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

391–400 of 452 posts

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

#391

Post by vrighter »

Levitating wrote: post #331
TheFreim wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now this proposal requires you to also continually release your server code. This is not accurate. From the FAQ: > Q: Won't this consumer action result in the end of "live service" games? > A: No, the market demand and profitability of these games means the video games industry has an ongoing interest in selling these. Since our proposals do not interfere with existing business models, these types of games can rema…

I was actually reading the FAQ just now. From my understanding, a company does not have to release a private server alongside the client while the official servers are live, what I said previously was inaccurate. But when the official servers are closed, they are required to provide them. However, I don't see how a bankrupt studio can release their server code when they don't have enough money to keep their servers r…

Then you design for it up front. There is nothing that stipulates that the eol build has to be developed right at the end.

Then if they go bankrupt, the job is already done. It isn't more work, it's just knowing a feature needs to be implemented, and knowing that before you even start.

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

#392

Post by vrighter »

theptip wrote: post #286
SpaghettiCthulu wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is an MMO “functional/playable” if you just release a localhost server? Are we forcing indie shops to pay for servers indefinitely now? The man behind Stop Killing Games has made it perfectly clear that they do not want to force game developers to continue operating servers. Rather, as you suggest, releasing server binaries would be acceptable. Although a mere "localhost" server would likely not be sufficient, beca…

> I think it would be reasonable to require developers to release online multiplayer capable server binaries. Not a game dev but would there be concerns about forcing devs to ship binaries for a codebase that was previously purely SaaS and proprietary, and likely containing logic that is a reusable for future games? The edge cases here seem a little gnarly. (Maybe it’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, ho…

The game itself also contains code that might be reusable for a future project. Among other things, the game engine itself. They have no problem shipping that to people though? Why is server code any different?

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

#393

Post by thrance »

throw10920 wrote: post #375
thrance wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not understand that the people on HN, you and me included, are far from the average consumer? We care about things most people really don't.

They said: > I don't care how smart you are, how much self control you have, whatever, in the face of billions of dollars, voting with your wallet does not stand a chance. The house always wins. Yes, you're totally right that HN users are far from the average consumer, but they weren't talking about the average consumer - they were making a categorical statement that all consumers have no self-agency and are mind-con…

That's a ludicrously ungenerous interpretation of what they said. Of course they weren't making an ontological claim. And I'm sure you know that too.

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

#394

Post by maverwa »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #85
tehbeard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. Mojang (creators of Minecraft ) is an unfortunate good case study for this. It's sale to Microsoft is in part down to not being able to balance freedom for server owners and the PR issues caused by people scamming others, in this case children, while obscuring it under the Minecraft…

> Because parents and the general public won't see that it's Bob's private server for $game. They see $game_name by $developer/publisher. That isn't how liability works. The judge isn't going to let you sue the wrong person because you're confused.

Not legaly liable, but the "court of popular opinion" cares very little about facts, details, or legal entities.

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

#395

Post by ranguna »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #239
shminge wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy a smart fridge and the company that made them suddenly decided to turn them all off, then I'd definitely like the ability to turn mine back on, yes. And no, there's no expectation of source code. That's been covered many times.

How can we ensure that if we legislate the games industry, then we also legislate all other industries with no special carve outs? That would make me much more supportive.

We'll do so, one at a time.

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

#396

Post by anon12512 »

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…

Collaboration with real world brands seem to have real issues like this. However I don't see how your examples apply or extrapolate to the rest of games out there.

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

#397

Post by dijit »

anon12512 wrote: post #396
dijit wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Collaboration with real world brands seem to have real issues like this. However I don't see how your examples apply or extrapolate to the rest of games out there.

My bad, let me try to be clearer;

Working with external brands is an obvious example of third party licenses that, as a consumer, you can perceive.

Games are made of hundreds (maybe even thousands) of these licenses that you will have trouble perceiving; Sound effects, certain harmonics, programatic audio cues (as a technology), procedural generation and even likenesses are non-perpetual in nature.

The landscape of artistic works is mired in copyrights, the more art the more likely you get too close to someones copyright even if you have an entirely home-built texture, it might look inspired by another texture and thus litigious individuals can request royalties: royalties which will come with their own restrictions.

I’m not saying that its impossible to comply, merely outlining the current state of things. If licenses won’t be granted but copyrights are maintained then it will be extremely burdensome for developing games that are large- as the risk and operational overhead will be quite punishing.

For what its worth; I’m all for the movement of stop killing games, but people seem to have this notion that its game developers doing it out of spite in order not to cannibalise future sales, when in reality developers would prefer to release more games with more innovative ideas. The issue is that games, by default, don’t exist; and making them exist is a perilous journey so fraught with failures that I am personally surprised we have any games, yet so many. Everyone wants a slice when its successful and eventually theres nothing left, spending time one this will come from somewhere else and in all likelihood certain things will become impossible due to license holders not permitting use of their works nor something that is similar.

You might thing you’re giving developers power to fight but we’re stuck in the middle and they don’t give a shit, they want their 30 pieces of silver and we don’t have a product if we can’t find a way to work within their parameters.

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

#398

Post by immibis »

cornstalks wrote: post #246
SamuelAdams wrote: post #205

At a macro level, killed games are a good thing for gaming companies. It creates a shortage of playable games so that new games sell and continue to make money. The biggest competitor to the video game industry is movies (Netflix, Disney plus, etc) and past games. Think about it - what does the gaming industry look like 100 years from today? If players can play thousands of high quality games for free, why bother pay…

> At a macro level, killed games are a good thing for gaming companies. But they aren’t good for consumers.

Who cares? This is capitalism, it's all about capital, not consumers. Good for capital == will happen.

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

#399

Post by 63stack »

mystraline wrote: post #148
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…

[flagged]

BG3 has extensive modding support to the point where people released mods that turn it from a "classical" rpg to a roguelike.

BG3 has public lobbies, private lobbies, and *all* games are hosted locally on the hoster's computer, can be played through LAN without internet. It also has split screen coop.

Nothing you said about BG3 has an ounce of truth to it, and it is one of the most consumer friendly games in a sea of anticonsumer garbage. Are you trying to discredit Larian for some reason?

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

#400

Post by lofaszvanitt »

To be honest... in the last 10 years, there were maybe 1 or 2 AAA games I revisited and played multiple times. The quality is getting worse and worse. Every game steals/implements well known, 20 year old mechanics from other games, the story is for 12 year olds, same old shit repeated again and again. Basically aggressive, spoiled children in adult body commandeer 100s of people and create these godawful monstrosities.
Post reply on HN