Akronymus

> > (2) Any digital game that is advertised or offered to a person for no monetary consideration.

I'd argue buying any form of MTX creates a monetary consideration. Though, I guess it is kind of a gray area that's gonna have to be ruled on.

> This solely refers to the game being available for free, not for any additional powerups or cosmetics being available for free.

I didn't intend to mean additional stuff being free. I meant additional stuff you can buy, resulting in the no monetary considerations carveout not applying.

Subscription only games get way less revenue than pay once for the most part. So I don't think moving to subscriptions isn't gonna be as attractive to publishers as you think.

Also, with a subscription the customer has VERY different expectations, compared to a one time purchase. As in, they expect the access to go away once they no longer pay.

No, the reasonable compromise should be that the game remains playable, how that is achieved is up to the dev. Some will release the binaries, some make the spec open to the public for people to implement their own, some will patch out the online requirement, etc...

That'd IMO count as a monetary consideration, and thus not be excempt.

As someone in the movement since basically the beginning, this bill is enough in a lot of areas.

Subscription games already always had a "no pay, no play" expectation, so I don't see any problem with that carveout. The only real problem I can see is that in-game purchases in free to play games are not additionally explicitly named. (Though, "no monetary considerations" shouldn't include ftp + mtx)

Also, most gamepass games are available for purchase as well, so I don't see the problem there either, except the possibility that a game is removed from gamepass so you lose access despite paying, but that's something for the courts to figure out.

It also covers games with any form of MTX, even if the base game is free. So most live service games.

> This isn’t the controversy the title suggests.

Yeah, I too am so sick of ragebait titles on HN by now, that my bar for contacting the HN mod team has become very low.

> The dev did yank the previous releases, which wasn’t maybe the wrong choice.

I'd argue that it isn't really dropped as all previous releases still seem to be accesible via the tags on the repo. You "just" have to compile it yourself. If the git history were dropped too, that'd be a different story.

To me, it read like you implied the poster to be an astroturfing account. Though I may have misinterpreted that.

From the HN guidelines:

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

Not quite, as the compiler wouldnt let let you use the "value" in that case. So if you discard the error path, you simply wont have any value to use further on in the code.

> I think I get it but I'm not really sure what I'm gaining over exception types. With an intelligent use of exceptions I can easily specify the happy path and all the error paths separately which seems really nice to me, ...

Until your coworker comes along and accidentally refactors the code to skip the exception catching and it suddenly blows up prod.

With tagged unions you can't accidentally dereference to the underlying value without checking if it's actually proper data first.

Easy code is much easier in f#, a lot of the time. Hard code is usually easier in f# due to the type system helping a lot. F# is also a lot more concise.

And yes, you can combine them, but afair, only in terms project boundaries. (You can include a c# project in an f# one and vice versa). There are a few cases where it's quite useful. For example, rewriting a part of a big project in f# to leverage the imperative shell - functional core architecture. Like rewriting some part that does data processing in f#, so that you can test it easier/be more confident in correctness, while not doing a complete rewrite at once.

Sort of like rust parts in the linux kernel.

> First, you need to make sure Minecraft is installed on your device. Once this is complete, log in to the launcher while you are still online. This will save your login details for offline access.

It still requires an initial authentication.

those movements can use gaming as a precedent to push foe their own legislation, at least.

Doesnt the client need an initial authentication to microsoft servers?

Not quite, afaict. When the auth servers are shut down, you wouldnt be able to play it anymore, even in single player.

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.

> So game should be playable forever then? You bought an online game 20 years ago, it should still work today.

yes

> For 20 years you need to support, patch, keep people and infrastructure.

No, you should just not make it impossible for people to do so. (via stuff like online activation and such). Most 20 year old games you can still run via a VM or something like that. If it requires online activation and the server for that are shut down, you can't.

> Why the tech industry does not do it? I still want to use windows XP. Why my Nexus 5 does not work anymore ect..

You can still use windows xp and a nexus 5.

Because going up against all types of big software publishers at once would invite MUCH more lobbying which would make any progress likely impossible. Better to start in one area, gaming in this case, to get a precedent out there, which then makes the fight against general software publishers easier.

Going for all apps at once is, IMO, an impossible ask. So the better option is to tackle one area first to set a precedent then that can be used to make the fight in other areas easier.

> So they just make their game free two months before they want to close?

Which, afaict, wouldn't change anything in terms of liabilities, because of the people that paid for the game before it went free.

> 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.

> 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...

> Could the game industry just side step this legislation by moving games entirely to a subscription model, with no upfront purchase? When they stop offering the subscription, you lose access to the game. Similar to how various online SaaS businesses work.

Yes. With a subscription there is already an expectation that you will lose access when you stop paying. But I doubt they'd get much buy-in from gamers for that on most games.

> I feel the exact same way about tutorials in games that try and be comprehensive and show you everything.

For those an ingame encyclopedia and/or external wiki is a much better solution.

Yeah instead of making some crappy onboarding tour, the time is better spent improving usability/discoverability of features.

So many programs still don't have a feature where yoy can just search for the menu option you need rather than going through 10 menus.

And that viewpoint doesnt even account for adult ADHD/executive dysfunction.

Werent the munich government employees quite happy with linux, but microsofts lobbying with their headquarters got them to switch back?

the prejudice + power statement while still ascribing veing racist to individuals is a definite motte and bailey tactic in my eyes.

I have no idea. I genuinly was asking out of curiosity on what the law actually means for that while speculating.