Bill To Block Publishers From Killing Online Games Advances In California (arstechnica.com) 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A bill focused on maintaining long-term playable access to online games has passed out of the California Assembly's appropriations committee, setting up a floor vote by the full legislative body. The advancement is a major win for Stop Killing Games' grassroots game preservation movement and comes over the objections of industry lobbyists at the Entertainment Software Association. California's Protect Our Games Act, as currently written, would require digital game publishers who cut off support for an online game to either provide a full refund to players or offer an updated version of the game "that enables its continued use independent of services controlled by the operator." The act would also require publishers to notify players 60 days before the cessation of "services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game." As currently amended, the act would not apply to completely free games and games offered "solely for the duration of [a] subscription. Any other game offered for sale in California on or after January 1, 2027, would be subject to the law if it passes. [...]
In a formal statement of support for the bill sent to the California legislature, SKG wrote that "there is no other medium in which a product can be marketed and sold to a consumer and then ripped away without notice As live service games rise in popularity for game developers and gamers alike, end-of-life procedures are essential tools to ensure prolonged access to the games consumers pay to enjoy." The Entertainment Software Association, which helps represent the interests of major game publishers, publicly told the California Assembly last month that the bill misrepresents how modern game distribution actually works. "Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work," the ESA wrote. The eventual shutdown of outdated or obsolete games is "a natural feature of modern software," the group added, especially when that software requires online infrastructure maintenance. The ESA also said the bill would impose unreasonable expectations on publishers regarding licensing rights for music or IP rights, which are often negotiated on a time-limited basis. "A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely could place publishers in an impossible position -- forcing them to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or alter games in ways that may not be legally or technically feasible," they wrote.
In a formal statement of support for the bill sent to the California legislature, SKG wrote that "there is no other medium in which a product can be marketed and sold to a consumer and then ripped away without notice As live service games rise in popularity for game developers and gamers alike, end-of-life procedures are essential tools to ensure prolonged access to the games consumers pay to enjoy." The Entertainment Software Association, which helps represent the interests of major game publishers, publicly told the California Assembly last month that the bill misrepresents how modern game distribution actually works. "Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work," the ESA wrote. The eventual shutdown of outdated or obsolete games is "a natural feature of modern software," the group added, especially when that software requires online infrastructure maintenance. The ESA also said the bill would impose unreasonable expectations on publishers regarding licensing rights for music or IP rights, which are often negotiated on a time-limited basis. "A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely could place publishers in an impossible position -- forcing them to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or alter games in ways that may not be legally or technically feasible," they wrote.
All they need is peer-to-peer LAN-style gaming (Score:1)
the bill would impose unreasonable expectations on publishers...
Too damn bad! They can sell/rent the license to somebody else. Compulsory licensing solves all problems.
For a client-server based game all they need to do is patch the game to add peer-to-peer networking support over TCP/IP. One peer system will act as the game server for this LAN-style game.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously. This entire idea that "You only own a license, and f*ck you for trying to play a game after we destroy it." Goes all the way back to be beginning. Blame Bill Gates.
While I'm all for "being able to make a profit" off a creative work you paid money for, the idea that you don't own the thing is antithesis to how people expect things to work. If I pay to watch a movie in a theatre, and I pull out a camcorder/cameraphone to record it, there is nothing stopping the theatre staff from telling me to leav
Industry amnesia or mine? (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Up to a point, sure. I think it's fair if a publisher stops issuing new patches but leaves the game playable at that point in time. Over time, the operating system and libraries will evolve and eventually the game will break. We have pretty good backwards compatible stuff for now and there are still gaps, especially outside of gaming.
It's not unheard of to sandbox or use a VM for a specific application that relies on a deprecated runtime environment.
It does sound like if the Publisher has a subscription pla
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea behind the bill but I'm sort of struggling to understand the target market here. Maybe it's more for the console market where they sell single player games but *must be connected to play*? That's also bullshit, to say the least. Must be connected to play a single player game, GTFO.
Agreed; I don't think that this would apply to something like an MMORPG, where if the bill was carried to a logical extreme, would require the publisher to keep at least one server alive indefinitely, with server maintenance and other associated costs in perpetuity. In particular, the carveout listed that would exclude "completely free games" and games "offered solely for the duration of a subscription" creates some confusion, in that a game like an MMORPG that is free to download and install, but has both
It was a different class of games .... (Score:2)
"A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely could place publishers in an impossible position..." Feels like I remember a time when indefinitely playable games was the default for publishers.
That was more for peer-to-peer games, and smaller scale client-server games where a peer would host a server, where the publisher didn't need to deploy any additional resources. However with the larger scale client-server games the publisher did need to invest heavily in server infrastructure.
Publishers should be able to comply with such laws by offering either peer-to-peer or peer-hosted, which are kind of similar. The latter requiring two computers, one running the server side and the other the client
Honestly if the game has even a handful of players (Score:3)
The trouble is that if a lot of people start playing the old game you're going to get a lawsuit from the original publisher because even if they don't have a game out there they don't want gamers playing games without paying them.
One of the things that pisses me off is that to this day I get dipshits bitching about ethics and games journalists instead of about Bobby Kotick talking about how angry he was that somebody bought call of duty for $60 and played it for a 1000 hours without paying Activision per hour.
You can bet your ass CEOs consider how many gamers might be playing old or free games instead of buying what they want to throw on the shelves.
On the other hand back catalogs are nice. I dropped $50 on King of fighters 15 and it's DLC and I'm happily playing it and it's a 4-year-old game. Capcom famously was only able to survive the PS3 era and how much damage it did the Japanese publishers who couldn't adapt because Street fighter 4 just kept selling and selling and selling and selling...
But on the other other hand everybody's chasing that FIFA money. Where you literally sell people skins for your game that you update marginally every year.
This will only end ownership (Score:3)
The publisher is allowed to terminate games that are subscription based. Say good buy to anything other than a subscription
Re: (Score:2)
signle player games and local muilt (Score:2)
signle player games and local multi player don't need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, many popular online games (like EverQuest, WoW, Star Wars Galaxies) have proved they can live on decades after they stopped being supported by their maker. This includes games that ARE still supported ... but an earlier version of the game isn't ... so fans have made servers to support that earlier version (see Project 1999 for EQ or "Classic" WoW).
I just wish this bill had a requirement that, if a subscription game ended, the client had to be open sourced within X months. Even with the current lega
Forced disclosure of code and trade secrets ... (Score:1)
... so fans have made servers to support that earlier version (see Project 1999 for EQ or "Classic" WoW) ...
The problem with that those servers would have to distribute copyrighted materials, various downloadable artwork and in game content.
Note that "Classic" WoW is actually a Blizzard product. Homebrew WoW servers ran into legal problems as suggested above.
the client had to be open sourced within X months
Largely unworkable. The old and current versions of the client (and servers) most likely share code and trade secrets. It is an extremely high legal hurdle for a court to order (allow) forced disclosure.
and the game will be sold as subscription service (Score:2)
and the game will be sold as subscription service and not you own it
They aren't wrong. (Score:3)
"A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely could place publishers in an impossible position -- forcing them to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or alter games in ways that may not be legally or technically feasible,"
They aren't wrong which is why they should merely be required to....
* declare a minimum timeline for the servers to be online.
* put an independently buildable copy of the source code for the server in escrow with the state.
* source code of updated versions of the any changes to the server.
* ensure the client program can easily use a third-party server.
If they don't want to do that then keeping the servers online indefinitely is the alternative. You do not have a right to a particular business model.
Not Constitutional (Score:2)
What's next, Microsoft has to continue to support Windows XP?
The vendors will update the TOS to reflect this kind of reality, nothing lasts for ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows XP doesn't suddenly stop working when the new one comes out... that's the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you elaborate on what specific parts of the constitution this bill violates?
Great news (Score:2)
Back in the 2000s, I remember Apple asking people to âoebuyâ a feature from the Apple Store for $0, to unlock extra functionality for the iPod. The reasoning was that they cant just change the product that they have sold.
At the bare minimum, a product should do what it says on the box. If online play is part of the game, then it should remain active, as long as people want to play.
Glad that lawmakers are taking this issue up.
unreal tournament come back with user hosted serve (Score:2)
unreal tournament come back with user hosted servers.
And when Steam goes out of business? (Score:2)
So what happens when Steam goes out of business and you lose all access to your games? Refund for the 3000+ games I have would be sweet :).