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

91–100 of 452 posts

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

#91

Post by surgical_fire »

meheleventyone wrote: post #81
surgical_fire wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With online distribution games can be made unavailable for purchase. You are not distributing it anymore. Only people that previously purchased can still download the game. There are multiple such cases in stores such as Steam or GoG. I own games that are not available for purchase anymore. Those games were not killed. I can still download and play them.

Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.

If the licensing agreement does not differentiate in between "customers purchasing new copies" and "previously purchasing copies being available" then therein lies the problem.

Looks like the possibility of regulations will fix that. That in the Year of our Lord 2025, when online channels are many times the only possibility of purchasing a game, licensing agreements do not cover that, it seems that proper regulation is very much necessary.

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

#92

Post by blamestross »

dmurray wrote: post #60
chithanh wrote: post #52

I don't buy these arguments. If game developers don't want to sell games that way then don't. Sell subscriptions instead. Like instead of $60 for a game, $60 one-time fee for a two-year subscription, which afterwards renews automatically in 3 months intervals at no cost until further notice . Same applies to all paid in-game content. That way the developers can continue offering both games and subscriptions where eac…

I don't think this would have any significant impact on the industry. Publishers would just advertise their games as coming with a 2-year subscription, or whatever. People would have the same expectations as now: the game will be supported for a couple of years, and it will be supported much longer if there's an obvious way that is profitable to the developer. No publisher would unilaterally want to start advertising…

> People would have the same expectations as now

If that premise was true, why would misleading advertisement be the norm right now? Why bother?

Changing it to a subscription WOULD change perception. Most people don't understand the current status quo. When they do know, it would create a market pressure for real game ownership.

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

#93

Post by danaris »

dgellow wrote: post #43
pointlessone wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saas offerings are safe as they don’t let you Buy a thing. They’re very transparently a service. Same with timed licenses. It’s clear what you’re paying for. Most of the time. With games it’s often not the case. You buy them and then at unspecified moment you might lose a significant portion of functionality or the whole game. At the time you buy a game you don’t know if it’s for a time, what time, or what will stop…

When I bought WoW it was very clear to me I was buying a service. If blizzard decided after 2 years it wasn’t sustainable and to shut down the game at no point would I be entitled to own it. It was clearly a license to access their service, as long as it exists. Same for any other MMORPG

And what about a single-player game that relies on the company's server being online in order to allow you to play it?

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

#94

Post by meheleventyone »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #86
meheleventyone wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.

You've signed a pretty shoddy license agreement if it requires you to refund all your customers, in full , after a few years. That's just bad business.

If you’re saying that a change like SKG would lead to developers needing to take a perpetual license then you should say that rather than alluding to it with a non-sequitur like this.

If that’s what you mean then I’d say maybe but doing so would definitely increase the cost and complexity in using licensed content. Which is likely to be passed on.

Interestingly though reading the EU petition and the petition authors views it would be fine to remove the content once the licence expired.

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

#95

Post by wizzwizz4 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #94
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've signed a pretty shoddy license agreement if it requires you to refund all your customers, in full , after a few years. That's just bad business.

If you’re saying that a change like SKG would lead to developers needing to take a perpetual license then you should say that rather than alluding to it with a non-sequitur like this. If that’s what you mean then I’d say maybe but doing so would definitely increase the cost and complexity in using licensed content. Which is likely to be passed on. Interestingly though reading the EU petition and the petition authors…

Developers already need to license whatever they're licensing in perpetuity, since they need to sublicense to the people who buy their games (regardless of format). Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell you the physical media. Licenses aren't yes/no affairs.

Stop Killing Games doesn't change this in any way.

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

#96

Post by meheleventyone »

surgical_fire wrote: post #91
meheleventyone wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.

If the licensing agreement does not differentiate in between "customers purchasing new copies" and "previously purchasing copies being available" then therein lies the problem. Looks like the possibility of regulations will fix that. That in the Year of our Lord 2025, when online channels are many times the only possibility of purchasing a game, licensing agreements do not cover that, it seems that proper regulation…

That’s because distribution is seperate from sale. For example Spotify has a license to distribute music but not sell it.

I suspect if you’re expecting to undo decades of IP law with this then you’ll be disappointed. I also suspect that the requirement to be functional rather than complete could also mean as long as the game continued to work removing the content would be fine.

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

#97

Post by meheleventyone »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #95
meheleventyone wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re saying that a change like SKG would lead to developers needing to take a perpetual license then you should say that rather than alluding to it with a non-sequitur like this. If that’s what you mean then I’d say maybe but doing so would definitely increase the cost and complexity in using licensed content. Which is likely to be passed on. Interestingly though reading the EU petition and the petition authors…

Developers already need to license whatever they're licensing in perpetuity, since they need to sublicense to the people who buy their games (regardless of format). Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell you the physical media. Licenses aren't yes/no affairs. Stop Killing Games doesn't change this in any way.

No they don’t need perpetual licenses for physical copies. They just need to stop distributing physical copies when they lose the license. For example a reissue of a rhythm-action game (or a release on another platform) might be missing songs from previous releases of the same title. The issue with digital distribution is that you can’t redistribute the content once the license has expired. So if someone needs to redownload the game for whatever reason then they can’t provide content they no longer have a license for.

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

#98

Post by wizzwizz4 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #97
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers already need to license whatever they're licensing in perpetuity, since they need to sublicense to the people who buy their games (regardless of format). Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell you the physical media. Licenses aren't yes/no affairs. Stop Killing Games doesn't change this in any way.

No they don’t need perpetual licenses for physical copies. They just need to stop distributing physical copies when they lose the license. For example a reissue of a rhythm-action game (or a release on another platform) might be missing songs from previous releases of the same title. The issue with digital distribution is that you can’t redistribute the content once the license has expired. So if someone needs to red…

They need the ability to grant perpetual licenses.

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

#99

Post by watwut »

dmurray wrote: post #60
chithanh wrote: post #52

I don't buy these arguments. If game developers don't want to sell games that way then don't. Sell subscriptions instead. Like instead of $60 for a game, $60 one-time fee for a two-year subscription, which afterwards renews automatically in 3 months intervals at no cost until further notice . Same applies to all paid in-game content. That way the developers can continue offering both games and subscriptions where eac…

I don't think this would have any significant impact on the industry. Publishers would just advertise their games as coming with a 2-year subscription, or whatever. People would have the same expectations as now: the game will be supported for a couple of years, and it will be supported much longer if there's an obvious way that is profitable to the developer. No publisher would unilaterally want to start advertising…

I dont think this is true. If publishers advertized 2 year license, some people would decide to not buy the license. The exact reason why they insist on calling it "buying".

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

#100

Post by meheleventyone »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #98
meheleventyone wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don’t need perpetual licenses for physical copies. They just need to stop distributing physical copies when they lose the license. For example a reissue of a rhythm-action game (or a release on another platform) might be missing songs from previous releases of the same title. The issue with digital distribution is that you can’t redistribute the content once the license has expired. So if someone needs to red…

They need the ability to grant perpetual licenses.

We’re talking about distribution so maybe you’ve come in to the conversation in a weird way there. To be clear the developer cannot continue to distribute content they no longer have rights to. With physical media you don’t go back to the publisher to get new copies but with digital media you do. And hence falls foul of changes in distribution rights.
Post reply on HN