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

Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 506 posts

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

#291

Post by marsbars241 »

mrandish wrote: post #104
georgeecollins wrote: post #40

It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. I also really support giving 60 day notice if an online game is going to shut down. Places I have worked have had policies like that for games they are sun setting and I think the best game publishers th…

> 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…

I’m curious if you think the law would cause companies to keep better track of these things as development happens. If there was tracking for all the shared libraries from the get go, I’m guessing it would have been an easier transition?

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

#292

Post by [deleted] »

furyofantares wrote: post #261
fluoridation wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of games have tacked-on online features to excuse the existence of the server to enable DRM, and a lot of multiplayer games arbitrarily don't offer a way for clients to double as local servers like in the heyday of arena shooters.

Sure, but the existence of such annoying things does not mean that's the only reason to use a client-server architecture and that it would only affect those games.

[deleted]

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

#293

Post by throwaway27448 »

smalley wrote: post #30

This appears to treat subscription style games and free to play with in game purchases differently than other games. I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

Licenses to game software*. It's extremely rare to actually purchase something of value today. But yes, subscriptions are the norm.

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

#294

Post by [deleted] »

tyleo wrote: post #156

I happen to be shutting down an online game right now. https://www.tyleo.com/blog/sunsetting-rec-room-how-to-give-a... The sad truth is that these things have high operating costs, especially if they need moderation. I would guess this bill just makes it more risky to make the games in the first place. It’s already brutally hard to make money on games. I feel like the effect of this might just be that shutting an onl…

[deleted]

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

#296

Post by WalterBright »

mrandish wrote: post #104
georgeecollins wrote: post #40

It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. I also really support giving 60 day notice if an online game is going to shut down. Places I have worked have had policies like that for games they are sun setting and I think the best game publishers th…

> 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…

This difficulty has been greatly reduced by git. With git, you can have the complete provenance of every line of code.

Git has ended the accusations people have leveled at me for code theft. (I beat them all back because I had meticulous documentation and the accusers always had nothing. Git just made that easy.)

For my work, Git (and Github) have been a godsend.

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

#297

Post by fyredge »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #96
braiamp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what? I'm tired of unintended consequences fear mongering. You know what else had a tons of unintended consequences? Mandating seat belts. This is the industry kicking and crying because they don't want to be told that they can't abuse the consumer blatantly. Joke Bloke would still be able to release their game without wondering if this kind of law exists because the law will never apply to them. These kind…

[flagged]

Unintended consequences is the price of progress. The alternative is to continue farming by hand, and carry after from the river for your daily needs.

We legislate away unintended consequences, that is the job of government. We put in laws and remove them if they are unsuitable. Analysis paralysis does no one any good.

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

#298

Post by schobi »

jfengel wrote: post #5

Do they need to put some funds in escrow? Or will they just shut down the entire company and let the players sue for it. (I know that big publishers won't do that, but I'm sure the lawyers could create shell corporations to solve that problem.) Or they could just demonstrate that they have an offline play capability right from the moment they sell it.

I would expect that this leads to cases where the game is handed over to a shell company that goes bankrupt. The shell does not have the rights to all parts of the code and can thus release only part of it in a state that is useless. Some parts might have a weird license attached and so on.

Escrow or demonstration upfront will raise the bar before releasing new games in California.

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

#299

Post by Dylan16807 »

summerlight wrote: post #232
Dylan16807 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like if it was mandatory to make a server release, legal would mostly shut up and it would be low cost. In other words, minimal change in risk. The refund thing is just there to force action by putting a dollar value on inaction. Pretty much no company is expected to actually choose refunds. > Alternatively, it might push multiplayer games towards free-to-play if in-app-purchases are excluded. Good point, the…

This is one of the reason why that law will surely be challenged and very likely invalidated by SCOTUS. Trade secret protection is a very fundamental part and if this is forced to be broken by legally compelled speech, then it needs to have very creative interpretations over judicial precedents.

99% of the server code doesn't deserve trade secret protection, and fulfilling the goal of games continuing to work doesn't require releasing the other 1%. They can keep their matchmaking algorithm secret while releasing the code that lets people straightforwardly connect to each other. They can keep most of their code secret.

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

#300

Post by okanat »

varenc wrote: post #150

Found this quote from the game industry interesting and depressing: > Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work Could the game industry just side step this legislation by moving games entirely to a subscription model, with no upfront purchase? When they stop offering the subscription, you lose access to the game. Similar to how various online S…

Yes. However gamers are not businesses who operate on cost minimization (especially employee cost minimization) that made SaaS possible. The existing purely subscription games do not have the same amount of customers/players as the ones do not admit that.

So openly admitting that your game is a subscription will be quite bad marketing for your company.

Post reply on HN