Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#281

Post by throwaway85825 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:23 AM UTC

thombat wrote: post #139

mrandish wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> open source server code if you are going to cease support When I was a senior exec at a big public tech company, there was a product we decided to discontinue and we thought would be nice to just open source. Somehow I ended up in charge of managing that process and was shocked at how complex, time-consuming and expensive it was in a multi-billion dollar, publicly-traded corp vs some code my friends and I wrote. Le…

The final phase of Symbian OS was becoming the open-source Symbian Foundation. This required the existing codebase, hundreds of thousands of files, to be categorised properly (mostly homegrown, some acquired, some licensed) and where necessary restructured so that each directory only had one kind. Painful, exacting, tedious archaeology which all-but-froze development for weeks. Like a long-deferred merge, the cost to…

Only retroactively.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#282

Post by throwaway85825 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:24 AM UTC

foresto wrote: post #140

mrandish wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> open source server code if you are going to cease support When I was a senior exec at a big public tech company, there was a product we decided to discontinue and we thought would be nice to just open source. Somehow I ended up in charge of managing that process and was shocked at how complex, time-consuming and expensive it was in a multi-billion dollar, publicly-traded corp vs some code my friends and I wrote. Le…

Of course, it would also create a demand for open-source game server libraries, which would surely appear after a while and make the whole process much easier. So while I believe you about all those difficulties existing today, it's plausible that they would mostly fade away over time. I think temporary growing pains would be an acceptable price for the significant long-term public benefit.

Unreal is open access but not open source.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#283

Post by dalmo3 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:24 AM UTC

idorosen wrote: post #267

This bill would likely cause game studios to release games exclusively via subscription plans as an unintended consequence.

It's so blatant that it's hard to call it unintended.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#284

Post by chadgpt3 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:34 AM UTC

hparadiz wrote: post #152

fluoridation wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible for the law to cause more games to die, because already the default fate of online games is for them to die. If, with the law, a studio chooses to use an LLC to create the game to conditionally release sources once it shuts down, that was a game that without the law would have died anyway because the studio wouldn't have chosen of its own volition to release sources.

If a studio on it's last legs is required to service a failing product instead of working on a new one the studio will simply close and not comply. That's what tends to happen with forced regulations like this.

If they're closing they have nothing to lose by putting the source code up on the internet and saying sue us if you want. It's continuing businesses who are scared of liability.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#285

Post by throwaway85825 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:34 AM UTC

throwawayk7h wrote: post #153

whartung wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution here is for publishers to give away the client, and simply charge a subscription. Keypoint: > would require a digital game operator to communicate specified information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of a digital game 60 days before the operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the game, and, beginning on the date an operator ceases to provide services necessary for…

the bill explicitly doesn't apply to games that are free or are on a subscription system. (I assume free-to-play with microtransactions would be covered by this bill though, unless those microtransactions are subscription-based or time-limited.) I am indeed worried that this will push games to be subscription-based, so I would advocate making the bill apply even to subscription-based games. Though that would require…

Vast majority of games don't rely on any server.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#286

Post by throwaway85825 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:37 AM UTC

sheept wrote: post #58

norman784 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK the issue is with one time purchase games, where is not clear if you will be able to play forever or whenever they want to pull the plug, if they change to subscription based model or free to play, then it will be clear for the players what they are paying for.

The distinction makes sense, but I wonder if the bill will inadvertently incentivize games to move to subscription based models, which would be ultimately be a worse experience for consumers.

It won't. Most games bought on steam will never be played, not even once. Customers won't splurge on subscriptions they won't use.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#287

Post by chadgpt3 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:39 AM UTC

collingreen wrote: post #78

Ukv wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the bankruptcy process already involves identifying and administering the company's assets, I feel releasing the server software (as-is) to owners of the game could be part of that.

I don't think most game owners could take the server side software and assemble it into working servers their game could contact and use. This isn't realistic and needs something to change at the fundamental server design side and the game development side. A silly answer is regulations about how you can and can't make a game. Another silly answer is a cottage industry doing game server hosting that's required to be…

It doesn't matter if they personally could do it. As long as they have the ability to contract someone who can do it to do it.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#288

Post by chadgpt3 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:41 AM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #61

I'd rather have legislation to give immunity from infringement to hackers who are either reverse engineering or cloning the game that has been shut down instead.

I have good news for you: everything is legal if you don't get caught.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#289

Post by throwaway85825 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:44 AM UTC

Freedom2 wrote: post #28

bitbasher wrote: post #10

Most "gamers" don't want to pay $5 for a game you spent 10,000 hours slaving to make. They will complain the game was too short when Steam shows they spent 10+ hours playing it. Now they want more.

I don't see a problem? As a hacker and HN poster, I believe the free market will determine the value of a game. If it's not economically feasible anymore to make games for under $5, the market will adjust.

Price alone is a useless metric. Digital goods have no marginal cost.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#290

Post by atq2119 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 6:53 AM UTC

Chaosvex wrote: post #272

furyofantares wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see. Well, the post I was responding to reads to me like a denial of the existence of games like Among Us when it says it wouldn't affect three person dev teams making games on a shoestring budget, and gives off the weird implication that it would only affect big budget games. That said, I don't mind a tangent, and I have built services for large multiplayer games and it really is not that bad.

I've also worked on MMOs and the architectures there can get quite hairy, particularly when they're deeply plumbed into shared services and infrastructure that they couldn't operate without. Those layers occasionally have closed-source licensed tech mixed in there. Untangling the entire lot to make the game available upon closure would be a nightmare in some cases. I've also contributed to game server emulation (pre-…

> Untangling the entire lot to make the game available upon closure would be a nightmare in some cases.

This is only true if the game wasn't architected with open-sourcing in mind. Which affects how this kind of law should be structured.

For example, it makes sense to require the server code to be submitted to an escrow service from the beginning. Part of that process would be a license evaluation, which acts as a forcing function already during the development process.