Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 506 posts

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#461

Post by account42 »

jayd16 wrote: post #214
parliament32 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming might be unique in the sense that it's the only industry where 1) consumers make a one-time purchase of a product, but then 2) the manufacturer remains responsible for the online component.. forever? I can't think of any other examples in real life where this happens across an industry (maybe a few niche products). Maybe this is the reason MS has been pushing Game Pass so hard, to get rid of the "purchase" par…

It's more like it's the only software industry that still has a relevant amount of non-subscription based one time sales. I guess this will be the end of that.

Or maybe it will allow those developers that still provide fully offline games to more easily compete now that others with less consumer friendly business models are forced to make their deal more clear to the customer.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#462

Post by account42 »

roarcher wrote: post #263
georgeecollins wrote: post #40

It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to. I also really support giving 60 day notice if an online game is going to shut down. Places I have worked have had policies like that for games they are sun setting and I think the best game publishers th…

I think this is a more desirable solution for customers than a refund anyway--if I like a game, I don't want my $60 back in exchange for never being able to play it again. I just want to keep playing it.

Yes, the $60 is nothing compared to your time investment into a game you like.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#463

Post by account42 »

Thaxll wrote: post #167
pointlessone wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the insurmountable obstacles to releasing the server code for the community to run?

Do you think any compagny would want to release some very sensitive / secret sauce code?

Most sauce code is actually banal and boring no matter what the company executives tell themselves about their proprietary dung pile.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#464

Post by account42 »

mrandish wrote: post #85

I doubt it's possible for legislation to mandate meaningful compliance regarding something as dynamic and rapidly evolving as online games. Despite good intentions, such legislation often results in unintended consequences including distorting the market, creating perverse incentives or even making the problem worse. Serious problems are already apparent. Games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription." a…

> Serious problems are already apparent. Games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription." aren't regulated, which will greatly accelerate the death of perpetual licensing. A world where no games are available for outright purchase and offline use would be disastrous for players and historical preservation.

No, without legal guarantees that perpetual licensing actually means perpetual availability there is actually no such thing. All this would change would force companies to accurately advertise the contract their are intending to honor, thus allowing more honest companies to compete.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#465

Post by account42 »

knollimar wrote: post #372
grayhatter wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt it's possible for legislation to mandate meaningful compliance regarding something as dynamic and rapidly evolving as online games. Despite good intentions, such legislation often results in unintended consequences including distorting the market, creating perverse incentives or even making the problem worse. I believe it's possible to write laws that serve the people they're supposed to protect. It may tak…

"It may take iteration, but you have to start somewhere." It's hitting the assembly floor. Whether this is good depends, imo, entirely on indie carveouts for revenue. I'm afraid of shortsighted legislation like certain sections of DMCA. Talking about the problems now is important. "Add this or the harm is worth more than the benefit" isn't a blanket refutation, but it is a refutation of the existing bill

The DMCA does exactly what its proponents wanted. That is is a bad deal for society as a whole is another issue but this does not invalidate the entire concept of addressing injustices with new laws.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#466

Post by account42 »

auggierose wrote: post #306
fyredge wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unintended consequences is the price of progress. The alternative is to continue farming by hand, and carry after from the river for your daily needs. We legislate away unintended consequences, that is the job of government. We put in laws and remove them if they are unsuitable. Analysis paralysis does no one any good.

I don't see how you can legislate away a move to subscriptions. That's not unintended consequences, that is an entirely foreseeable and direct consequence.

Games that are sunset without a way for the players to continue playing it are already effectively subscriptions. The whole point is to force companies to stick to what they are selling. Having companies advertise their games correctly would be a win as it would give their already honest competition making games that you can actually play indefinitely a huge advantage compared to the current situation.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#467

Post by account42 »

smalley wrote: post #30

This appears to treat subscription style games and free to play with in game purchases differently than other games. I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

Another way to phrase this would be that games that are already effectively a long term subscription with an unspecified period would need to be more clear about the deal they are offering. That's already a good outcome as it would improve the ability of actually perpetually available game purchases to compete.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#468

Post by account42 »

traderj0e wrote: post #118
sheept wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction makes sense, but I wonder if the bill will inadvertently incentivize games to move to subscription based models, which would be ultimately be a worse experience for consumers.

It would basically mandate subscription model for online games. Also wonder if it'd introduce legal risk for online mode in a game that also has local play, say Call of Duty or the newer Super Smash Bros, or if "ordinary use" is clearly not that.

No it would not basically mandate it. Providing server binaries for the community to run is not just an entirely reasonable thing to do, it used to be industry standard before companies learned they could maximized profits by keeping more control.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#469

Post by account42 »

Akronymus wrote: post #180
traderj0e wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I didn't mean open source, it can be a binary (if applicable), but same problem, they'd need to provide a way to run the online servers locally. The third option is a refund, which isn't feasible.

Or patch out the online requirements. In many cases, the only real online requirement is a license key check. Also the refund is, afaict, intended to be essentially a last resort option to make the customer as whole as possible.

The refund alternative is also important to give the courts guidance for the monetary damages to consider if a company does not comply.

Re: Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

#470

Post by account42 »

swathsofgrass wrote: post #323
smalley wrote: post #30

This appears to treat subscription style games and free to play with in game purchases differently than other games. I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

Subscriptions in games would be the death of gaming imo.

"Subscriptions" are already what you have when companies are allowed to shut down games whenever they want more money from you.
Post reply on HN