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

421–430 of 452 posts

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

#421

Post by pjerem »

wkat4242 wrote: post #416
pjerem wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the American/capitalist thinking : the market should sort itself out against bad actors.

Yeah and it doesn't work because the market isn't really free. Becoming a AAA game publisher requires so much money that has so many strings attached that there is no concept of a real free market. Personally I don't believe a real free market can exist anyway. There always has to be a balance between socialism and capitalism. All the big publishers are bound by these strings such as the wish for more recurring reven…

> Personally I don't believe a real free market can exist anyway. There always has to be a balance between socialism and capitalism.

I 100% share this but I can’t understand how even the most capitalist (ideologically) person in the world would not want to create rules to at least avoid actors to become too big.

Monopolies are a bug of the capitalism and they break it from the inside. When monopolies aren’t kept at bay, you aren’t even in capitalism anymore.

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

#422

Post by surgical_fire »

joseda-hg wrote: post #411
surgical_fire wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content You start your argument from a presumption that releasing an offline game is almost an impossibility. Are you trying yo argue that offline games have zero things licensed? This sounds like a major argument in favor of offline games. Sounds to me that the simple solution is just stop licensing things wi…

For some people that's true, But I've played with people that for example, slightly prefered PES Gameplay but just would refuse to play without a proper Real Madrid Team In my experience, the more casual the player the more this mattered to them, but it was still a huge market

> just would refuse to play without a proper Real Madrid Team

Interestingly enough, I used to be an avid Football Manager player, where real teams/players is an important deal.

I can still download Football Manager 2010 (that is not available for purchase anymore), and I can play with Borussia Dortmund with all 2010 players without any issues.

If they could figure out how to properly license those teams/players so that the game is not dead in 2025 (considering how much anal football teams/leagues are with licensing deals), I am sure that racing games (and others) can figure it out as well.

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

#423

Post by lofaszvanitt »

justinrubek wrote: post #414
lofaszvanitt wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want to spend 1000s of hours in a game? That must be eradicated with fire. Time is your most precious resource... why waste it on one game? Games need to be shorter, maybe 20 hrs or so for high budget single player games.

I detest this line of thinking. There are plenty of games that are playable for this length of time. I've played hundreds of hours of Factorio, and I am not even close to exhausting the experience. Terraria was a fine example, too.

It's time to learn how to let go of something that is akin to an addictive substance. I also spent countless hours playing MMOs. While I have fond memories of them, I was relieved when I managed to stop playing these exploitative games.

I agree that single player games and the day zero patch shenanigans must go in order to preserve them. But otherwise, I'm glad that after long years most of these games cannot be injected into your bloodstream anymore.

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

#424

Post by aranelsurion »

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…

> However, I don't see how a bankrupt studio can release their server code

This feels like trying to poke small holes for no reason.

Let’s say bankrupt studios are off the hook. What then? Most games still be saved. EA just announced they are killing Anthem in 2026. EA won’t be bankrupt next year. There you have one game already immortalized thanks to regulation.

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

#425

Post by aranelsurion »

umvi wrote: post #113

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

> Vote with your wallet

The ratio of me hearing this vs. seeing it actually affect change is maybe 10000:1 at this point.

Why not just vote with your vote instead.

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

#426

Post by thunderfork »

ryandrake wrote: post #348
archagon wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s absurd. I can still pop in my Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater CD from decades ago and listen to the original soundtrack. TTL licensing should be illegal.

Yea, nobody seems to be addressing this: Content never expiring was the default for many years, when games shipped on physical media. Industry defenders are acting like this is impossible, where it routinely happened for a long time.

[dead]

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

#427

Post by DrillShopper »

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 "regulate" all industries to be like this, then?

Don't threaten me with a good time

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

#428

Post by DrillShopper »

aranelsurion wrote: post #425
umvi wrote: post #113

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

> Vote with your wallet The ratio of me hearing this vs. seeing it actually affect change is maybe 10000:1 at this point. Why not just vote with your vote instead.

Anyone saying "vote with your wallet" is implicitly saying billionaires deserve more say in the world than you do since they have so much more in their wallet.

Tell them to fuck off.

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

#429

Post by thunderfork »

tetris11 wrote: post #124
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…

how did they do it in the past? If I can put my Tony Hawks cd from the PS2 into a cd player and enjoy all the DRM music, what changed between now and then? If music labels refuse to license out their songs like that, then if this law passes, they're going to have to suck it up and play nice again, else lose customers/publishers.

[dead]

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

#430

Post by antonkochubey »

robertlagrant wrote: post #412
Hamuko wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can just not buy it Did Ubisoft clearly advertise the fact that the game would stop functioning entirely in the future when it was selling it?

Hence: > the better way to do this is to have industry standards similar to PEGI that describe the game's future support, not to hit them with EU-specific regulations.

Coincidentally EU regulations are quite good at creating new industry standards
Post reply on HN