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

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

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 452 posts

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

#291

Post by izzydata »

If game publishers could in clear writing at time of purchase commit to a set number of years that game will be live then I think that is a good start. For example when the next live service game is released and you go to purchase it there is a clear warning that the publisher has only guaranteed the game to be live for 2 years. Personally that would prevent me from buying the game, but perhaps not others.

The idea that a publisher can sell a live service game and shut it down in 1 month with no legal repercussions is ridiculous to me.

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

#292

Post by chickenzzzzu »

AndrewPGameDev wrote: post #269
traverseda wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying for a subscription is explicitly not what this is about. No one is suggesting this for MMOs. Just that it be clear that it is a subscription, that you're not actually buying the game. What a one-time fee for an MMO? Give it an expiry date. You can keep pushing the expiry date, but you have to promise support up to at least that date.

AFAICT SKG doesn't really make a distinction between games bought with a one-time purchase and games that are subscribed to. In their FAQ, they explicitly say it would apply to MMOs too (see https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq "What about large-scale MMORPGs? Isn't it impossible for customers to run those when servers are shut down?) although they don't spell out whether they mean exclusively games bought with a one…

Then this is essentially a formalized buggestion, and what will almost certainly happen is companies will respond back with "Won't Fix"

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

#293

Post by chickenzzzzu »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #259
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's step through this example. All Xbox games around 2004 were physical CDs. Many had online services attached to them. Eventually, those servers were turned off. You can still play LAN and singleplayer. You still have your access to the physical bytes on the disk (though there is copy protection). What should companies be required to do regarding the servers?

Not sue people into oblivion if they want to reverse engineer and create their own servers.

That is a perfectly rational suggestion. It is repulsive that large companies such as my employer do this.

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

#294

Post by chickenzzzzu »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #263
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I am not sure what you mean, but I would actually really like to know what you are referencing

private server where the default in the past. that's why games that are 30 years old like quake, doom and unreal tournament (all created by dev teams the size of about a dozen with as much funding as current indie games) can still be played to this day and as long as software allows it forever with 0 effort or cost by the developers.

I completely and thoroughly agree with this suggestion. It shouldn't be a requirement, however. You should reward companies who do this with your money, and it should be clearly labeled that you will or will not be receiving this.

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

#295

Post by skotobaza »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #284
skotobaza wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if anyone (including this initiative) requires the release or maintenance of server builds or code, I am against it Why? What do you personally lose because of that?

There is a competitive advantage for being able to hold onto your code and builds. It currently requires quite a lot of effort and skill and persistence to resurrect live service games. This allows us to make money by re-releasing games and remastering them and so on. If you require us to release server builds and or code "while still respecting copyright", the result will be that countries like Russia and China will…

I don't think there is much trouble in re-releasing and remastering games, since the company does not forfeit its IP and it doesn't give anyone else the right to publish the same game. Plus no one suggests that the company should instantly release the server binaries or source code upon game's release. Only when they themselves stop profiting from it.

For instance, with WoW, you currently have unofficial servers, but it doesn't stop Activision Blizzard from making huge money from WoW, both from new addons and classic ones.

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

#296

Post by charcircuit »

meheleventyone wrote: post #61
charcircuit wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop killing games is not about forcing developers to perpetually sell games. They can still stop selling games. They just can't leave it in an unplayable state. If developers want to get the rights to distribute a song for 5 years with their game, they can still do that.

No I’m talking about the distribution of games. With physical media that’s all fine because once the license expires they stop making new copies. People that own a copy are fine. With digital distribution once you’ve EOL’d a product you still need to make it available right? Otherwise how do people that have paid for it get it? But that means you can’t distribute elements you no longer have the license to.

Games already handled this today on Steam, Apple Store, Play Store, etc by taking down the store page preventing new copies from being sold. Users can still redownload it. That's how things work today, and is how they would still work if SKG gets what they want. This isn't a new problem and is already the industry standard for how expiring IP works for the digital distribution for games.

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

#297

Post by conductr »

throw10920 wrote: post #230
conductr wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kind of implied by your argument. All these concerns apply to every piece of legislation that gets concocted. What makes this topic especially effected by one’s distrust in the government’s ability?

> It’s kind of implied by your argument. No, it's absolutely not. You're reading your own thoughts into it. Nowhere is the implication that we should do nothing. > All these concerns apply to every piece of legislation that gets concocted. What makes this topic especially effected by one’s distrust in the government’s ability? Because the authors are asking for public support for an initiative , and it now has a lot…

The correct path would be to establish/find a consumer protection group to help legislative bodies craft the documents in a way that held true to the spirit of what is driving this initiative. The industry will do the same to thing. So as the documents are drafted the feedback from the public’s standpoint continues to have a voice. Hopefully that happens but it’s too early in the process to say and it requires funding too.

The hang ups can’t simply be nihilistic complaints about the government’s abilities without any solutions proposed. That’s an argument for doing nothing

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

#298

Post by chickenzzzzu »

skotobaza wrote: post #295
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a competitive advantage for being able to hold onto your code and builds. It currently requires quite a lot of effort and skill and persistence to resurrect live service games. This allows us to make money by re-releasing games and remastering them and so on. If you require us to release server builds and or code "while still respecting copyright", the result will be that countries like Russia and China will…

I don't think there is much trouble in re-releasing and remastering games, since the company does not forfeit its IP and it doesn't give anyone else the right to publish the same game. Plus no one suggests that the company should instantly release the server binaries or source code upon game's release. Only when they themselves stop profiting from it. For instance, with WoW, you currently have unofficial servers, but…

I don't think the companies should be required to release server executables ever, and yes especially not at release.

Let me try to argue against my own point with WoW as an example then.

You say there are unofficial/private servers. Are these server builds downloadable online somewhere? It doesn't matter if it was from a leak, a reverse engineering effort, etc. Or are they the guarded property of the groups running the private servers?

The reason I ask is because, it is my opinion that once a reliable build exists, inevitably it will be hosted in China and Russia and so on, and now you have a serious competitor to deal with who doesn't need to follow the same laws as you.

If WoW is still able to make a ton of money despite widely available builds being out there, then I think my position would be that WoW is just a cultural phenomenon that can survive all of that. But if it turns out that the server builds aren't widely available, I'd be curious to see how it survives when those are released.

Think-- why would you pay a quite high monthly price for the official thing when you can pay pennies for the same exact thing? The only possible answer is conveniece and network effects ("my friends are on the official WoW so...")

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

#299

Post by drwiggly »

izzydata wrote: post #291

If game publishers could in clear writing at time of purchase commit to a set number of years that game will be live then I think that is a good start. For example when the next live service game is released and you go to purchase it there is a clear warning that the publisher has only guaranteed the game to be live for 2 years. Personally that would prevent me from buying the game, but perhaps not others. The idea t…

The publisher can't do that. No one can tell the future.

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

#300

Post by throw10920 »

skotobaza wrote: post #287
throw10920 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim that there has been "decades of voting with our wallets" is laughable. Nobody I know who plays games decides to buy them or not based on ideological reasons - they just buy the things that are popular or that their friends play. There's extremely little engagement on these issues.

But it's true. Most people pay for what's being currently promoted. So "voting with wallet" doesn't really work, because you will be outvoted by majority of people who don't know what they're getting into. That's why gacha games and other lootbox-heavy ones are most profitable. This is where "vote with your wallet" brought us.

You're confused about the meaning of "voting with your wallet".

> But it's true.

It's not - you're talking about something else entirely. When @umvi says "vote with your wallet" they mean buy things whose values you support. You, and GP @thrance, are not describing that - you're describing people buying things on autopilot without respect to values - the exact opposite. So, no, we haven't had decades of "unsuccessful voting with your wallet" because consumers have been mentally checked out for decades.

> So "voting with wallet" doesn't really work, because you will be outvoted by majority of people who don't know what they're getting into

That's literally how normal democracy works - if the majority of the populace is uninformed, then they'll vote in an uninformed way, and the solution is for them to get informed and start doing research and making conscious decisions. That's what @umvi means when they say "vote with your wallet." - active participation instead of passive existence.

You're confusing the lack of active participation with the presence of it.

Post reply on HN