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

441–450 of 452 posts

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

#441

Post by LocalH »

Mindwipe wrote: post #71
LocalH wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to that is simple, and has been used by other media (to the chagrin of fans of course). When it comes time to "kill" the game, make a final update to strip all such licensed material out of the game. The companies that develop and publish games amortize plenty of things out into multiple years. That's why live service is so increasingly common. The same developers and publishers should also factor in that…

So if they strip the libraries out and the server cannot run id that okay?

They shouldn't use libraries that don't allow them to release a server at the official game's sunset. There's been a lot of rhetoric from the publishers about "developer choice", which is really publisher's choice, but that's the whole problem. They are choosing to make games with a hard shelf life, and that's contrary to the copyright regimes of most jurisdictions that have some sort of eventual public domain mechanism. What's the use of a public domain if the work is intentionally destroyed by that point. I consider that theft from the public, in a way that mere copyright infringement can never equate to.

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

#442

Post by Levitating »

aranelsurion wrote: post #424
Levitating wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Let’s say bankrupt studios are off the hook.

We can "say" this, but it would need to be part of the proposal. To be honest I haven't read the proposal, just the FAQ. But I would expect some nuance to be added to protect small studios.

Like I said in my first comment, I feel like this proposal is just targeting studios like EA. And I am sure it works well for that. Though personally I would've hoped that consumers would just stop buying EA games.

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

#443

Post by sdiupIGPWEfh »

umvi wrote: post #113

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

Everywhere, license agreements that can be changed by the company at any time, pretty much for every game developer that can afford a lawyer to write up said license agreement. They could all start doing shady stuff at any time. Might still leave thousands of games, but they add up to a drop in the bucket of the overall market.

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

#444

Post by lofaszvanitt »

lawlessone wrote: post #432
lofaszvanitt wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm calm. All I'm saying is that 5-10 years of exposure to a game is more than enough.

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

#445

Post by ycombinatrix »

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.

What you just described is a massive improvement over the status quo.

Today, I have no idea when the game I just purchased is going to be disabled.

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

#446

Post by chithanh »

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 is totally fine, as long as people know what they are investing their time and money into.

I know that some years back, getting your mobile phone financed on two-year contracts was a normal thing. But it was a debt trap for consumers. Some EU countries noticed, and now carriers have to declare such contracts a consumer credit, and need to afford the same consumer protection to their customers as banks have for loans (in Netherlands for example registering with the BKR).

So carriers can still do that but they cannot pretend it's not a loan.

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

#447

Post by chithanh »

Mindwipe wrote: post #72
chithanh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, even if the licensing agreement between the developer and the car maker ends, then according to first sale doctrine, the game buyers keep the licensed content. Removing it from user systems would be undue (but admittedly has happened such as with the in-game music in GTA).

There is no first sale doctrine in Europe, and nor does the US one apply to digitally distributed content.

Directive 2009/24/EC clearly makes reference to the first sale doctrine in Article 4

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

#448

Post by chithanh »

meheleventyone wrote: post #65
chithanh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, even if the licensing agreement between the developer and the car maker ends, then according to first sale doctrine, the game buyers keep the licensed content. Removing it from user systems would be undue (but admittedly has happened such as with the in-game music in GTA).

The reason for that is that the game is continuing to be distributed and the nature of digital distribution is ephemeral so contents like music are removed from the distribution when the license expires. If you own the game on physical media or remove the connection to the digital distribution service (never patch it) then as a consumer you’re fine as you note with the first sale doctrine. It’s just legally the devel…

That is not how it works. When car licenses expire then you can still download the racing games in your library from Steam etc., even after new sales are discontinued. You are already the owner of the licensed content and you get access to it anytime.

Steam even says that in the event of that they go out of business, measures are in place to ensure gamers' continued access to their games.

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

#450

Post by SentientNo4 »

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…

It's time you stop telling people how to enjoy things.
Post reply on HN