wsve
I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation
this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this
regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive
in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam
dunk.Yes, you would have to make sure your server
application adheres to software licenses before release,
just like you do with the client application, or any other
piece of software a company may use or release. What
popular libraries are we concerned about no longer being
usable because of this? Remember, this is server
architecture. Networking libraries? ENet is distributable,
so is Valve's GameNetworkingSockets.Yes, it'd ask
developers to write their servers with this
possible/inevitable transition in mind. Developers will
plan ahead for that, and I have a very hard time imagining
the server architecture would change much at all. A
dedicated company-owned server is just a beefier home
computer with load balancers and matchmaking. Drop those
two, slap a server list on the client, and you're
golden.This is great news!
|
> pibaker
What is irrational in pointing out that this
particular law, as it is written, gives the game
developers a perverse incentive to further embrace
more exploitive revenue models such as free to play
and subscription based services? The technical
implementation is irrelevant. It is the business side
of things that you should actually worry about.If
anything, some people seem to have this weird faith in
regulation that makes them think if some politician is
promising to fix something via legislation, then it
will get fixed, regardless of how the law is actually
written or how it will work out in practice.
California in particular is full of regulations that
feel good but are either ineffective or has unintended
consequences. See prop 65 which litters the state with
vaguely worded warning messages that provide next to
zero useful information, or prop 13 which massively
disincentivizes home building and effectively makes
new homeowners subsidize the property taxes of those
who bought before them.You can be supportive of
regulations. I am supportive of many regulations. But
I don't just support a regulation because it is great
news that makes me feel warm and fluffy. I want well
thought out regulations that don't neuter themselves
with exemptions and don't easily lead to undesirable
consequences. If this makes me an irrational anti
regulation crusader, then off to Antioch, CA I shall
go.
|
> > wsve
> gives the game developers a perverse incentive
to further embrace more exploitive revenue models
such as free to play and subscription based
services?This is what I fail to see an explanation
of anywhere in these comments. WHY would this law
make a subscriber-based revenue model so much more
enticing? WHY would this law make single-purchase
games with multiplayer servers suddenly so
non-viable from a business perspective?The latent
assumption I keep seeing is that the mere
existence of a regulation in an area will drive
people away from that model, but that's simply not
how businesses operate. It's a cost/benefit
analysis. So what is the cost?
|
> > > ang_cire
Yep, this is the "higher taxes will drive new
yorkers to florida!" fear-mongering (sometime,
sadly, even by people who don't actually know
better but automatically shill for
companies).There are so many games (like
Hitman: WoA, which I love btw) that "require"
online access in order to provide the same
functions that previous games by the same devs
provided fully offline (e.g. keeping track of
your weapon unlocks).This is just clawing back
some of the consumer protections that the
"we're not selling you a product, we're
selling you a temporary and arbitrary license
that we reserve all rights over" BS snuck
around.
|
> > > > rafram
In both cases, it's true. Higher taxes
will drive some New Yorkers to Florida!
That's why the state government has to
research the impact of a tax increase and
set the brackets at a point where the
amount they bring in, after subtracting
lost revenue from people who move away, is
maximized. A sensible tax increase won't
drive many New Yorkers to Florida, and
it'll make up for the few who do leave.In
this case, studios will need to do the
same calculation with the cost to package
and release server software / the income
they'll lose from going to a subscription
model.
|
> > > > > ang_cire
'Some' is a meaningless non-metric.
Some people do anything.Actual studies
[1] show that the rich are not moving
in response to wealth taxes, and in
fact when they do move, it's almost
never due to taxes.> As we get more
data on the post-pandemic period, we
increase our knowledge of the major
upheavals
that took place in New York between
2020 and 2022. Despite the state
suffering a deep recession and massive
out-migration during the pandemic,
data show that New York's tax base
remains resilient. When taxes on
millionaire earners were raised in
2021, tax revenue to the state
increased by an estimated $3.6 billion
and there was no detectable increase
in high earner out-migration.1:
https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/up
loads/2025/10/20251009...
|
> > > > > > rafram
I'm not sure why you're trying to
argue against the idea that people
tend to gravitate toward the
cheapest option.
|
> > > > > > ang_cire
Because they don't?Do you eat at
the cheapest restaurant every day?
Do you think that every Michelin
Star restaurant immediately fails
and shutters? Do you think
everyone buys the $80 prepaid flip
phones, and no one actually buys
the $700+ iPhones?Most people
don't gravitate towards the
cheapest option (in fact, many
people find the cheapest option
automatically suspect and won't
buy it), but rather want a balance
of affordable and desirable. No
one living in NYC is doing it
because they're gravitating
towards the cheapest option in the
first place, they're there because
it has a high level of
desirability comparative to its
cost, even as expensive as it is.
|
> > > > Vaslo
Your example about New York and Florida is
a terrible one because it's true
statement. Why would you use that example?
Are you saying it's not true (demonstrably
true with residential data)? Or are you
saying it's happening but not to the
extent that the fear-mongerers express it?
|
> > > > > ang_cire
You're wrong. There is no wealth-tax
based mass migration of the wealthy
from NYC to Florida.1)
https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/up
loads/2025/10/20251009...> As we get
more data on the post-pandemic period,
we increase our knowledge of the major
upheavals
that took place in New York between
2020 and 2022. Despite the state
suffering a deep recession and massive
out-migration during the pandemic,
data show that New York's tax base
remains resilient. When taxes on
millionaire earners were raised in
2021, tax revenue to the state
increased by an estimated $3.6 billion
and there was no detectable increase
in high earner out-migration.
|
> > > rafram
Because the law specifically exempts
subscription-based revenue models, so they
become more attractive than they currently are
by definition.
|
> > > > wsve
> so they become more attractive than they
currently are by definition.Please reread
my comment. You're doing the exact same
thing. You're saying this like it's a
given, but it is not. WHY would it be more
attractive?
|
> > > > > jcranmer
Because doing so gets them out of
obligations to release tools that may
be difficult-to-impossible to release
to comply with the law.
|
> > > > > > Rohansi
Sure, but it's not actually easy
to just change your pricing model.
Most gamers do not want to pay
subscriptions even though they
would pay for DLC and
battlepasses. Free-to-play needs
microtransactions that people
actually buy so they tend to be
pay-to-win or convenience items
(inventory/bank space) that punish
free players.
|
> > > > > > wsve
Why would releasing your server
executable as a standalone be
difficult to impossible to comply
with the law? Many games already
do this
|
> > > > > rafram
Because the alternative now costs
more.That is just a basic function of
human decision-making. If there are
two options, and one becomes more
expensive, it will become more common
to pick the other. It very slightly
tips the balance toward the option
that hasn't become more expensive.
|
> > > > > > wsve
Please reread my initial comment.
That's the assumption everyone is
making, but WHY would it actually
cost so much more? What's so much
more expensive? Some games already
do this, why would it be so much
more expensive for others?
|
> > > > > > rafram
I can only reread your initial
comment so many times. You're
still incorrect.Yes, a small
subset of games have downloadable
server software; the ones that do
are able to do so because it's
self-contained and unencumbered by
proprietary components that can't
be redistributed.Most games don't,
and they won't be able
to.Licensing restrictions aside,
how are you supposed to package a
modern microservice-based network
of servers into a single package
that can be run on consumer
hardware? And abstract over the
specifics of the cloud environment
you targeted so it can be run
elsewhere? It's pretty much a
nonstarter.
|
> > > > > > wsve
Consider the infrastructure you're
talking about. What parts of the
game service would need to be
implemented with micro services
and/or calls to a cloud computing
and storage? It would be
matchmaking, storefronts, news
updates, etc.Running a single
dedicated server on a home
computer to play with whatever
community you've curated requires
none of these. Any sane game
server architecture would already
be essentially a single executable
since you want performance and
synchronicity within a single
"match" or "world".You say most
games won't be able to release
server software. Can you provide
an example of a game which could
not possibly be disentangled from
its cloud architecture? I'm having
trouble thinking of any
|
> > > > customguy
Subscription models and micro-transactions
are already infinitely attractive for
those who are solely out for profit and
rent-seeking, so it changes nothing
material there. It doesn't make
subscription models more attractive to
gamers either. But it makes
non-subscription games vastly more
attractive:Previously, non-subscription
games were a gamble, even if the company
had the best track record in the world,
even if you know the whole team
personally. They still could get bought or
something like that, and then all of that
is moot.Now, you can be somewhat sure that
the multiplayer game you buy today will be
playable for as long as there are people
who want to play it enough to put in the
time and resources to host the
infrastructure for it.So yeah, this just
seems like F.U.D. to me.
|
> > tactlesscamel
I'd like to see current regulations enforced for
everyone before adding more. "Great news guys,
millionaires can now sue billionaires for breaking
their kid's toy," is all this ammounts to. They
dont have enough bodies (physical or virtual) to
uphold what's currently in place. Nor, do
governing bodies care.- It causes cancer? Make
sure you add a warning label.- they lost PII? Make
sure we collect the fine. What's that; they can't
afford it? Don't waste the resources, then.
There's other opportunities out there.
|
> maccard
Here's a few, as someone who has worked in games for
12 years.Most games have code and design decisions
that hark back 25+ years. Every single unreal engine
game for example is based code written in the mid
2000s and some parts of the engine really feel like
it. Online components are developed the same way. If
you made a multiplayer game 10 years ago and it was
successful, your next game is going to be built on top
of that. I've seen places that use stored procedures
in Oracle DB for gameplay logic, others that rely on
any number of SQL server specific tricks. Closed
source dotnet frameworks, proprietary AWS services, if
you can think of it there's probably a game shipped on
it. You're also making the assumption that the server
is a neatly coupled thing.Am I responsible for
providing a fallback to EOS, or Steam, or playfab in
case their services are decommissioned?What about the
licenses for the code that affects other areas - we
have a GPL'ed library here that we can use but now all
of a sudden the vitality of the license means we have
to replace it?Who defines "ordinary use of the game"?.
If the game has a multiplayer component, to some large
number of users that can construe "ordinary use". call
of Duty is the best example of this (although COD is
probably one of the games with the best track record
here).This is going to result in games moving more
towards the Hollywood studio model - start up a
company, launch a game and wind down the company for
the next project. People who rely on that already
unstable industry will be given even less stability
due to this.> I have a hard time imagining the server
architecture would change muchThat's great - I'm sure
if it's that little work you're willing to do it for
all of those games companies.> A dedicated
company-owned server is just a beefier home computer
with load balancers and matchmaking. Drop those two,
slap a server list on the client, and you're
goldenGame backends are just like
Other backends. Some use event queues, microservices,
third party APIs, licensed components. This adds a
burden that no other software is expected to carry -
it's perfectly fine for Google to drop support for
their devices but a 25 person company needs to go back
and fix all their old games if they want to keep
selling them?
|
> > RandomGerm4n
> Am I responsible for providing a fallback to
EOS, or Steam, or playfab in case their services
are decommissioned?In this case, the company
offering this service should be responsible for
making it possible to host the service
independently before discontinuing it. However,
games that use such standardized services are
actually less problematic in practice. For Steam,
for example, there is the Goldberg Steam Emulator,
which emulates Steam's online features. Games that
do not have additional DRM or any extra features
but simply use the standard Steamworks SDK for
multiplayer can be played entirely without the
Steam client or server using this emulator.
Even for services that had already been shut down,
like Gamespy back then, Openspy quickly emerged as
an alternative. Not all games worked right away,
but the community fixed most of the issues very
quickly. So, in the end, the games that use some
kind of custom solution built by the developer
themselves are much more important.
|
> > > maccard
> In this case, the company offering this
service should be responsible for making it
possible to host the service independently
before discontinuing itSo AWS are now
contractually required to offer all of their
managed services to be self hostable or they
can't be used in games?> For Steam, for
example, there is the Goldberg Steam
EmulatorSo open source reverse engineered
solutions are ok? Why aren't they acceptable
for games instead of the underlying platform?
Why is it ok for a game that uses steam for
online services but not epic (as there's
presumably no equivalent emulator), or an in
house tech?> Games that do not have additional
DRM or any extra features but simply use the
standard Steamworks SDK for multiplayer can be
played entirely without the Steam client or
server using this emulatorAnd those games are
unaffected by anything that will come from
this law.
|
> > > > wsve
The law isn't requiring that all online
features of the game be available. Just a
minimal viable product to play the base
game online. No storefronts, no news
prompts, no matchmaking servers, just
server lists. You don't need AWS for that.
|
> > kmeisthax
All of this is valid and none of it is a good
reason to oppose legislation to keep games from
being destroyed.35 years ago, in 1991, the vast
majority of games were programmed in assembly,
directly fiddling with the hardware registers. If
you wanted to port your game to a new system, you
were basically making a new game. There were some
exceptions where systems shared enough internal
components to make code reuse viable; these almost
universally resulted in worse experiences for the
players. Think like ZX Spectrum ports to Amstrad
or MSX; or Atari ST ports to Amiga.If someone in
that development context suggested writing all
games in a high-level portable language, using
common development frameworks licensed by multiple
companies, and calling exclusively into
standards-defined graphics and audio APIs, they'd
be laughed out of the room. And yet, within a
decade, basically all games were written in C/C++,
using third-party engine code like RenderWare,
which had abstracted versions of all the major
rendering APIs developers needed to touch. Game
porting went from "rewrite your game for each
console" to "replace these SDK functions here,
make sure it builds, and add another entry onto
the QA matrix". And as a result, near-identical
multi-platform releases became the norm rather
than the exception.The vibes I'm getting from your
post are the same as how a game developer might
react to someone in 1991 demanding all games
sim-ship on every economically viable platform[0].
It's easy to get lost in the chaos of existing
development and assume that because we currently
build game servers like shit today, that they have
to be built like shit.The reality is that the
state of affairs being mandated by the law is what
game developers originally shipped. The original
Unreal's multiplayer architecture included
dedicated server binaries that shipped with the
game itself and could be run by any interested
party who wanted to play with people. This is a
server architecture that is proven and works;
everything from Quake to Team Fortress to
Minecraft shipped server binaries you can just
run. Likewise, on console, multiplayer services
were hosted on one of the consoles playing the
game, which, while not providing the best
experience, made third-party revivals of those
services fairly straightforward.It is specifically
MMOs and "live service" games that moved away from
these proven server architectures to the
cowboy-coded spaghetti code messes that you are
referencing. The California law referenced here is
specifically a forcing function for good
development practice. All the gameplay-critical
server-server components of a particular game
should be able to fit in a single binary you can
just ship to anyone who should have access to
them.You posed some more specific questions about
how a game should fall back. I am not a lawyer and
I am not involved with California's law, but I
suspect a fallback to the online services of the
platform the user bought the game from would be
"good enough". Adding that fallback to your QA
matrix during major development would probably be
the most effective way to make sure it actually
works. The ability to point the game binary at a
specific IP would be preferred, especially on PC,
but I doubt you'll get Nintendo to cert that.As
for Google, I actually do think the current state
of affairs regarding software support for
smartphones is unsustainable and stupid. It's only
even a thing because of toxic max-security[1] in
the smartphone market. On PC, we can just install
whatever OS we want; it's specifically the tying
between OS vendor and phone hardware that we are
at the mercy of the vendor's release schedule.[0]
At the time that would include SNES, Mega Drive,
IBM PC-compatibles, Macs, Amigas, Atari STs,
X68000, PC-98...[1]
https://tom7.org/httpv/httpv.pdf
|
> > > jcranmer
One of my first lessons in open source was
just because I could imagine an architecture
where a feature was easy did not mean that the
software had an architecture where said
feature was easy. And I don't see any reason
to doubt GP's assertion that existing server
architectures are not in a position to comply
with the law.The problem in this instance is
not that the legislation effectively mandates
that companies move away from particular
server architectures (I mean, there's room to
debate the wisdom of that, but it is a pretty
explicit goal of many proponents of this law).
But if you want to seriously push companies to
do that move, you also have to recognize the
ways to actually entice them to do that. And
you know what is a very good way to ensure
noncompliance with your regulation? Tell
companies they have 6 months to make core
architectural rewrites of not only
to-be-released games, but games that they are
currently selling and expect to continue
selling. That kind of timeframe is just not
possible.
|
> > bigfishrunning
> we have a GPL'ed library here that we can use
but now all of a sudden the vitality of the
license means we have to replace it?The "we're not
distributing it" loophole is why the AGPL exists.
So yeah, even though you can technically not
violate the gpl by not distributing the server,
don't do that, it's scummy. Better to just not use
gpl code at all.
|
> > > Filligree
Respectfully disagree. The AGPL exists for
that use case, and the difference is exactly
that you need to distribute the changes.If you
license something under GPL, that necessarily
means you're okay with people making local
changes and not sharing them. If you aren't
okay with that, then don't use the GPL.For me,
that means I use a mix of AGPL and MIT
depending on project.
|
> > > > Dylan16807
> If you license something under GPL, that
necessarily means you're okay with people
making local changes and not sharing them.
If you aren't okay with that, then don't
use the GPL.GPL has always meant you're
okay with someone making local changes for
their own internal use.When it comes to
servers, someone making a project this
decade that uses GPL might be signalling
they're okay with server code staying
closed source. Or it might be other
reasons, like the uncertainty over what
code is covered by AGPL. And if a project
is older, there's an increasing chance
they didn't expect the current ecosystem
and hate that the code is being used this
way.
|
> ApolloFortyNine
There's so many renditions of these style bills that
it's hard to keep track what's in this specific
one.From what I can tell this one doesn't include
provisions to protect indie shops/solo devs. The
entire time spent developing a game is a net loss
until release (and probability wise, probably still a
loss then). So this is adding more upfront cost to
devs.The bill text I found is also one of the more
generic versions I've seen. Specifically this line>the
ordinary use of the gameThis is quite broad. I've seen
some supporters of this style bill push for 'offline
play' being a requirement. For instance, an mmo raid
may require 20 players. If after the death of the game
getting 20 players is impossible, I have seen people
push for ai (just the game version) so it would be
possible, or a patch to make the content possible for
1. Each of which are development time that serves no
benefit to making money.There's also the likelihood of
the server architecture requiring many moving pieces.
Think if fortnite died tomorrow how many different
servers it would take to host. Could an argument be
made that an end user couldn't be expected to launch a
dozen aws services? More dev time, more costs.Now the
day 1 proponents would probably focus on the obvious
provide the server exe cases, but these are concerns
down the line.Also at least this one doesn't do the
'development bond' idea I've seen to protect against
the entity going bankrupt, essentially requiring every
dev to pay for some sort of insurance before releasing
the game (more costs for indie devs).
|
> > wsve
> I've seen some supporters of this style bill
push for 'offline play' being a requirement.That
seems a bit silly to my eyes, self-hosting a
server seems sufficient. But not included in this
bill, so not an issue here> Think if fortnite died
tomorrow how many different servers it would take
to host. Could an argument be made that an end
user couldn't be expected to launch a dozen aws
services? More dev time, more costs.In this
specific case, it's not so hard to imagine a
single home computer handling the traffic of 100
connected users for a game of battle royale, the
server compute for those kinds (baked-in world,
low physics) games can be cheaper than running an
instance of the game. Just some physics
calculations, networking, and game state.The main
point would be if you start development from the
premise that your server executable will be
released to the users, the
architecture/performance considerations are not
that different at all.
|
> > > ApolloFortyNine
>The main point would be if you start
development from the premise that your server
executable will be released to the users, the
architecture/performance considerations are
not that different at all.Except devs aren't,
and shouldn't, be developing under that
assumption, they should be developing under
the assumption their game will be successful.
You don't want to be giving your pitch to
investors and have to go "we aren't using AWS
services because when we fail we'll provide
the exes to the users".And if you think they
need to change, your just admitting this will
cost devs more (and when it costs devs more,
it raises the barrier of entry, in an industry
where failure is already the norm).The most
obvious example is pretty much any form of
inviting a player/having idenities. The
storage of users and inviting them is what
brings in the scaling complexities in your
average online game, and that's when you'd use
a service harder to have a self hosting
equivalent of.
|
> > > > wsve
> The most obvious example is pretty much
any form of inviting a player/having
idenities. The storage of users and
inviting them is what brings in the
scaling complexities in your average
online game, and that's when you'd use a
service harder to have a self hosting
equivalent of.A bill like this isn't
asking for a 1-to-1 level of service once
the company servers are turned off, it's a
minimal product to make multiplayer play
at all possible. The assumption is that,
like with most fanbases for a product,
you'll have to form a community of people
to engage with it on your own.The solution
is to do what so many older games like
Quake or Minecraft or TF2 have done since
day 1: Release the server executable, and
allow direct LAN connections (and disable
login requirements).
|
> > RandomGerm4n
> There's also the likelihood of the server
architecture requiring many moving pieces. Think
if fortnite died tomorrow how many different
servers it would take to host. Could an argument
be made that an end user couldn't be expected to
launch a dozen aws services? More dev time, more
costs.There are already several Fortnite servers
available for self-hosting. Fans have created
these on their own without access to the official
code, and they run on a standard PC or a
custom-built server using off-the-shelf hardware.
One example of this is Project Reboot, which is
publicly available on GitHub. People use it to
play older Fortnite seasons or to play the game
with friends on unsupported platforms like Linux.
|
> > stubish
It adds costs if you built it that way. I don't
think many games are built that way. Developers
need to be able to test their games in isolation,
and it takes effort to remove that scaffolding
from release versions (so people can't use it and
bypass your monetization).The real reasons to not
just toss your backend over to the community and
make it their problem are business reasons like
'it will dilute our brand' or 'it is a violation
of licensed IP'. Or embarrassing reasons like 'we
have lost the source code' or 'we can no longer
build new executables'.
|
> phyzix5761
Now it becomes way more expensive for small studios to
come out with games that have online features. This is
a huge win for big studios who will suck up all that
market share.Handing over a standalone server to the
public is a massive engineering, financial, and legal
headache. Modern multiplayer games rarely run on a
single isolated program. They rely on a huge network
of interconnected cloud micro services.A single match
might require separate proprietary systems for
matchmaking, player inventories, anti cheat, metrics
tracking, and database management. Many of those come
with licenses that don't allow you to just give away
the code for free.Disentangling the actual game logic
from these third party platforms like AWS or Epic
Online Services requires months of rewriting code. At
that point you're basically re-inventing the wheel on
so many technologies that your costs go up
exponentially.Games are rarely built entirely from
scratch by a single company and are usually packed
with licensed proprietary third party software.
Because the studio doesn't own the rights to
distribute these proprietary tools to the public for
free then releasing a standalone server forces them to
spend extensive legal and development hours stripping
out the restricted code and replacing it with open
source alternatives.Releasing server code also exposes
the inner workings of the company's technology. If a
studio uses the same proprietary engine or backend
framework for their active money making games then
releasing the server code for a dead game essentially
hands hackers and competitors a roadmap to exploit
their current profitable titles.
|
> > wsve
> A single match might require separate
proprietary systems for matchmaking, player
inventories, anti cheat, metrics tracking, and
database management. Many of those come with
licenses that don't allow you to just give away
the code for free.None of those things are
required to be supported by this law. It's the
minimum viable product to enable multiplayer
play.- Ditch the matchmaking, players can build
their own communities and use server lists for
discovery
- Ditch the anti-cheat if you can't distribute it,
it's not necessary for online play
- Ditch the metrics, of course
- Let the player download their inventory save
file or something, idc
|
> > tancop
i mean its perfectly valid to create a new
exception to copyright laws. in fact it might
already exist because if you are legally required
to release something that beats all the contracts
you signed in any reasonable jurisdiction. weaker
ip means giving a head start to new devs and
bankrupting commercial engine vendors. and im all
for making epic and unity go out of business
|
> lostlogin
> I'm always shocked by how irrationally
anti-regulation this site is.If you wanted to trigger
a HN rant, topics should always include regulation,
particularly in regard to nuclear power, guns, freedom
of speech or taxation.
|
> dtdynasty
I would describe them as pessimistic rather than
irrational. They just believe that instead of going
with an option like you proposed, companies will push
toward unregulated options.Since I don't know their
backgrounds and don't have any background working with
video game company executives it's hard to tell which
options are more likely.
|
> f33d5173
Companies tend to comply with laws in the dumbest
possible way just to be jackasses. If you want a
company to release the server, write a law that says
that. Otherwise, companies will find a way to comply
with the law in the worst way possible. An easy one
here is to make the game subscription based, but only
for californians. When you go to shut down the server,
just don't renew the subscriptions. And if anyone
complains? "Nothing we can do, california made us do
it!" (nevermind that an alternative form of compliance
existed)
|
> ai_fry_ur_brain
Its because people are brainwashed by techno
capitalists propganada and think they're going be in
the "startup" founder position one day and thus defend
the people currently in those positions no matter
what, thinking their protecting their own interests
(and its almost always the opposite).There's nothing
wrong with having an ambitious attitude, but why not
be ambitious seek to build a better tech-biz ecosystem
that is actually pro consumer and pro human..People
seem to think there's only one way, and that way is
letting capital owners behave however they want incase
they're also in that position one day.
|
> > ApolloFortyNine
>think they're going be in the "startup" founder
positionCan't wait for the posts 10 years from now
asking what happened to indie devs.This bill alone
won't do it, but as you pass regulations it gets
harder and harder for a regular person to
participate.The worst rendition I've seen of this
bill for Europe requires basically a development
bond/retainer to 'ensure' there's dev time
available to develop offline features. I.e, extra
costs for devs who already by the numbers lose
money releasing a game.
|
> > > hananova
This is absolute fearmongering. Indie devs
aren't the ones releasing this always-online
quadruple A garbage in the first place. They
will be affected the least, since their games
already would work just fine if the company
ever goes belly up.
|
> Dig1t
It's not irrational, the comments literally explain in
great detail the downsides of the regulation.For
example one commenter in this thread said:>See also
car fuel economy standards that push car makers into
killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs.This
is an objectively true and prove-able statement. What
is irrational about that?WRT regulation the only thing
that matters is the incentives that it creates.>If
this is how the bill ends up being enacted, it will
only push more big game developers into making their
titles subscription only.This is a valid concern and a
real incentive if that's how the law works. What is
irrational about this argument?
|
> > Telaneo
Bad regulation should't be reperesentaive or
regulation as a whole. If you don't get it right
the first time, you're allowed to try again, and
that's what should be done with regulations
providing bad incentives.Gaming has already gone
though a period of pushing subscription games, and
most died, since people generally didn't want to
pay a fee per game they played. That only left the
big players in that space, while everybkdy else
went back to releasing games the normal way. I
fail to see why things would go a different way
this time around.
|
> > > infinite_spin
The legal system is kind of like an
evolutionary process. We try things, see if
they work, and adjust over time. So far I
think this has indeed led to a better legal
system, but I can see why the set backs and
injustices of the world make that difficult to
assess.Regulation also creates jobs, even bad
regulation, so there's almost a Keynesian
argument to be had about its relationship to
our economic system.
|
> > > Ferret7446
Bad regulation is representative of regulation
as a whole, because most of it is bad, or at
least ineffectual, particularly in California.
|
> > > > wsve
Blanket dismissal of regulations is about
as silly as a blanket dismissal of laws.
Some laws are "bad", some are "good", but
the point is who do they hurt, and who do
they serve? Regulations are tools, like
laws, and can be written to serve the
needs of the people, for good things.
|
> > > > > Dig1t
I'm not even saying this should be
dismissed with a blanket
dismissal.First example is a reminder
that regulation can be bad.Second is
an actual concern about this specific
regulation. This is a concrete concern
about the incentives it creates. There
wasn't a single response to this
comment about exactly WHY questioning
effectiveness of it is irrational.
|
> > > > > > wsve
> Second is an actual concern
about this specific regulation.
This is a concrete concern about
the incentives it creates.Like I
said in my OP comment, the problem
with saying "this regulation will
push devs to subscription-based
game models" is that it does not
explain why that would happen. It
just assumes it would.This
argument to me is like saying
"forcing people to wear seatbelts
will push them to take the bus
instead". Why would this be such a
problem that people ditch their
whole mode of transit? I see it
that way because I can't think of
a single case where designing your
game server architecture with
decommissioning and redistributing
to your users in mind would be
difficult or costly at all, and I
have seen no convincing
explanations
|
> > > > > > infinite_spin
I think a study of regulatory
capture would definitely support
your views
|
> > > > Telaneo
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.
|
> > crooked-v
The "in favor of SUVs" part only exists because
light trucks were specifically exempted from
regulations to pander to specific subsets of
voters.
|
> > > etiennebausson
It's not voting policy, it's
protectionism.It's all about limiting foreign
build vehicle encroachment on US market.
|
> > wsve
>See also car fuel economy standards that push car
makers into killing the wagon market segment in
favor of SUVs.All this says is that it's possible
for regulations to have negative, unintended
consequences. It's about as relevant as reminding
your friends that some restaurants are not very
good when you're picking a place to eat. It's not
relevant when we're talking about something
specific and the field of things is varied.> WRT
regulation the only thing that matters is the
incentives that it creates.Sure. What are the
negative incentives?>If this is how the bill ends
up being enacted, it will only push more big game
developers into making their titles subscription
only.Why? What is the incentive away from one-time
purchases? Is it cost? Where is that cost coming
from?
|
> > > zdragnar
> It's about as relevant as reminding your
friends that some restaurants are not very
good when you're picking a place to
eatInterestingly, restaurant food is typically
less healthy, more expensive and less tasty
than what you can make at home. Eating out
should be the exception, not the rule, which
plays directly plays into the anti regulation
argument.
|
> > > > wsve
That is very far from the point, not only
because what I meant was that some
restaurants are not as good compared to
others, but also because the connection
between eating out vs eating at home and
regulations is basically non-existent? I
don't really understand what you're
saying.The point is saying "some
regulations have downsides" is meaningless
in conversation about a particular
regulation, just like saying "some
restaurants don't serve very tasty food"
is meaningless in a conversation about
"should we try that new Thai place on 3rd
street?"
|
> > > > > zdragnar
I suspect that's because you wrongly
assume the other side is saying "some
regulations have downsides". It's more
likely they're saying "all regulations
have unintended consequences" and thus
deserve extra scrutiny when
considering them.If that is the case,
then the analogy is fitting again;
even "good" restaurants are often a
poor substitute for eating at home,
and so shouldn't be a first line of
consideration.
|
> > > > > > wsve
Agreed that's what they were
likely trying to do with that
comment, and I'd argue the problem
with it is that it fear-mongers
about regulations while failing to
actually scrutinize what the
negative effects are.Also, we
should really drop this restaurant
analogy, it's ill-fitting and
clearly distracting from the main
point.
|
> > Dylan16807
In what way is "see also" objectively true?I mean
in a literal sense I guess it's true but only in a
way that has zero connection to the post. They
might as well have told me a fun fact about
crickets. If it's supposed to argue against this
regulation then their actual point stops being
objectively true and it probably is irrational to
bring up those car standards without way more
justification.
|
phreack
> The bill applies to digitally sold games. However, it
excludes games provided via subscription services,
free-to-play games, and games that are inherently playable
offline indefinitely. It also prohibits the continued sale
or distribution of games that have become unusable due to
service termination.I believe this is the key paragraph. I
wonder if this will be an incentive towards making more
games qualify for those exceptions. I think the previous
cases where this act would apply are few but good thing
they wouldn't increase under this act.
|
> pibaker
California and meaningless feel good legislation with
massive loopholes? A match made in heaven!If this is
how the bill ends up being enacted, it will only push
more big game developers into making their titles
subscription only. A win for gamers' rights, I
suppose.
|
> > gwerbin
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.
|
> > > jnovek
What will the negative impact of this law be,
exactly? Hurting live service games which are
already cancer?
|
> > > > Sharlin
It incentivizes subscription-based games.
|
> > > > > slg
The natural incentives had already
pointed to subscription based games,
these companies attempted it, and
consumers mostly rejected it. I'm
extremely dubious that this regulation
would be enough to reverse that. It's
a much easier decision for a company
to put a small development team on
readying the server tools for public
release than brute forcing a new
business model on a resistant consumer
base and all the associated risks that
come along with it.
|
> > > > > > pibaker
If by subscription you mean World
of Warcraft style continuous
subscription then yes, it doesn't
work for most games. But I'd argue
the modern battle pass model is
just another flavor of
subscription. And according to the
article, free to play games with
battle passes and micro
transactions also get an exemption
from the proposed bill, so
companies will just move to that
instead.
|
> > > > > > slg
Are we still talking about
negative impacts of this
regulation? Because I don't follow
the argument that games going
free-to-play is bad for the
consumer. Consumer pressure has
pushed most games with battle
passes and microtransactions to
limit those to optional expansions
of the base game, often merely
cosmetic. People can and do spend
hundreds of hours playing Fortnite
without paying a cent and I don't
see how that type of outcome is
bad for the consumer.And if the
consumer doesn't invest any money
into the experience, I have a hard
time justifying a requirement for
the publisher to provide options
to keep the game running in
perpetuity, so I'm fine with that
exception.
|
> > > > > > phil21
It's basically going to
incentivize gambling and skinners
box type implementations to juice
revenue.Sure, people can opt out
and some will. However the base
human psychology is pretty well
documented. If the ability to
simply not engage in what amounts
to addictive behavior was enough
we wouldn't have the crazy online
gambling epidemic. That is at
least to me obviously bad for the
consumer even if you can simply
choose not to engage.Some ethical
game companies will likely draw
the line at what you say - but I
predict far more will realize they
can juice revenue quite easily by
simply moving towards
incentivizing more lootbox type
things.
|
> > > > > > slg
You are treating multiple related
issues as one singular issue.
Battle passes and
microtransactions aren't
inherently a form a gambling. They
can be implemented with gambling,
but plenty of games aren't setup
that way. If we have a problem
with a model that specifically
relies on gambling, we can
regulate it like other
jurisdictions have done[1]. But
this specific piece of regulation
is addressing something else and
doesn't do anything to point the
market specifically towards
gambling.[1] -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot
_box#Regulation_and_legisl...
|
> > > > > > Akronymus
Battle passes/mtx would IMO
definitely fall under monetary
considerations, which would make
the excemption not apply. But as
is written now, there still needs
to be a precedent set for that, to
really cement that interpretation
|
> > > > > sowbug
Not exactly the same thing, but a few
years ago the law changed to require a
sesame-allergen notice on foods that
had sesame. Some manufacturers
starting adding sesame to foods that
didn't need it, because they concluded
that including the notice was easier
than guaranteeing that their product
was sesame-free. The intent of the law
was to protect people with sesame
allergies, but the result was fewer
choices for them.Sometimes laws have
unintended
consequences.https://apnews.com/articl
e/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...
|
> > > > > > setr
If a manufacturer is unwilling to
guarantee/monitor the lack of
sesame in their food, and you
having a presumably severe sesame
allergy... isn't it correct not to
be eating that food?Like
previously you trusted their lack
of sesame based on vibes, which
you probably shouldn't have been
doing, and now they're explicitly
telling you not to trust them on
this; this seems to me strictly
better. You've lost a choice that
never really existed in the first
placeAn actually unintended
consequence would be if they
introduced sesame because they
were going to have to put the
label on it anyways
|
> > > > > > watwut
The result was same choices as
before, but more information about
it.Per manufacturers, these were
unsafe to eat things - they just
wanted to kinda preted there is no
danger in them.
|
> > > > > gs17
If people dislike subscription-based
games, companies will adapt by making
non-subscription games designed with
end-of-service in mind. It only
creates an incentive as much as people
are willing to pay for the
subscription.
|
> > > > > throwaway85825
The market for subscription games is
vastly smaller than the market for
offline games. The industry learned
that when everyone tried to make a wow
killer.
|
> > > > agoodusername63
> 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.
|
> > > > wilg
No it will make everything a live service
game
|
> > > > > bayarearefugee
Good luck with that.The industry
already tried to make everything a
live service game in the 2020-2022
period and it was financially
disastrous because gamers rejected
it.Gamers have made it clear that they
don't want a market full of live
service games unless they are free to
play (and even then, very few will
survive).They'll make rare exceptions
for things like GTA6, but these will
be unicorns.
|
> > > > > > xingped
That certainly won't stop out of
touch CEOs from choosing to do
just that anyways. CEOs and making
the stupidest possible decisions
are also a match made in heaven.
|
> > > > > > riffruff24
sony already cancelled like 5 in
development live service games now
since concord bombed? Certainly a
lesson that is hard to learn.
|
> > > NooneAtAll3
> See also car fuel economy standards that
push car makers into killing the wagon market
segment in favor of SUVs.by the way, why
wasn't this bug fixed long ago?
|
> > cosmojg
I think it's more likely that the big studios will
start rolling out trivial offline modes (less
risky) rather than overhaul their revenue models
(more risky).
|
> > Akronymus
Subscription only games get way less revenue than
pay once for the most part. So I don't think
moving to subscriptions isn't gonna be as
attractive to publishers as you think.Also, with a
subscription the customer has VERY different
expectations, compared to a one time purchase. As
in, they expect the access to go away once they no
longer pay.
|
> > RobotToaster
I can see them adding a $1 per year subscription
at the very least.
|
> > > meatmanek
At least that somewhat aligns incentives
between players and the game studio. If an old
game has a long-lasting player base, then a
modest subscription makes it more likely that
the studio would keep the servers up and
running, if not actively patching the game.
With a game that you pay for up-front, a
long-lived player base can be a liability for
the company (ongoing costs without many new
purchases.)
|
> > > > ddtaylor
It seems similar to operating an arcade or
a movie theater and saying that you can
have thousands of people enter but then
only having space for a couple while still
taking everyone's money.
|
> > > > paradox460
Why is this a problem? Quake 3 came out a
quarter century ago, yet there are still
community host servers available
|
> > > > > hadlock
After about 2010 companies stopped
providing the server binary. Games
like Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 2,
etc could be played by communities in
perpetuity on private servers. If the
next game (MW3, BF3) were terrible,
you didn't have to buy the sequel,
what you had was "good enough" and you
could wait for the next version to be
released in 2-3 years.With the current
"closed server" model, you can't get a
copy of the server code, can't host
truly private servers, and when the
sequel MW4, BF4 comes out, those
private servers won't survive and it
forces everyone to move to the sequel
regardless of the quality of the game.
You can technically still hire a
private server for games like BF3
(circa 2012) but very few people are
going to pay the $70/month to host an
official one via whatever terms EA has
come up with, and you absolutely can't
run it with plugins, mods, and
especially custom maps or game modes,
you have to play it "vanilla".Quake 3
the server is included with the game,
anyone can run it, modify it and it's
very plugin friendly, which is largely
why it is still around today. Closed
servers you can't directly access is a
deliberate decision to kill the game
when the sequel is released, by not
allowing users to extend what they
"bought". Otherwise we would still all
be playing Battlefield 3 on custom
maps with CTF and 128 v 128 player
servers and everything else. You can
modify a handful of things on the paid
private servers but it's extremely
limited and there's no community
feedback on any of this.
|
> > > > > > RandomGerm4n
> After about 2010 companies
stopped providing the server
binary. Games like Modern Warfare
2, Battlefield 2, etc could be
played by communities in
perpetuity on private servers. If
the next game (MW3, BF3) were
terrible, you didn't have to buy
the sequel, what you had was "good
enough" and you could wait for the
next version to be released in 2-3
years.That's not true about Modern
Warfare 2. Modern Warfare 2 was
the first Call of Duty game where
you could no longer host your own
servers. In its predecessor, Call
of Duty 4: Modern Warfare,
however, that was still possible.
For MW2, unofficial servers
created by players only became
available later on. However,
Activision has taken legal action
against many of these projects.
|
> > > > > > paradox460
Amusingly, all Call of Duties are
still basically Quake mods.
They've ALL ran on heavily
modified quake engine, forked off
of ioq3
|
> > > > > tadfisher
Quake 3 can also be played fully
offline, for various measures of
"play" and "fully".
|
> > > > greenavocado
$1 refundable subscription
|
> nine_k
incentive towards making more games qualify for those
exceptionsYes, please, produce more "games that are
inherently playable offline indefinitely".
|
> > agoodusername63
> However, it excludes games provided via
subscription services, free-to-play games, and
games that are inherently playable offline
indefinitely.How is that incentivizing offline
games? Half of the service game focused industry
would be exempt
|
> > > acters
They will also prefer subscription or
free-to-play than actual offline gaming. This
is going to be a disaster
|
> > > > agoodusername63
I don't think it's going to be a disaster,
doing nothing is not quite a disaster when
the AAA games sector has been ticking over
like this for the past 10 years or so.The
law is worded so that this does extremely
little even if fully passed by CA's legal
system due to the very broad exceptions.
Exactly as lobbyists want it.Makes great
headlines for SKG while doing pretty much
nothing material for them though.
|
> MadnessASAP
Of course its an incentive, however the disincentives
to purchasing (subscribing/spending), and thus
producing, such games still exist.
|
> lucb1e
>> It also prohibits the continued sale or
distribution of games that have become unusable due to
service termination.Does anyone know how this should
be interpreted?Maybe to have a concrete example, let's
take Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 (RCT2), with OpenRCT2 as a
sort-of mod for it, but imagine that RCT2 was
originally a subscription game where you paid per
month to play it and that it terminated before
OpenRCT2 started. Existing copyright laws already
prohibit continued distribution, which OpenRCT2
doesn't do, so does this change anything? Does this
law move what used to be civil (copyright) cases into
criminal law (so there needs not exist a rights-holder
to file suit; the state can just push cases as they
see fit)? Could the OpenRCT2 devs still (as I believe
they hitherto can) release a 'donation version' with
bonus gimmicks if they so wanted, or would that be
classified as a sale of something that enables playing
the original RCT2 and so illegal?
|
> jayd16
You'll just get subscription games with a free year
subscription code in the box. If anything I bet it
will accelerate the death of free multiplayer.
|
> ocdtrekkie
So this only really applies to games you have to
purchase once but are online-only? That's... an
incredibly narrow law, that only covers a class of
games which are particularly stupid by design.
(Continuous cost without continuous revenue.)
|
> > Paracompact
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 answer is in-game
purchases, DLC, attracting new accounts over time,
and the unspoken unadvertised promise "we can cut
our losses at any time and shut down servers."
This lattermost incentive is what is unhealthy for
the market and what should be regulated to no
longer be an incentive (short of having peer- or
community-hosted servers, at least).
|
> > > thewebguyd
See Diablo 4. One time purchase, live service
game. I'm almost certain blizzard makes most
of its revenue from it on the cosmetics shop.
|
> > > > NooneAtAll3
also pretty much all first person shooters
are in this category
|
> > > ocdtrekkie
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), 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.)Meanwhile, yes, there are single
purchase games with an online model, and they
fail and get shut down because they were never
sustainable to begin with. The bill would
arguably cover something like the
FPS-of-the-years which are intended to grab
everyone's attention for a few months and then
die off when the company needs you to buy the
next version of the title because they get no
recurring revenue from you continuing to play
the current one. (See Call of Duty,
Battlefield, etc.)
|
> > > > Paracompact
Ah, I see your point better now. I agree
that free-to-play and single-purchase live
service games are essentially the same
breed, that free-to-plays are similarly
widespread, and would indeed like
microtransaction-funded titles to be
subjected to the same stipulations in the
bill.> there are single purchase games
with an online model, and they fail and
get shut down because they were never
sustainable to begin withI still don't
think I agree with this (it's the exact
same business model, just with an
onboarding cost to e.g. be less dependent
on MTX, or to cultivate a smaller but more
dedicated fanbase, or to shut out bots),
but that's beside the above points.
|
> > > > Akronymus
> 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.
|
> > > > > ocdtrekkie
No worries, I disagree with your read
on the text of the bill there, but I
can appreciate there being reason for
debate. ;)
|
> > > > > > Akronymus
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.
|
> > numpad0
This is really about Ubisoft's The Crew, a
one-time-paid mostly-singleplayer car race game
about infights and revenges in an illegal street
racing group, that required Internet connection,
which server got shut down. So yeah.The required
connection and authentication was likely an
anti-piracy measure, so kind of doubly yeah.
|
> > jayd16
Diablo 3 and 4 would be massive examples? Hell
Divers. Monster Hunter, perhaps?Online head to
head games like Street fighter? Maybe RTS games
like Dawn of War?Pay Day.Seems like all of these
would be hit and will move to freemium or
subscription.
|
> > idle_zealot
> Continuous cost without continuous revenueThat
would be the case if the publisher had any intent
to actually keep the service online. Empirically
they do not, hence the law.
|
> > wavemode
> That's... an incredibly narrow law, that only
covers a class of games which are particularly
stupid by design. (Continuous cost without
continuous revenue.)Eh, it sounds unintuitive, but
in practice it's extremely common. Almost every
first-person shooter (well, you could really
expand that to "almost every competitive
multiplayer game") made by major studios is either
a one-time purchase or entirely free. The ongoing
revenue comes from cosmetics and other in-game
goodies.This sort of economy makes sense when you
consider consoles (especially back in the day),
where it's easy to get people to buy a disc but
hard to get people to sign up for a subscription.
|
> > Akronymus
It also covers games with any form of MTX, even if
the base game is free. So most live service games.
|
> > > ocdtrekkie
I don't read it that way. "Free-to-play" games
generally include games with
microtransactions, and the bill text does
nothing to disagree with that:> (b) This
section does not apply to any of the
following:> (2) Any digital game that is
advertised or offered to a person for no
monetary consideration.This solely refers to
the game being available for free, not for any
additional powerups or cosmetics being
available for free.
|
> > > > Akronymus
> > (2) Any digital game that is
advertised or offered to a person for no
monetary consideration.I'd argue buying
any form of MTX creates a monetary
consideration. Though, I guess it is kind
of a gray area that's gonna have to be
ruled on.> This solely refers to the game
being available for free, not for any
additional powerups or cosmetics being
available for free.I didn't intend to mean
additional stuff being free. I meant
additional stuff you can buy, resulting in
the no monetary considerations carveout
not applying.
|
> > > > > throwaway85825
This is absolutely not a gray area.
MTX are monetary consideration. Free
games in this case are more likely
advergames.
|
> > > > > > Akronymus
Gray area, as in it has to be
ruled on in court because that's
100% gonna be an avenue for some
companies to try and weasel out of
obligations.
|