Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

Comments

• november@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work,” the ESA wrote.

  We know. That’s the problem.

  Hurray for the POG Act, it’s very pog.

  source

  • Katana314@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Feels like many times I’ve heard in my life:

    “We’d like to change this law.”
    “You can’t change this law. See, it’s written here: It’s the law.”
    “I’m…not contesting what it is. I’m saying I want to change it. We set it in place, we can make changes to it.”
    “…But that’d be…against the law…”

    source

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      That logic works just fine if you have all the money and lawyers.

      source
    • SabinStargem@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      “It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.”

      source
• Fredselfish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Something for Newsome to veto.

  source

  • HeHoXa@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    LaMarr

    Not if they don’t start properly lobbying

    source

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Funny this first thing I saw after your comment was this:

      Image

      source
  • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Governor election this year!

    source
• Stupendous@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Should go back to the days of having good self hosted servers and a server browser. Can still have matchmaking and even peer to peer multiplayer, but we should be able to self host servers and build communities for games we play

  source
• iamthetot@piefed.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Great to hear and generally support this move. I wonder if Jan 1st 2027 is a little too soon though?

  The licensing argument never made sense to me. Wouldn’t that impact sales of the game, not people who already own it being able to play?

  source

  • ampersandrew@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Not being able to sell in California is a huge loss though. I agree January 1st is a little too soon, but better to have a little bit of pain now to make things better later.

    source

    • iamthetot@piefed.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Is your first sentence responding to my second paragraph? If so, I’m not sure I understand.

      The opposing stance to this makes the argument that licensing makes this law not feasible. But if a company’s license runs out, they can’t sell the game anyway, in California or otherwise, regardless of if this law passes. So what does it even have to do with the idea that companies should leave a game in a responsibly playable state? Which is what the core of Stop Killing Games wants.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • chameleon@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Funny 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.

    source

    • 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.

      source
    • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• SabinStargem@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I hope that we get a Star Trek Offline from this. I want to play the game, without FOMO and humanity making me feel miserable.

  source

  • thingsiplay@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I wonder if those companies hold on the Online only part, until they stop supporting it and only then flip the switch. Because they want you to come online, and spend the money as long as the game is supported.

    source
• KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Thanks, Pirate Software.

  source