The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act' • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by rafram » Sun, May 31, 2026, 3:02 AM UTC

ang_cire wrote: post #268

rafram wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-mi…

I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue against the idea that people tend to gravitate toward the cheapest option.

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

#272

Post by db48x » Sun, May 31, 2026, 3:20 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #172

stouset wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside for a moment whether or not this specific legislation is a good implementation of the idea, I cannot understand how people don’t comprehend that this only happens because there is currently no obligation to release their server binaries or code. The second that becomes a legal requirement with associated penalties, developers will stop licensing technology under those kinds of terms.

Right, they'll stop licensing proprietary sever code. But that in turn drives up the cost of game development since they'd have to either purchase redistributable licenses or develop their own networking software. I suspect companies will just scale down the servers to 1 instance with bare minimum support. Technically the online service is still active, thereby eliminating the requirements to distribute source code,…

Why do people keep bringing up source code? It’s just as much a canard as the stupid “nonredistributable middleware” argument.

The ideal way for a game company to keep their game alive after they have stopped supporting it is to build it with that in mind from the start. A lot of the server–side components, such as monitoring, authentication, database storage, moderation, anti–cheat, etc, etc can all be made optional. It’s a small upfront cost, but set up the build system so that you can build without all of those components, or with simpler versions of them. That includes anything you cannot legally redistribute. If your last game used a middleware component that was critical to the functionality of the game but that you cannot redistribute, then you do need to find a replacement for that specific middleware component for your future games.

Then, when the end of life date of your game approaches you simply build the server binaries one last time, this time turning off all of the optional components, and let your customers download it. You don’t have to give them the source code and you don’t have to violate any license agreements in the process. Your customers can arrange for any necessary hosting of the servers themselves, most likely by simply running the server process on their own computer.

And of course the option remains to simply write a single–player game that runs entirely on the customer’s computer, with no networked components at all. It’s a little bit old–school, but lots of game developers manage to make money that way.

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

#273

Post by db48x » Sun, May 31, 2026, 3:23 AM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #168

Maxatar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every law that exists about software exists to dictate what a consumer is or isn't allowed to do with software on their own computer using their own hardware. For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certai…

I think you may have misunderstood the situation I'm outlining: 1. Developer A writes some software. 2. Developer B licenses that software from Developer A, under the terms that (for instance) it only be used internally by Developer B and not disclosed. 3. Developer B makes modifications to that software and uses it as part of the implementation of a video game server. 4. Developer B goes bankrupt. Under this propose…

If the this law or something similar had been passed before step 2, then Developer B made a mistake.

If the law passed after the game was released, then it doesn’t apply.

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

#274

Post by customguy » Sun, May 31, 2026, 4:04 AM UTC

rafram wrote: post #216

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…

Because the law specifically exempts subscription-based revenue models, so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition.

Subscription models and micro-transactions are already infinitely attractive for those who are solely out for profit and rent-seeking, so it changes nothing material there. It doesn't make subscription models more attractive to gamers either. But it makes non-subscription games vastly more attractive:

Previously, non-subscription games were a gamble, even if the company had the best track record in the world, even if you know the whole team personally. They still could get bought or something like that, and then all of that is moot.

Now, you can be somewhat sure that the multiplayer game you buy today will be playable for as long as there are people who want to play it enough to put in the time and resources to host the infrastructure for it.

So yeah, this just seems like F.U.D. to me.

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

#275

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 31, 2026, 4:16 AM UTC

rafram wrote: post #271

ang_cire wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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-mi…

I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue against the idea that people tend to gravitate toward the cheapest option.

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by db48x » Sun, May 31, 2026, 4:37 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #12

wagwang wrote: post #3

The reasonable compromise should be to force devs to release server binaries if they are not willing to run the servers themselves.

What if, as a very high number do, the server uses something like a proprietary SQL database?

You only need that fancy database when you have lots of users. When you release a server binary that anyone can run it doesn’t need to support quite so many. Have a compile–time flag that excludes the fancy database when set, and have it fall back to something simpler like SQLite or Postgres or whatever you want.

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

#277

Post by db48x » Sun, May 31, 2026, 4:40 AM UTC

kristiandupont wrote: post #41

wagwang wrote: post #3

The reasonable compromise should be to force devs to release server binaries if they are not willing to run the servers themselves.

The backend for a game is not just an .exe file. It can be a mess of a system that relies on all kinds of services that need maintenance and that one dev who knows how to reset the cache. I agree that it's shitty that buyers can lose access to a game they bought, but I really struggle to see how this could function practically.

There’s no reason that has to be a serious impediment. Just release all of the components, plus a terraform file that sets it all up properly.

In practice a lot of those components can be simplified when you don't have to support a huge number of players. A server that only supports dozens of players can just use SQLite instead of a big multi–az database cluster. The cache can just be an in–process cache instead of a connection to an external Redis instance, etc, etc.

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

#278

Post by Manuel_D » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:42 AM UTC

rafram wrote: post #218

Manuel_D wrote: post #57

Releasing 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.

> Technically the online services are still functional - the match queue times would just be very, very large. That would violate the law.

Would it? Online services are not terminated. There's no SLA defined in the law:

> 60 days before a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall communicate all of the following information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of the digital game:

> (i) The date on which services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game will cease.

> (ii) Any services that will no longer be provided by the operator.

> (iii) Any game features that will no longer be available to the purchaser.

> (iv) Any known security risks that may result from the cessation of services.

> (v) How the purchaser can continue to use the digital game, or obtain a refund, pursuant to paragraph (2).

Scaling in the number of game servers isn't termination of service, though, and would not match the conditions laid out above.

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

#279

Post by rafram » Sun, May 31, 2026, 1:43 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #278

rafram wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically the online services are still functional - the match queue times would just be very, very large. That would violate the law.

Would it? Online services are not terminated. There's no SLA defined in the law: > 60 days before a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall communicate all of the following information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of the digital game: > (i) The date on which services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game will ceas…

Laws aren’t interpreted that way. If you realistically can’t use the service, that’s termination.

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

#280

Post by f33d5173 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

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…

Companies tend to comply with laws in the dumbest possible way just to be jackasses. If you want a company to release the server, write a law that says that. Otherwise, companies will find a way to comply with the law in the worst way possible. An easy one here is to make the game subscription based, but only for californians. When you go to shut down the server, just don't renew the subscriptions. And if anyone complains? "Nothing we can do, california made us do it!" (nevermind that an alternative form of compliance existed)