tax based mass migration of the wealthy from NYC to Florida.

1) https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009...

> As we get more data on the post-pandemic period, we increase our knowledge of the major upheavals that took place in New York between 2020 and 2022. Despite the state suffering a deep recession and massive out-migration during the pandemic, data show that New York’s tax base remains resilient. When taxes on millionaire earners were raised in 2021, tax revenue to the state increased by an estimated $3.6 billion and there was no detectable increase in high earner out-migration.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#270

Post by Dylan16807 »

Filligree wrote: post #222
bigfishrunning wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have a GPL’ed library here that we can use but now all of a sudden the vitality of the license means we have to replace it? The "we're not distributing it" loophole is why the AGPL exists. So yeah, even though you can technically not violate the gpl by not distributing the server, don't do that, it's scummy. Better to just not use gpl code at all.

Respectfully disagree. The AGPL exists for that use case, and the difference is exactly that you need to distribute the changes. If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL. For me, that means I use a mix of AGPL and MIT depending on project.

> If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL.

GPL has always meant you're okay with someone making local changes for their own internal use.

When it comes to servers, someone making a project this decade that uses GPL might be signalling they're okay with server code staying closed source. Or it might be other reasons, like the uncertainty over what code is covered by AGPL. And if a project is older, there's an increasing chance they didn't expect the current ecosystem and hate that the code is being used this way.

Post reply on HN