California Bill To Preserve Online Games Fails Committee Vote (engadget.com) 20
California's Protect Our Games Act, which would require publishers to warn players before shutting down paid online games and offer refunds or continued access, failed to advance after a state Senate committee vote. Four state senators voted in favor, three voted against, and four abstained. Engadget reports: The committee unanimously voted in favor of granting the bill reconsideration, meaning it could come back before this group of state senators. Assemblymember Chris Ward introduced the bill in February and it passed the California State Assembly 43-16 in late May. That said, the abstentions prevented the bill's progression for now. "Not enough yeses means the bill stops here for this session," a volunteer with the Stop Killing Games campaign (which supported the bill) noted on Reddit. "That is the loss."
The volunteer also claimed this was the movement's first attempt to nudge such legislation through in the U.S., and that the bill got this far without paid staff or an in-person lobbying campaign. They said the Entertainment Software Association -- a trade organization of major game industry publishers -- brought in a lobbyist to halt the bill's progress (including by claiming private servers for the likes of Minecraft would be "illegal") and that Stop Killing Games would be more prepared to counter that in the future.
"Next session, we come back with an in-person lobbying presence, the funding to do this properly and a long list of organizations and developers signed on in support," the volunteer, u/Mr_Presidentle, wrote. "We are not limiting this to California. We intend to introduce versions of this in other state legislatures, and we are seriously looking at the federal level."
The volunteer also claimed this was the movement's first attempt to nudge such legislation through in the U.S., and that the bill got this far without paid staff or an in-person lobbying campaign. They said the Entertainment Software Association -- a trade organization of major game industry publishers -- brought in a lobbyist to halt the bill's progress (including by claiming private servers for the likes of Minecraft would be "illegal") and that Stop Killing Games would be more prepared to counter that in the future.
"Next session, we come back with an in-person lobbying presence, the funding to do this properly and a long list of organizations and developers signed on in support," the volunteer, u/Mr_Presidentle, wrote. "We are not limiting this to California. We intend to introduce versions of this in other state legislatures, and we are seriously looking at the federal level."
They tried to pass the bill virtually? (Score:1)
The volunteer also claimed this was the movement's first attempt to nudge such legislation through in the U.S., and that the bill got this far without paid staff or an in-person lobbying campaign.
Wow, they thought they could "on-line petition" this into passing?
Re:They tried to pass the bill virtually? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a country that doesn't even have a healthcare system, the idea that "Preserve Online Games" will be the thing that unites people to throw off the yoke of the ownership class, is ridiculous indeed.
Re: They tried to pass the bill virtually? (Score:1)
A sick person can walk into a hospital ER and get medical care, regardless of their ability to pay - this has been the law for decades, hospitals may try and collect payment from the patient, but they can not refuse care - the Gov't has set aside money to compensate hospitals for such charity care.
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens after that?
In case you missed it (Score:3)
Private minecraft servers are 100% allowed btw.
Read the Legislative Analysis (Score:5, Informative)
From the SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921):
The bill would create new obligations that are technically challenging, commercially impractical, and inconsistent with conclusions reached by policymakers in the United Kingdom and the European Union. Mandating patches, offline versions, community-server functionality, or refunds in all circumstances is unworkable. Requiring publishers to modify, reproduce, or distribute their games after support has ended interferes with rights protected under federal copyright law, while blanket refund requirements fail to account for the value consumers may already have received through months or years of gameplay.
That implies a bit more burden than the bill actually requires. From AB-1921 digest (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921):
The bill would, beginning on the date an operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the game, require the operator to provide the purchaser with, among other things, an alternate version of, a patch or update to, or a refund for, the game, as provided, and prohibit the operator from selling, leasing, or otherwise distributing a version of the game that cannot be used by a purchaser independent of services controlled by the operator. The bill would authorize the Attorney General or a district attorney to bring a civil action for a violation of these provisions.
From the bill language:
(2) Beginning on the date a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall provide the purchaser with one or more of the following:
(A) A version of the digital game that can be used by the purchaser independent of services controlled by the operator.
(B) A patch or update to the purchaser’s version of the digital game that enables its continued use independent of services controlled by the operator.
(C) A refund in an amount equal to the highest price of the digital game offered by the digital game operator within the 12 months before the digital game operator ceases providing services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game.
(D) All necessary documentation to allow the purchaser to host a private or community server with which the purchaser could make ordinary use of the game independent of services controlled by the operator.
(E)
(i) Subject to clause (ii), a version of server software that the game may connect to in order to make ordinary use of the game independent of other ongoing services.
(ii) If the server software contains additional hardware or software requirements than what was necessary for the original game, clause (i) shall apply only if the operator has communicated that fact to the purchaser and the additional hardware or software requirements are reasonably attainable at the time services by the digital operator cease.
The committee analysis greatly exaggerates the requirements, but the objections are still at least somewhat valid. If a company (imagine a developer-owner, one-man show) stops hosting the only live server for a game because he's taking care of an ill spouse, why should he be obligated to make significant software modifications, host those patches, or create documentation instructing how to create and host a the game via a private server. And if he doesn't do so, then he has to refund everyone at the HIGHEST PRICE for which the game has sold in the last 12 months?
This bill was written like it was intended to stick it to EA or Blizzard, so that didn't help.
Lastly, and certa
Re: (Score:1)
From the SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1921):
The bill would create new obligations that are technically challenging, commercially impractical, and inconsistent with conclusions reached by policymakers in the United Kingdom and the European Union. Mandating patches, offline versions, community-server functionality, or refunds in all circumstances is unworkable. Requiring publishers to modify, reproduce, or distribute their games after support has ended interferes with rights protected under federal copyright law, while blanket refund requirements fail to account for the value consumers may already have received through months or years of gameplay.
Egregious attack on commoners: MUST HAPPEN NOW (age verification nonsense).
Mild inconvenience for business interests: This creates challenges that would be difficult to meet.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no age verification requirement. It's an age declaration *with no validation* so that vendors know to exclude access or content based on that self-declaration. This was necessary to placate the part of the population that wants actual validation/verification.
Re: (Score:2)
> If a company (imagine a developer-owner, one-man show) stops hosting the only live server for a game because he's taking care of an ill spouse, why should he be obligated to make significant software modifications, host those patches, or create documentation instructing how to create and host a the game via a private server. And if he doesn't do so, then he has to refund everyone at the HIGHEST PRICE for which the game has sold in the last 12 months?
Like it's not child's play to include the capability
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue is that it would piss off the tech bro subculture, who contribute millions of dollars to reelection campaigns. Can't be having that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. What would more likely happen is that a small developer is selling their game for 3 months at $30, half price for 6 months, 75% off for 3 months, and then fail as a company and have to shut shop. They would then be responsible for refunding $30 to EVERYONE who paid ANYTHING.
That's just untenable.
Re: (Score:2)
The committee analysis greatly exaggerates the requirements, but the objections are still at least somewhat valid. If a company (imagine a developer-owner, one-man show) stops hosting the only live server for a game because he's taking care of an ill spouse, why should he be obligated to make significant software modifications, host those patches, or create documentation instructing how to create and host a the game via a private server. And if he doesn't do so, then he has to refund everyone at the HIGHEST PRICE for which the game has sold in the last 12 months?
It should be fairly easy to carve out provisions for exceptional circumstances (ex: bankruptcy proceedings), and is probably common practice already. But I agree the language has an implied target which is not good for getting legislation passed, generally. It should be possible to propose reasonable accommodation for majority circumstances without sounding like a manifesto.
A BETTER bill would have been simple: "The IP-holder of a video game that ceases distribution/hosting ALSO relinquishes both liability and control over software replication and hosting."
That will run into problems with federal copyright laws and other IP protections. While it sounds just, it is unlikely to get anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your analysis.
It seems like this bill is a symptom of grievances that people have with federal IP protections, hoping that California might go out on a limb and carve out a weird, one-state exception that might "force" the rest of the nation to follow.
Whomever Has the Most Money Wins (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
yes.
Follow the money!
Greenmail (Score:1)
You know, the folks that bought use licenses for games that require online servers, if they want to continue using the software they licensed to keep working after the developer loses interest should just offer money to keep the game going - bribe the owner to keep the system up.
Where this will wind up, I predict, is that games will be sold with expiration dates - with no guarantee they will work after a certain date in the future, say, 3 years after sales of the product are suspended.
OR, game developers mi
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "home server" software kit is sort of the ideal solution the SKG movement has in mind - just let the people do the work of hosting and leave the developer out of the loop. For some games, it may not be so simple, if the publisher's servers handle matchmaking and coordination across the whole player base, for example. But even then, allowing people to run a traditional dedicated server would at least allow them to create private matches with friends, or utilize server browsers to find one to pl
Do a Ballot Initiative (Score:2)