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

311–320 of 506 posts

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

#311

Post by imtringued »

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…

This doesn't make sense. The developers should only be obligated to provide a dedicated server plus an in-game server browser that supports a standardized service discovery protocol. The players must figure out themselves how to run the software on their computer.

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

#312

Post by ajvs »

LocalH wrote: post #195
parliament32 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming might be unique in the sense that it's the only industry where 1) consumers make a one-time purchase of a product, but then 2) the manufacturer remains responsible for the online component.. forever? I can't think of any other examples in real life where this happens across an industry (maybe a few niche products). Maybe this is the reason MS has been pushing Game Pass so hard, to get rid of the "purchase" par…

Any company that willfully chains a device to their cloud platform in such a way should get the same treatment, whether the cloud offering is free as in beer or paid. It's happening a lot more than you might think.

The way Kindles are being forcibly deprecated lately is another good example.

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

#313

Post by imtringued »

VorpalWay wrote: post #302
furyofantares wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture. Huh? Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. And you (usually[1]) do it in service of multiplayer, not because you're big budget or just want to complicate things. Among Us was literally a three-person team. [1] I find there are some major benefits to…

Remember back in the old days when you could just run your own game server, even though it wasn't open source? That would work too. Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more? Designing a game to use developer hosted servers is a choice they made. Probably to squeeze money from microtransactions.

Offering an .exe download is much less of a burden than open sourcing at gunpoint.

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

#314

Post by Permit »

dminik wrote: post #63
mjr00 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's nice in theory, but in practice many (most?) games are using middleware they don't have the rights to redistribute as open source. IIRC when the source code for Doom, the first major commercial ga…

This has an easy solution. If the middleware cannot be used in a new regulatory environment then it will either die or adapt.

This is not the only possible outcome. Another approach would be not to offer software within the affected region. U.S. local news is often not available to European visitors now due to GDPR. Similarly, Canadian news outlets are not available on Facebook due to Bill C-18. If I was an indie game developer I would consider this approach and simply avoid selling within California.

Larger game studios would likely adjust as you say. However they too could adjust in such a way that they only offer subscriptions within California as that appears to exempt them from this rule. Many outcomes are possible beyond simply adjusting to the legislation in the way you are suggesting.

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

#315

Post by fluoridation »

furyofantares wrote: post #269
Chaosvex wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm countering your argument that it's "not that bad". If that wasn't your point with mentioning the three person team, what was? Recap: > Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. Among Us was literally a three-person team. The scope of the discussion extends beyond simple games like Among Us and some games require highly complex networked architectures that wou…

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.

A simple multiplayer game like Among Us would also have a similarly simple server. There was never any reason not to have included that code in the client to support LAN play from the start. In concept, the gameplay is no different from a deathmatch game in, say, Quake 3 Arena. It's a small group of players sharing a level and interacting with each other in various ways.

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

#316

Post by fluoridation »

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.

It's not the only reason, but that does cover the vast majority of online-required games.

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

#317

Post by RobotToaster »

hparadiz wrote: post #143
fluoridation wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture . It's not like this is going to hurt the little three-man teams making games on shoe-string budgets. Yeah, it's going to make big budget games a little more expensive, just like how cars with seatbelts are a little more expensive to build, and like how it's a little more expensive to do proper waste management…

What? This a mandate in law that requires a company to do work in order to comply. Studios will spin out LLCs for a game so that if it fails it doesn't end up as a liability. Unintended consequence: more dead games.

If they're spun out as an LLC then there's also zero legal risk to to the parent company to dumping the server code to GitHub as open source.

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

#318

Post by nkrisc »

Terr_ wrote: post #84
weberer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to be open source, you only need to provide server binaries to download. This was the standard until circa 2010. People were able to host dedicated servers themselves.

That would be an improvement over nothing, but closed-source means that the game is still going to die as soon as someone finds a security vulnerability (or even just a gameplay glitch) that can't be feasibly patched. Imagine an MMO where special text in the chat causes viewers' clients to crash, or a glitch exists to duplicate items or money, or where anybody can crash the server to run arbitrary commands.

> Imagine an MMO where special text in the chat causes viewers' clients to crash, or a glitch exists to duplicate items or money, or where anybody can crash the server to run arbitrary commands.

No need to imagine. Pretty much all of that (minus the last part) happened in Amazon’s New World MMO in the first few weeks.

Though I wouldn’t be surprised if the last part did happen and we just didn’t know about it.

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

#319

Post by SkiFire13 »

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

No, and requiring this will likely give the opposition counter points.

You don't need the source code at all. You only need the ability to run the server yourself.

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

#320

Post by aero_code »

Akronymus wrote: post #223
luxuryballs wrote: post #183

This makes the Minecraft model look all that much better than it already was, users pay for an account, the servers are self hosted by the community, as far as I can tell on the surface level Minecraft would already comply with this legislation.

Not quite, afaict. When the auth servers are shut down, you wouldnt be able to play it anymore, even in single player.

In addition to the sibling comment, even Minecraft server has an "online-mode" setting, and if it's set to false, it doesn't authenticate players. Whenever my family has played on LAN, we've never used any auth servers (which is clear because we don't give Minecraft any credentials). The setting only applies to LAN players, but that should be easy enough to work around with a VPN or something.
Post reply on HN