Comment on Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California
chameleon@fedia.io 1 week agoFunny thing is this particular bill also applies semi-retroactively. The original version was worded
The following shall apply only for server-connected games published for sale on or after January 1, 2027
but in the April 6 revision that ultimately advanced, that was changed to:
The following shall apply only to a digital game available for purchase on or after January 1, 2027
I'm heavily in favor of SKG, but this particular bill isn't workable on this schedule. It's not what SKG has been petitioning for.
Should change it to apply to any and all games published after the bill is passed.
Realistically, its a big ask for publishers to retroactively apply to their older games, but I do think they should still legally be required to do so for old games they don’t sell anymore. Its not realistic to ask that though, so it is understandable that it wouldn’t be included.
crying onto a wad of money I c-can’t believe sniff they want me to pay developer’s sniff after the release date. It’s not fair, IT’S JUST NOT FAIR! THINK OF THE C-SUITES!! PLEASE! WE CAN ONLY AFFORD 14 NEW ROLLS ROYCE VEHICES THIS YEAR! THEY MIGHT LOSE THE NEW-CAR SMELL WHILE THEY STILL OWN IT!
The older a game is, the more work it would take to retroactively fix them. Its not realistic to expect this especially when some publisher catalogs span more than a decade. Getting the old server code to work and then verifying that it isnt going to delete system files when uninstalling it or something by accident takes time and money away from new development.
Instead, if they plan End of Life into the product from the beginning, the time and cost of doing it is drastically reduces to basically nothing. A few weeks of forethought and planning to avoid potential years of development work fixing old bromen games is a trade I am willing to accept.
Again, I wish they would release old server files and let us figure out how to get them running, but I understand there are limitations that prevent that.
But like, why is this my concern? If your neighbor burns their house down, should they blame you for not replacing the batteries in their smoke alarms?
All these companies made a choice to kneecap their games when they sunset the network services - why should I, or anyone, feel any pity that they are being called out for it? I paid a company for a good, I should be able to use that good perpetually. If you buy a car, and 5 years later a forced ota update bricks going into reverse, is that okay? Should I feel bad that Toyota needs to un-fuck their customers after the backlash?
All my games up until the 2000s had server/client support, and I can (and do, occasionally) still play them. They then created the problem of ‘don’t worry, we’ll host it (until we won’t anymore)’, and then want mercy instead of fixing it? I’d laugh but I may pass out before I can regain my composure.
iamthetot@piefed.ca 1 week ago
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that if a game is available for sale, it should be in a reasonably playable condition. So if a company wants to continue selling their game beyond 2027, they should begin making end-of-life plans or face penalties. I think that’s the goal here.
It’s important to remember that this bill isn’t trying to enforce endless support, rather that game companies end support in a responsible way that doesn’t essentially brick the game.