[tombert]

> Companies are forced to expend resources just so a few niche hobbyists are not inconvenienced.

Yeah those poor companies. They should just be allowed to take our money and then stop providing a service we paid for. Won't someone please think of the corporations????

What kind of weird argument is this? If I pay for a game then I, you know, want to be able to play the game. You know what I don't care about? Whether or not it's profitable for Ubisoft to keep a cheap signing server online.

[collingreen]

I take your point and also don't give a damn about corporate profits but it is a little bit "talking past" the parent. To me the important part of parents point was the next step: therefore the companies will just avoid selling to California which is an unintended consequence.

I think this can be argued with directly on its merits - 1. maybe, 2. also that's probably fine, 3. also that's not what happened with car emission standards, etc.

[buellerbueller]

Forego the 4th largest economy on the planet? Hardly.

(Only US, China and Germany are bigger)

[Lonestar1440]

What if an Indie developer wants to make a game, where the primary mechanics and state live in a "service" they control? Why should they be burdened with this stuff if they move on, if indeed they sold a "service" and not a piece of software?

My view has nothing to do with Corporations... I just really don't understand what players feel they are entitled to here. If you want "software" then buy that, and don't use the Service games.

Unpopular view I suppose. Maybe it would mean more games you could actually own, but I think it would just have bad effects.

[poizan42]

It's not difficult not to lie to your customers. If you are actually selling a subscription then don't claim the customer is buying the game, and this law won't apply to you.

[Lonestar1440]

Fair enough, if you're certain the final bill will only penalize "false advertising" like this. I see how the article supports this view and maybe I did read too much into it. My concern would be if games "sold as a subscription" did end up covered by it.

[Thaxll]

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

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

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

[tombert]

Allow community servers then. Then the company doesn't have to pay anything to maintain it. They don't even need to release the source; just release a proprietary binary and then people can happily keep playing and not feel ripped off.

This has been happening unofficially for decades, on a volunteer basis.

I play games that are 20+ years old all the time. I play Quake and Doom online pretty frequently.

You can still use Windows XP if you really want. You're not artificially locked out of it. You can also use your Nexus 5 if you want. I had one plugged in

[Akronymus]

> 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.

[phendrenad2]

Yeah I have no sympathy for companies, but unfortunately companies just pass their costs along to the consumer, and I do have sympathy for those.

[account42]

So what's your argument, to never have any consumer protection laws?

Even if companies pass on the cost, companies that make better decisions like not adding arbitrary online requirements in the first place, will be at an advantage with a change like this.

[phendrenad2]

Perhaps my argument is that black & white are useless colors and we should use all the colors in-between, and people who only know black & white need to get out of the way before they ruin the painting.