Hacker News Reader

Comment by smalley | Hacker News Reader

This appears to treat subscription style games and free to play with in game purchases differently than other games.

I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

View on HN

AFAIK the issue is with one time purchase games, where is not clear if you will be able to play forever or whenever they want to pull the plug, if they change to subscription based model or free to play, then it will be clear for the players what they are paying for.

The distinction makes sense, but I wonder if the bill will inadvertently incentivize games to move to subscription based models, which would be ultimately be a worse experience for consumers.

It won't. Most games bought on steam will never be played, not even once. Customers won't splurge on subscriptions they won't use.

Presumably companies could get around this with something like "your first 3 years are free, after that online play costs $X/month".

> Most games bought on steam will never be played, not even once.

How did you gain access to my Steam library statistics?

https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam/pile-of-shame

Ultimately consumers can then make a better choice, to simply drop those subscription based games.

They could, but there is very little evidence to show that a dislike for subscription models outweighs people's desire to consume quality content.

Evidence is strong that people follow the content they want, and then secondarily choose the least friction delivery model.

I still support this law. If they move to subscriptions to “dodge” this law, that’s fine in a way. At least consumers won’t be under the false impression they own something in the rare case they’re paying a subscription to play a game.

As others have echoed, I think a subscription model is FINE for a game IF you are upfront about that being the cost. I suspect many customers are frustrated when they purchase something and then it is simply not able to be used when the developer feels like it.

It already is a subscription based model. The difference between they're lying by charging once and pretending like they don't know they're going to stop providing the minimum requirements to play the game.

You're describing the reality, and the difference after adding these additional rule, they'd have to be honest about what you're paying for and for how long you are allowed to use it.

Additional, if it is a subscription, it's more likely ongoing revenue could possibly fund providing the service indefinitely. Will that always happen, obviously not, but then game studios won't be as likely to do the same exact thing that catalysed the stop killing games project.

It would basically mandate subscription model for online games. Also wonder if it'd introduce legal risk for online mode in a game that also has local play, say Call of Duty or the newer Super Smash Bros, or if "ordinary use" is clearly not that.

No it would not basically mandate it. Providing server binaries for the community to run is not just an entirely reasonable thing to do, it used to be industry standard before companies learned they could maximized profits by keeping more control.

> I would assume if that law passed the simplest compliance would just be to charge subscriptions and stop selling games directly. It seems like doing that would comply with that law without requiring much to change?

That is indeed a valid way to comply with it. What that changes, at least, is that the consumer has the expectation that access ends with the end of the subscription, as opposed to where the expectation is for the access to never end.

Upfront purchase for something that depends on online services to work raises some questions. The problem with the bill is they want either literally infinite support or an open source server in the end. It'd make sense if there were some time limit based on the price of the game, just to guard against scams like asking $50 for a game that's shut down a year later.

> The problem with the bill is they want either literally infinite support or an open source server in the end.

No the bill doesn't state that. From the bill text [1]

(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 full purchase price paid for the digital game by the purchaser.

Just curious, how did you arrive at the infinite support or open source server interpretation?

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Oh I didn't mean open source, it can be a binary (if applicable), but same problem, they'd need to provide a way to run the online servers locally. The third option is a refund, which isn't feasible.

Or patch out the online requirements. In many cases, the only real online requirement is a license key check. Also the refund is, afaict, intended to be essentially a last resort option to make the customer as whole as possible.

The refund alternative is also important to give the courts guidance for the monetary damages to consider if a company does not comply.

Another way to phrase this would be that games that are already effectively a long term subscription with an unspecified period would need to be more clear about the deal they are offering. That's already a good outcome as it would improve the ability of actually perpetually available game purchases to compete.

Licenses to game software*. It's extremely rare to actually purchase something of value today. But yes, subscriptions are the norm.

Subscriptions in games would be the death of gaming imo.

"Subscriptions" are already what you have when companies are allowed to shut down games whenever they want more money from you.

mmorpgs seem to be healthy and now we even buy games full price then buy battle passes every 3 months to get shiny skins

Reply on news.ycombinator.com