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

The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

invenglobal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 294 posts

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#81

Post by Akronymus »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #76
Paracompact wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're actually a gamer, and not just an economist speculating on a market you're not exposed to? Because I don't know how to reconcile your comment with my reality. There are tons of live-service single-purchase games, I would even say they the overwhelmingly default model in 2026 compared to WoW-style subscription games. If you want an answer to your "continuous cost without continuous revenue" riddle, the…

There are a bunch of these, and they are silly/unviable. I see a lot more free-to-play than single-purchase live service games, but the latter is a fun additional exploit in that they get you to pay up front for something that they never have any intention to survive long-term. Currently I'm heavily playing both a free-to-play with microtransactions title (Heroes of the Storm) and a subscription title (EVE Online), b…

> Currently I'm heavily playing both a free-to-play with microtransactions title (Heroes of the Storm) and a subscription title (EVE Online), both of which are live service games which would be exempt from this bill by definition, but are both games I would meaningfully like to play even if the companies decided they didn't want to run them anymore. (Yes, I'm aware both games I am playing regularly are old as time itself.)

[emphasis mine]

AFAICT, the MTX would make HOTS not be eligible for the "no monetary considerations" carveout.

Edit, didn't realize you were the same person I replied to on another comment, sorry for repeating myself.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#82

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Akronymus wrote: post #81
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a bunch of these, and they are silly/unviable. I see a lot more free-to-play than single-purchase live service games, but the latter is a fun additional exploit in that they get you to pay up front for something that they never have any intention to survive long-term. Currently I'm heavily playing both a free-to-play with microtransactions title (Heroes of the Storm) and a subscription title (EVE Online), b…

> Currently I'm heavily playing both a free-to-play with microtransactions title (Heroes of the Storm) and a subscription title (EVE Online), both of which are live service games which would be exempt from this bill by definition, but are both games I would meaningfully like to play even if the companies decided they didn't want to run them anymore. (Yes, I'm aware both games I am playing regularly are old as time it…

No worries, I disagree with your read on the text of the bill there, but I can appreciate there being reason for debate. ;)

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#83

Post by wilg »

jnovek wrote: post #80
gwerbin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meaningless feel-good legislation, it's actively harmful by disincentivizing a bad thing, in favor of an even worse thing. See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs.

What will the negative impact of this law be, exactly? Hurting live service games which are already cancer?

No it will make everything a live service game

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#84

Post by Sharlin »

jnovek wrote: post #80
gwerbin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meaningless feel-good legislation, it's actively harmful by disincentivizing a bad thing, in favor of an even worse thing. See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs.

What will the negative impact of this law be, exactly? Hurting live service games which are already cancer?

It incentivizes subscription-based games.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#85

Post by littlecranky67 »

vl wrote: post #61

They are going to do what movie industry is already doing: create shell company for release of each game. Then they will shut down the company when they want, and there will be nobody to come for.

So nobody to come after you for copyright violation if you run a community-patched (a.k.a. cracked) version of the game?

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#86

Post by agoodusername63 »

jnovek wrote: post #80
gwerbin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meaningless feel-good legislation, it's actively harmful by disincentivizing a bad thing, in favor of an even worse thing. See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs.

What will the negative impact of this law be, exactly? Hurting live service games which are already cancer?

> However, it excludes games provided via subscription services, free-to-play games, and games that are inherently playable offline indefinitely.

Live service games overwhelmingly fall into exactly this category. If anything they're being incentivized over making a game that has an online multiplayer but focus being singleplayer or anything intended to be released and moved on from.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#88

Post by kodt »

Akronymus wrote: post #55
charcircuit wrote: post #25

So just make every game free to play and then require a paying to unlock the actual game.

That'd IMO count as a monetary consideration, and thus not be excempt.

I wonder if making the game free to play before shut down would allow them to skirt the law?

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#89

Post by Akronymus »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #82
Akronymus wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Currently I'm heavily playing both a free-to-play with microtransactions title (Heroes of the Storm) and a subscription title (EVE Online), both of which are live service games which would be exempt from this bill by definition, but are both games I would meaningfully like to play even if the companies decided they didn't want to run them anymore. (Yes, I'm aware both games I am playing regularly are old as time it…

No worries, I disagree with your read on the text of the bill there, but I can appreciate there being reason for debate. ;)

I can absolutely see how you came to your interpretation. Thanks for being so cordial.

This definitely has to be ruled on to know one way or another for sure.

Re: The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'

#90

Post by jnovek »

tyleo wrote: post #68
vl wrote: post #61

They are going to do what movie industry is already doing: create shell company for release of each game. Then they will shut down the company when they want, and there will be nobody to come for.

I mentioned this in a separate thread. It seems like a huge risk to release an online game if you don't do this now. A single bad game can take down a studio. Now there's even more risk because a previously successful game may come with a big bill in the future if you have to do refunds or some late architecture change when you instead want to take a product down to save money.

Perhaps they should just write games in a way where they can actually release server code when they it shuts down?
Post reply on HN