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

431–440 of 452 posts

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

#431

Post by OkayPhysicist »

tehbeard wrote: post #30
hmry wrote: post #4

> Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. No? How would the "rights holders" be in any way liable for someone posting illegal content on a community-hosted server after a game has gone end-of-life? Also, community…

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…

Minecraft's sale to Microsoft had a lot more to do with Notch not being particularly keen on turning down a billion dollar check than anything else.

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

#432

Post by lawlessone »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #423
justinrubek wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inje…

Some people enjoy things you don't , calm down.

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

#433

Post by hellisothers »

Regulation is not a good answer to bad actors when the problem is too vague. All this is going to do is create burdens the big players can skirt cat-and-mouse style while the small guys struggle beneath them (ie regulatory capture).

I don’t have a good solution but this is not it, very open to the idea that this is a clear/tactical solution and I just haven’t thought enough about it though.

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

#434

Post by lawlessone »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #284
skotobaza wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if anyone (including this initiative) requires the release or maintenance of server builds or code, I am against it Why? What do you personally lose because of that?

There is a competitive advantage for being able to hold onto your code and builds. It currently requires quite a lot of effort and skill and persistence to resurrect live service games. This allows us to make money by re-releasing games and remastering them and so on. If you require us to release server builds and or code "while still respecting copyright", the result will be that countries like Russia and China will…

thief

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

#436

Post by lawlessone »

subjectsigma wrote: post #176

Seems pretty obvious to me that if this passes, big game companies will either re-label all new releases as “subscriptions” and/or just never make a single-player game again. And mostly nothing will change. If you don’t like companies like this, don’t buy their games. There’s literally thousands of indie game companies that don’t abuse their users.

>and/or just never make a single-player game again

plenty of companies making single player games now would be fine.

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

#437

Post by valiant55 »

glimshe wrote: post #382
valiant55 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote with your wallet doesn't work when other people still fork over the cash anyway. Look at microtranactions, universally hated, yet developers/publishers make money hand over fist because enough people are willing to pay.

So maybe it's because people are happy with renting games and don't care to keep playing them forever? I'm just wondering if the concern is shared by most consumers. Stop Killing Games could make games more expensive for the people who are happy with the sad status quo - and they could be the majority.

If current events in America have taught us anything is that "most consumers" opinions is of no importance. I want to believe in democracy but when the public education system have been attacked for decades is hard to defer to the popular opion on most things. I think most people, given the time and unbiased information would arrive at the appropriate conclusion but time and access to unbiased information are both in short supply.

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

#438

Post by robertlagrant »

pjerem wrote: post #421
wkat4242 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> 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.

This is definitely true. I don't know if this is true, but my instinct is that it's much harder to create a monopoly if you don't have a government willing to write rules to enforce your existing advantages.

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

#439

Post by archievillain »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #423
justinrubek wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inje…

Well, the difference is that the MMOs are almost uniformly skinner boxes engaging in psychological warfare against each and every person that plays them, while Terraria is the videogame equivalent of going to a museum, seeing a beautiful painting, and remembering that there's endless joy to be found in the world.

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

#440

Post by archievillain »

ryandrake wrote: post #351
anton-c wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that's good.

People don't generally lie for no reason. Companies are interested in obscuring their licensing practices because they believe it might hurt them to be more transparent.

That might not be true. It might turn out that the user base doesn't see the difference between "Rent" and "Buy". But it's the user base's decision to make, not the companies.

So, even if this kind of law has no other effect other than "we use more accurate and truthful language", then it's still a net positive.

Post reply on HN