[throwawayk7h]

the bill explicitly doesn't apply to games that are free or are on a subscription system. (I assume free-to-play with microtransactions would be covered by this bill though, unless those microtransactions are subscription-based or time-limited.)

I am indeed worried that this will push games to be subscription-based, so I would advocate making the bill apply even to subscription-based games. Though that would require some thought, of course, as it's not obvious how it should apply to such a game.

[happosai]

Sunsetting subscription service is fine IMHO. The deal is clear when buying (you get X months of play). Just like Netflix vs buying DVD. Also the financial incentives align - as long as someone pays monthly, money comes in to keep the lights on the servers.

Micro transactions should be covered tho. If you buy an epic skin for your player in a F2P game and suddenly you no longer can use the skin - money back!

[Gigachad]

A subscription is at least more honest. When you pay for an online game you aren’t buying an item, you are paying for a service for a time period. With a subscription that time period is explicitly laid out.

[account42]

What's your worry? Games where the publisher can shut them down whenever they want are already effectively a subscription with an unspecified period. Getting publishers to be up front about that would already be a positive outcome as more informed customers can make better purchasing decisions.

[throwaway85825]

Vast majority of games don't rely on any server.

[auggierose]

And those will be made subscription based anyway.

[throwaway85825]

Never going to happen. For a while everyone was trying to make a wow killer to get in on the subscription revenue. They all failed. Turns out people dont like subscriptions all that much.

[account42]

What's stopping them now and how would the proposed law change that?