Publishers would have to offer “independent” play patch or refunds after server shutdowns.
You must log in or register to comment.
3 hoursConsumers 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.
- Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish2 hours
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…”
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?
- 2 hours
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.
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.
- 2 hours
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.
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.
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.
No, I was commenting on just the first paragraph. January 2027 is too soon for any game that’s currently in development to be reasonably expected to pivot by then, and the same goes for any game that’s already available and expects to have a long tail on its sales, so it’s sort of like lighting the fuse on a bomb. The licensing argument is stupid nonsense, and they know it.
- Khanzarate@lemmy.worldEnglish3 hours
What pivoting?
It changes the plans of shuttering a server, not offering a new one. Any such independent play patch soils only be released when a company is ready to end servers.
A new game previously intended to be released December 31st of this year, caught off guard with just one day of warning, could still release without changing a thing. The game will have servers for years to come, presumably.
Highgaurd didn’t even last a month, and they definitely didn’t have the funds left over to make that game self hostable while they were in their death throes, even if they wanted to.
