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

351–360 of 452 posts

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

#351

Post by ryandrake »

anton-c wrote: post #80
dmurray wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this would have any significant impact on the industry. Publishers would just advertise their games as coming with a 2-year subscription, or whatever. People would have the same expectations as now: the game will be supported for a couple of years, and it will be supported much longer if there's an obvious way that is profitable to the developer. No publisher would unilaterally want to start advertising…

Most games won't need it. When every other offline game says "buy" but the games as a service one has to say "rent" for the same price, consumers will notice I think.

I think what people are saying is the opposite would happen. If this initiative makes it into law, nearly every game company will overnight make their games say "Rent" instead of "Buy", so that they can continue with their shitty practice.

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

#352

Post by ryandrake »

cwillu wrote: post #67
meheleventyone wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’ll make licensing more expensive because the net result is more permissive. Or in the hypothetical the content could be removed and replaced with something bespoke or cheaper to licence. But both of these options will make the game more expensive to build overall across its surface area.

If the law is that you can't do this, then those terms will just disappear from licencing agreements. It's not like there's a shortage of textures and sounds in the marketplace.

Yea, I think some people are acting like these "licenses" are physical constants, found in nature and can't be modified! They are made by humans and can be unmade by humans. Regulation could deem those licenses unenforceable. Regulation could force permissive licensing. Regulation could add or remove IP protection. It's all conjured up by humans.

Yes, it is unlikely that legislators, bought and paid for by big corporations, will ever change the rules to reduce help to big corporations, but it's at least humanly possible.

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

#353

Post by ryandrake »

gruturo wrote: post #247
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally every industry now. Shall we "regulate" all industries to be like this, then? Is that achievable? Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point? "That's not what this is about. Ok, where are we heading then?

> Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point? Actually not Netflix as they just offer a monthly subscription and not individual sales, but _YES_ by all means if I "purchase" (not rent!) a book or movie on Amazon (or anyone else), I'd like that, thank you.

I'm sure if movie studios could get together and throw a switch that made every 5+ year old disappear entirely, forcing consumers to keep buying new movies, they would. Just like every car manufacturer would choose to disable every 2+ year old car on the road if they could. Why do we give video game companies this power?

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

#354

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

throw10920 wrote: post #240
theptip wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state. Yeah, I like the general goal, but I worry about the corner cases; is an MMO “functional/playable” if you just release a localhost server? Are we forcing indie shops to pay for servers indefinitely now? Great way to ensure no more indie MMOs get built if that ends up being the text interpretation. And, as you say, the question you should always be asking ab…

> compliance can hit the small guys relatively harder and entrench the big guys This is almost always the case, actually. Regulation and compliance are taxes on the productivity of an organization. And the "shape" of the tax is mostly flat - the burden is sublinear in the size of the organization, so the relative effects on smaller companies are bigger. And smaller companies already have significantly less available…

OTOH an indie dev probably isn't running some massive server farm with 20 linked microservices that would be hard to replicate.

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

#356

Post by ghusto »

I don't disagree, but this is just one symptom of what the video game industry has become.

As someone who hadn't played video games since his youth back in the late 80s, 90s, I was astonished when I tried to get back into it a few years ago.

Kernel-level DRM, online checks, €80+ price tags, incomplete games that require DLC, and all this for rushed unfinished broken games. You keep paying though, so the game companies keep pushing ("if they'll put up with this, what else can we get away with?").

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

#357

Post by ghusto »

josephg wrote: post #126
umvi wrote: post #113

Vote with your wallet, there are thousands of games that don't do shady stuff.

Its not always obvious when you buy them which games will still be around a few years later. Some singleplayer titles from just a few years ago are no longer playable. (Hello, Ubisoft). Meanwhile there are MMOs like guild wars 1, released 20 years ago, still playable today.

It's obvious enough if you buy on Steam. Any game that says it needs it's own DRM or an account with the publisher is a nope.

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

#358

Post by zzo38computer »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #162
calibas wrote: post #137

Video games publishers don't want you to play the same game for too long without spending more money. They don't want to make games like Terraria where you have a $10 game you can play for a thousand hours. They'd much rather you buy multiple $60+ games, plus expansions, "micro"-transactions and subscriptions. They don't want games that last forever, they want to pressure you into constantly buying the next big thing…

This is literally every industry now. Shall we "regulate" all industries to be like this, then? Is that achievable? Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point? "That's not what this is about. Ok, where are we heading then?

> Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point?

No. However, you should be able to make a copy using your own computer (onto the computer or onto an external media such as a DVD) and then you can play the movies that you have copied on your own computer (not necessarily the one used for Netflix) or DVD player. This should be possible without needing to use their software, and it does not mean that their software or their service should need to offer it as an option; it is done on your side. (They can refuse to serve the movie to you faster than the actual duration of the movie if they want to do, though, therefore making it take as much time to copy as it does to watch it normally.)

(However, I am generally opposed to copyright anyways.)

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

#359

Post by ghusto »

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…

This isn't relevant to your points, but thought I'd pipe in to your rhetorical question anyway:

> You want games with real vehicles or licensed music?

The answer is actually no.

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

#360

Post by ghusto »

_9ptr wrote: post #301
skotobaza wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

All the more reason to have games that don't have it then? We could have a modern Sensible Soccer for everyone else who only cares about the gameplay.
Post reply on HN