[norman784]

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.

[sheept]

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.

[throwaway85825]

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.

[tdeck]

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

[Mordisquitos]

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

How did you gain access to my Steam library statistics?

[throwaway85825]

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

[darkwizard42]

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

[kube-system]

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.

[jquery]

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.

[darkwizard42]

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.

[grayhatter]

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.

[traderj0e]

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.

[account42]

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.