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

301–310 of 452 posts

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

#301

Post by _9ptr »

skotobaza wrote: post #267
fidotron wrote: post #118

If this happened all multiplayer titles would turn F2P. People do not appreciate quite what a narrow path has to be walked by games from an IP standpoint. Code libraries, licensed property, per platform (and platform category) restrictions, general IP restrictions (not showing vehicles being damaged, or UI overlays on certain parts of licensed objects) and so on. This is why in the recent ROG Ally announcement Micros…

> You want games with real vehicles or licensed music? Not really if it means that I wouldn't be able to play the game in 10 or 20 years.

The number of people who want that may be higher than you think. It's the only/main reason why the FIFA-games exist.

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

#302

Post by valiant55 »

bashinator wrote: post #127
bellgrove wrote: post #122

Having worked there in the past, Ubisoft is awful. When I was there previously there was an aggressive push for UPlay (now Ubisoft Connect) integration into all products. Then there were the bullshots for promos/E3/etc. There were often clashes with leadership who would fight against creativity / novel ideas in favour of cookie-cutter mechanics that would not add anything to the experience - certainly there was a men…

I'll never buy an Ubisoft game again. Instant dealbreaker to see that studio on the Steam store page; I've deleted a $3 sale game from my cart when I realized that it was Ubisoft. No game is worth giving money to a company that hates its customers so much.

On the flip side ex-Ubisoft employees seem to be finding success after their departure. Highly recommend Clair Obsur: Expedition 33.

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

#303

Post by drwiggly »

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.

Voting with your wallet does work, possibly others don't share in your tastes.

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

#304

Post by gausswho »

dijit wrote: post #10
jjani wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you know? If I cmd+S the HN front-end and throw my own backend behind it, host my own instance, and post something illegal on it, then YC is liable! Obviously they're not, but hey, just joining them in making things up. Protect the children!!

It’s more complicated than that. I work in games and in my last workplace I was CTO of a racing simulation; that means I was working with brands that were not only my own in a pretty big way. The stipulations that were put on us was pretty strong. For example (and it’s not just these guys), Mercedes will not permit you to allow the logo to fall off; If you have a damage model in the game this is annoying. Some won’t…

I've often wondered why sports and sim games don't tell these trademark peddlers to pound sand and ship with robust modding tools. Eager fans can then add unofficial versions of Mercedes, Lionel Messi, and a jet in the shape of the Great Redeemer.

We had this a decade ago with Asetto Corsa, PES, and Skyrim, but it appears to be falling out of favor. Are the publishers or developers not doing this because of legal liability or because they want to get a financial piece of the mod pie?

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

#305

Post by aspenmayer »

aspenmayer wrote: post #181
perching_aix wrote: post #11

> In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create. How? Can't wait to hear them substantiating this tidbit, because from a regular enterprise operations viewpoint this does NOT pass the smell test.

When I found out that Booking[.]com of all companies is moving major traffic, I started to look at what companies are even buying or selling anymore. I clearly had no idea. In the following paper, CPs refer to content providers, as defined in the paper. https://estcarisimo.github.io/assets/pdf/papers/2019-comnets... [pdf] (more at https://estcarisimo.github.io/publications/ ) canonical link for above paper, which is…

What else would these companies have to gain by making their games online only? Perhaps game developers even have contractual obligations to uphold, or incintives to include third party network interactions. The presence of Twitch, Cloudflare, and Microsoft on this list are interesting, because Microsoft drives a lot of threat intel and also makes a popular OS among gamers. If you want to reduce network traffic and reduce your reliance on third parties and internet access, migrating from Windows and using Proton on Linux would probably be a step in the right direction for many games that you would want to play single player.

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

#306

Post by throw10920 »

conductr wrote: post #297
throw10920 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fundin…

> establish/find a consumer protection group to help legislative bodies craft the documents

Yes, that's one of the ways to address this. Active consumer participation is still necessary, though, as the consumer protection group can still lose its way.

> 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

No, it's factually not. If I order soup from a restaurant, and it arrives and is terrible and I complain, I do not have to specify what the chef did wrong, or how they should fix it, for my complaint to be valid - and the fact that I'm not providing the solution does not mean that I think nothing should be done. Similarly, I don't have to point out what the solution has to be for my complaint to be valid, and that does not mean that I think nothing should be done. That's just insane.

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

#307

Post by CaptainFever »

drwiggly wrote: post #299
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.

They could be liable if they shut down the servers and make the purchase unusable before the end of the minimum contracted duration.

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

#308

Post by thrance »

throw10920 wrote: post #274
thrance wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look where decades of "voting with our wallets" led us. How some people can still utter that sentence unironically is beyond me at this point.

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.

You proved my point: "voting with your wallet" will never work. DLCs, microtransactions, lootboxes... They all got normalized alarmingly quickly, despite numerous calls to "vote with your wallets" every single times. We need regulations, isolated individuals have no power against a system built to extract the most out of them.

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

#309

Post by tmtvl »

throw10920 wrote: post #300
skotobaza wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "unsuccessfu…

The problem with democracy: people on average have average intelligence and you don't solve difficult problems with average intelligence. That being said, it's still better than anything else we've tried.

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

#310

Post by skotobaza »

throw10920 wrote: post #300
skotobaza wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "unsuccessfu…

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

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

Probably.

>you're describing people buying things on autopilot without respect to values

That is probably where I am confused - I'm not sure that people "do not respect the values". It's either that they have values, but those values are imposed, or it's what you describe, that people just don't think deeply about it. And from my personal experience I really can't tell. But when I read the web, everyone apparently figured it out, and do indeed consciously decide.

Post reply on HN