A year ago, I had the opinion that it'd be too expensive for developers to support offline mode, peer to peer, or community servers after shutdown.
Today, I don't. I think it's probably a week's worth of work with AI and 1-2 developers.
However, enforcing this law is going to be tricky. How well does the peer to peer have to work? How about off line mode? How much support does the developer provide for community servers? Is it only a one-time support?
A developer going bankrupt isn't going to be able to do too much.
> I had the opinion that it'd be too expensive for developers to support offline mode, peer to peer, or community servers after shutdown
It’s never like the server becomes lost media when they shut down services. Most development studios have an easy way to run the server stack locally for development anyway. The problem is forcing someone to actually spend several hours doing packaging to get it deployable and the general reluctance of companies to “lose control” of what they have. There are many alternate servers that have existed that developers have intentionally axed like AlterIWNet because of control reasons, not because the complete solution already existed.
Why is this an existential issue? Every game that could be played, on all platforms, from all studios, for decades, met this requirement because they could be played offline right out of the box.
Allowing your game to not require an internet connection or checking in with servers from the get go is the way. Easy peasy.
Permutations of environments are the bane of quality. Designing for offline is easy. Designing for online is easy. Designing for both isn’t impossible, but it’s certainly harder than designing for one or the other.
And yet, also for a couple of decades or so, we could play video games that would function just fine offline and could online in multiplayer mode.
This take, and OP's, both feel like they're ignoring nearly half a century of how games have functioned in favor of the over-engineered industry of the past ~15 years. Again, as I said in my first response I'm maybe speaking out of ignorance here, but why are we acting like it's incredibly difficult to do something we were very capable of doing for a very long time, and for less effort than what we put in now?
Yeah, it's not that companies "forgot" how to design for offline use.
They deliberately chose to design against it, because they discovered they can extract a lot more money by offering paid Progression Boosts so that players can more-quickly acquire Artificially Scarce Reward, or selling additional draws of a virtual lottery.
If anything, offline play has become more technically feasible than ever before, because it's so much easier to make AI opponents instead of offloading it to human adversaries.
For the record, I don't at all believe that companies forgot, and I firmly agree with your stance that they'd rather take the path that nets them more money, customer experience be damned.
I'm just surprised that folk on a tech-focused forum are putting forth auch short-sighted technical constraints as an example of why this sort of legislation won't work.
It's not at all harder on a technical level. Offline is the same as online with only one player. Many games boot up a server automatically when you play singleplayer.
Literally all they'd have to do is release the server executable(s) they already have. The community will do whatever work is necessary to get them running even if they require a cursed stack and client modifications.
At least now it’s pretty straight forward for a hobbies group or individual to reverse the protocol and implement something that’s open source along with patches
Reverse engineering the protocol is not the same as reverse engineering the entire server, though. That would be very hard in most cases, especially when you don't have access to the server binary.
It runs into the problem of region locked licensing stepping onto the toes of other regions.
Imagine a Korean company makes a game and sells a license to an American company to publish their game. Eventually the American company shuts down and is now forced to release the playable game.
This version of the game is now going to compete with the Korean version of the game, because nobody will be enforcing the region lock anymore.
Your reaction to this is probably "great, screw region locking!" but judging by how some of these Korean games do in the west it's entirely possible that they will forego a global/American release altogether. They make most of their money from the Korean or Chinese region. Why would they risk that for a smaller global region?
Personally, I wouldn't mind this, but I can certainly see how this could backfire and keep some of the eastern games exclusively eastern.
All that needs to be done is to produce a game that will remain playable if the company shuts down. Simple as that. It doesn't need to phone home anywhere, it doesn't require an internet connection, it just... turns on and plays.
At that point, any company can just fold whenever they'd like without having to do anything in this area, and everyone who bought the game can breathe easily, double-click their icon and start playing while the publisher's employees go look for other jobs.
If you have a game that's available in multiple regions published by different companies, then the "playable game" will start competing with the still published game in other regions.
This creates financial risk for the developer of the game (in the original region). They might be better off not releasing the game in the US/EU to avoid this risk. Many KR and CN games already don't release globally or it's done as some kind of afterthought.
Does the pattern of licensing out games to third parties for foreign publication even exist anymore? It was obviously very common in the pre-internet, and still extant in the early-mid internet era, but these days my impression is that it's ~universal that if a game has a global release, the studio itself or a direct subsidiary is handling the translations and publication, not introducing an unrelated middleman who gets a huge cut of it. I can think of dozens of games I've played in the last decade that fit this pattern and zero counterexamples.
They don't have to do anything. They just need to stay the hell out of our way. They don't even need to release anything, we'll do it all ourselves at zero cost to them. Just don't bother us with idiotic lawyer nonsense, that's literally the only thing they have to do.
AI or not: the main idea here is that future developed games under such policy would already be built to go offline/p2p at a moment's notice. It's relatively easy to make the switch if you build for it (or if your engine has tools to support it).
>A developer going bankrupt isn't going to be able to do too much.
Banktupcy at this scale simply means ownership of the IP and game changes to someone else. So they'd be on the hook if they want to operate in any jurisdiction with such a law.
Even better would be broad copyright reforms. Fair Use needs to be expanded and clarified. History has shown players are able to keep games alive themselves by emulators, reverse engineering, custom servers, etc. Expand Fair Use to say that these things are protected if needed to keep the game functional.
This seems tough-to-unworkable for some games. I'll use World of Warcraft^1 as an example.
WoW launched in an essentially unfinished state. Molten Core, the first 40-man raid, didn't have a loot table. I'm not sure it was even accessible on launch day. And when it did get a loot table, it had placeholder graphics for the tier 1 set.
This was fine: it would take months for players to be able to tackle end-game content, so the game didn't need to launch with it all ready to go. But a law requiring Blizzard to keep a launch-day WoW available wouldn't be especially satisfying.
Even if you changed it to be "its full functional state" or something similar, that gets weird. After Molten Core was BWL, which you couldn't reach on launch. And so on and so forth. WoW changes a ton over an expansion, and each expansion brings even bigger changes (do you play pre-Cata or post?). Do we require Blizzard to keep available each and every patch version? Hotfix version? How do players decide which they want to play? I really enjoyed the Argent Tournament, but I bet most preferred actually reaching ICC (which itself had a bunch of time locks before you could reach Arthas, himself).
[1]: Even beyond everything outlined, WoW gets weird when you consider Classic and now Forever.
Your complaint is probably moot foot dragging. Companies aren't held liable for breaking a law that didn't exist at the time they released a product.
An ever-evolving game with properties of a SaaS would likely not exist under this new law.
Blizzard already knew how to build self-contained products with self-contained expansions even before WoW was released. StarCraft was the original game and StarCraft Broodwar was the expansion. It will affect game release cycles and properties of what you get with the game, but that's seems like part of the point of the legislation.
For example, massive expansion of free to play games with cosmetic microtransactions.
When the game ends... what is it that you've bought? The cosmetics, you never bought the game. If they give you an offline "shooting range" mode where you can wander the maps in the cosmetics you bought, have they satisfied the requirements? Again, you never bought the game you bought the cosmetics.
A step farther, loot drops in loot boxes that take time to unlock, on the order of days, weeks or months. You buy something to accelerate the unlock process down to hours. What have you bought? Just a faster unlock of something you'd have received anyway. So what are you owed when the game goes end of life? You didn't buy the game, you didn't buy the contents of the lootbox.
You're imagining a pretty badly written law. Do you think that is what people acting in good faith would want to create and leave in place without amendment?
Consider, there are existing laws against libel which were written before video screens existed. Did those laws encounter insurmountable, analogous circumvention issues when the printed word no longer required ink?
I didn’t really read the bill, but I see no problem in subscription games. I don’t remember how wow was ‘sold’ when released. But if I buy a game on a 12 month subscription, I understand I’m not purchasing a game forever.
Fair use is already pretty good, but we shouldn't need to rely on it to preserve older games. The reform we need is a dramatically shorter term for copyrights. All older games should be completely out of copyright.
I'd add better handling of copy-protected titles as well. If a game wants the benefit of copyright, they need to make a version of it without DRM available in escrow (held by some entity like the Library of Congress) for when the copyright expires.
One of the big issues with DRM is that it's not legal in the US to break the digital lock even if the work is in the public domain, so that needs to be accounted for as well.
>One of the big issues with DRM is that it's not legal in the US to break the digital lock
My understanding is that the Library of Congress has the authority to designate situations in which it is legal to remove DRM on electronic copies of books you have purchased, such as to run it through a TTS program for those that are visually impaired. Does this not apply to other art mediums?
I wish, but shortening existing copyright terms would be legally very thorny. It would run into Takings Clause challenges and violate treaties the US has signed.
This administration would just say that it is in the national security interest of the US to do the thing. Judges are wary to restrict the POTUS prerogatives relating to national defense, so they won't challenge it.
It's the dumbest and most obvious weakness of our system of government and it will never be fixed.
The incumbents would probably file lawsuits, but would they win?
If Congress can set copyright terms retroactively, why can't they set copyright terms retroactively?
What happens if they do the thing where you have to file for a renewal every year and the first 14 years are free and automatic, but then the renewal fee starts at $1000 and doubles for every year over 14?
> violate treaties the US has signed.
This is just an excuse the industry uses after bribing their way into some documents that can be renegotiated at any time. The US has been the ones pushing for this nonsense to begin with, so if they stopped, most other countries would be happy to enter into a different treaty. And the remaining ones would be the ones with the most to lose if they were the only ones to not sign onto the new agreement at the point when the US and most others pull out of the corrupt one.
Oh don’t worry. If the US can bail on the treaty signed with Ukraine and repeatedly threaten to not honor NATO commitments, then this is small-fry stuff.
If the government banned fracking it wouldn't need to compensate owners of oil rich land when it becomes worthless. Devaluing property is not the same as taking it.
And the legal basis is completely different, copyrights are created as an artificial right in the Copyright Clause, given for a limited time and purpose. They are not property in the traditional sense and Congress has absolute power over them.
All the relevant treaty clauses were strong-armed into those treaties by the US - no other country gives a shit about DMCA 1201 except insofar as the US forced them to.
What you want is to repeal DMCA 1201. It is specifically 1201 that is responsible for the most anti-preservation rulings. Custom servers are legally imperiled because Blizzard, the patient zero of the technofeudalist takeover of the US, sued a developer for releasing a Battle.net custom server and won because he didn't implement the CD Key check. It is fairly trivial to make a central server have DRM checks that a third-party replacement can't replicate, even though they legally have to, which makes them effectively illegal.
Expanding exceptions to copyright law would be nice for different reasons, but custom servers and emulation were already legal before companies figured out they could put arbitrarily difficult roadblocks in the way of them.
Also while we're here, DMCA 512 was also a piece of horseshit, albeit less because it curtailed online freedom and more because it isn't a good way to adjudicate low-stakes copyright claims.
This sounds like fairy dust for this use case. You’re playing a real time game where latency matters, and you’re running all that latency sensitive traffic through a network of relays running on altruism - each hop would introduce latency and you’d deal with contention in the network.
20 years is short enough for someone to wait for it to expire rather than pay a licensing fee. You ideally want it long enough that someone can benefit from their work, without being so long that society is unduly prohibited from creating derivative works.
If you look back at what was created in the past, 30 years seems like an absolute minimum, 50 years seems about right -- perhaps with a registration requirement for the full term so that works with an unclear publication date and ownership can be easily traced. That would mean the film Logan's Run would just be leaving copyright protection now.
For context, I believe in the UK, there is a 50-year term for broadcasts, computer-generated works, Crown Copyright (125 years or 50 from first commercial publication if within 75 years of creation), and certain classes of films. There's a schedule here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-...
> 20 years is short enough for someone to wait for it to expire rather than pay a licensing fee.
“Someone” might, but most people won’t. Do you think studios are going to announce the next blockbuster and most people will be like “eh, I’ll just wait 20 years, maybe I’ll have a kid and raise them until adulthood to pass the time”?
Portal is going to be 20 next year. I bought Portal 1 and 2 for a couple of bucks like a decade ago already.
I’d even say 20 years default is two long. Especially because there are things which are just abandoned. Make it shorter and add limited options to renew for limited time.
You're assuming copyright exists to protect studios first. No, it protects everyone equally. A studio can't take a 20 year old story and make a blockbuster out of it without licensing the story. That is precisely what would happen with a short-term copyright system. It won't be that studios will wait 20 years, they'll just look predominantly at 20 year old publications to see what just became available.
The studio doesn't need to, they're powerful enough to change it enough to be legally distinct and advertise it enough that people forget the original.
That is a laughable fantasy. It protects those with money and legal resources to enforce it, and that’s it.
I’m reminded of the case where some late night show played a video they found online as part of a segment, then later were able to copyright strike the original video. The original creator, being an individual, had no recourse.
> A studio can't take a 20 year old story and make a blockbuster out of it without licensing the story.
Again, laughable. Disney has done it but was never sued for being too big. It was done to Harlan Ellison too (who did spend years fighting it and won). Ripoffs happens frequently, you don’t hear about them that much precisely because studios in general know to rip off those without the means to put up a fight.
> You only would license something that’s already successful.
That's the point. Someone finds something not successful, sees that they could make a lot of money off it, takes it for their own, has copyright over their new content. The labels you're talking about would gladly just mine what was released ${term}+1 years ago.
The point is that everything is copyrighted by default, unless you release it into the public domain.
> Right now if I want to sample a song made 50 years ago I still have to pay thousands to license it even if everyone involved has long since left.
And that's right. Why should someone else get to make money off someone else's work without compensating them for it, if they haven't released it to the public domain?
> The labels you're talking about would gladly just mine what was released ${term}+1 years ago.
This will happen regardless. We've already built a massive wealth of recordings over the last 100 years that, if the law is followed, will eventually become available for free use. Unless the idea is to lock it up forever in order to keep present artists from having to compete?
But 20+ year old culture largely loses relevance. Even in a world where people pay for access to everything via streaming, the most popular music from 2006 is basically unknown to gen alpha. Only the very coolest people are still listening to Jibbs' masterpiece, "Chain Hang Low." In fact, one might argue that if it did cause people to retain their connection to previous culture, that such "mining" would be a positive.
If the thing wasn’t successful in 20 years, someone else taking it and making it successful will do more good to the original creator than letting it languish in obscurity until they die and then someone takes it anyway.
50 years is insane for software. There may be 1 or 2 versions of 1976 software that people still buy today, although I’m skeptical. 30 years is also far too long; same deal for 1996 versions of software. Who’s buying new copies of Windows 95 today? 20 years seems about right.
Continuing down that line, Windows Vista turns 20 in a few weeks, and is equally irrelevant. IIRC even the default Windows 7 installer has issues with AHCI, so your SATA SSD won't even work correctly out of the box, much less NVMe. And then of course there will be no video or networking drivers for modern hardware.
10 years seems closer to obsolescence, and that's for productivity software. How many people still play The Ship (apparently none because the servers are shut down)? Battlefield 2142 (servers shut down, C&D issued for revival project, apparently there are a handful of people still though)?
Publication of the source code should be required for software to be copyrightable and copyright should expire much sooner. It makes no sense for a binary to fall into the public domain 70 years later.
"Local copy of Qwen-3.8, you have your own machine. I'm putting a windows game binary in your home directory. Decompile the game and rewrite in Rust. Appropriately document source code and make full testing framework. Make sure any plugins are compatible with the original game. If there are any protections or preventions like DRM, exclude those features."
You seem to be approaching this from the perspective of “I want to play this game” when there is more value to the original source code than simply being able to run something similar.
that seems silly, I'm not supposed to be able to rent an apartment or a movie? There should be transparency of course and no misleading labeling but I see no reason why people should be prevented from transacting money for whatever arrangement they please
No reasonable person walked out of a Blockbuster thinking they permanently owned a rented film. There are plenty of transfers of currency without implied ownership.
Fully in support of this, but it will never happen, at least not for digital purchases, for a simple economic reason: the internet enables far too efficient a market and it'd wreck businesses with the first sale doctrine. One game sold by the publisher would then be constantly resold by endusers with an ever decreasing price to the point that you could probably buy most of any game for a couple of bucks a year or so after release. The reason this doesn't already happen with physical copies is because there's tedium + cost involved in the transfer, and they also create a motivation to collect. It's somehow enjoyable see a shelf full of games, music, movies, or whatever else.
More realistic would be improving copyright law. I think it'd be reasonable to state that copyright lasts 20 years from the first 'transfer' (sell, licensing, etc) of a creation. 20 years is long enough to fully monetize, but also short enough to really enable some interesting acceleration/derivation in society. For instance just about now XBox 360 games would be coming out of copyright protection. That seems perfectly reasonable, especially in the era of LLMs where 'sidestepping' copyright is going to be increasingly trivial anyhow.
The people who really ruined for everyone else are the hipsters that supported coffee machines connected 24/7 to the internet and wouldn't function unless you paid a monthly subscription.
I don't think you know what 'hipster' is, and no, there is not some group that did the wifi coffee machines, and if there were, that would not have changed anything.
Games were licensed long before Steam. Heck, I remember buying a game in the early 1990's that would disable use of the floppies once it was installed to the hard drive. By the time Steam rolled around, registration keys with online verification were normalized.
Most Steam games are DRM-free in the sense that if you copy the game folder to another computer and add a stub steamapi.dll they'll run. Some of them will run even without steamapi.dll as they load it dynamically.
I'm so sick of people getting downvoted for telling the truth that people don't like. HN, do better. If you want an infinite warm hug where we lie to each other and pretend that utopia and magical rainbow unicorns for all is right around the corner, please go somewhere else, or please please manage to suppress these urges for long enough to maintain HN as the science and logic based community it once was. Or crash and burn in a hopium-fueled echochamber that benefit no one, what do I care. shrug
Are you saying you think it's not economically viable to build and sell games that work offline and can be bought used? If so, how did the gaming industry survive and continue growing for several decades from the 1980s through the 2010s?
DRM free does not mean you own the game. All companies, including GoG rely on the 'licensing trick' to avoid granting first sale doctrine related rights, like reselling. You can read the EULA in any game you buy from GoG or read part of it here: "3.3 Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else." [1]
Otherwise yeah, you'd be able to buy most stuff on GoG for pennies by now.
I didn't downvote, but I read the comment and simply thought in my head "so piracy should have tanked the market 25 years ago, in the Limewire age huh?"
History's disproven the notion that easy copying means constantly depreciating prices. The premise is flawed unless something so fundamentally different about piracy in 2026 is happening compared to 2000.
Yes, why not? As those rights are set by law, they can be changed by law.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Unlike freedom of speech, this right is intended to be limited in scope and duration. So let’s promote that progress! While we’re at it, we can reduce the length of copyright altogether.
Frankly this bill should be extended to cover similar situations in business and consumer software, etc. Abandonware has always been a legally murky area.
This is how literally all laws work. By default, you can do whatever you'd like. Some things leave others feeling they've been harmed, cheated, etc. so we pass laws saying you may not do those things.
People were pointing out the issues with DRM 20+ years ago, but it was largely a theoretical concern at the time for most people. Now it's more real in exactly the way people said it would be (oops, your new computer doesn't have a CD drive, and newer windows doesn't allow the old DRM drivers anyway so your old games are unusable. Better buy our new digital version again. Oops we've decided to remove your access to the new digital version. No refunds.) for them, so the idea of passing laws against it is gaining popularity.
I hope there's an indie carveout or something for less than like 200k revenue.
And maybe a carveout if your licensing gets pulled.
I really want copyright to stay the hell out of the way of just letting players reverse engineer old games, but it's an international thing at this point
We have a right to own our videogame, there is absolutely no necessity to have an exclusion, make the server open source if you want to shutdown the server
I'm pointing out it's potentially a few weeks of effort.
"The right to own games" is just an entitlement. I don't see an argument for where this originates; it's entitlement to someone else's effort, or effectively mandating only selling games with that extra effort bundled in.
I don't think it's fair to expect hobby projects or small studios to be legally obligated to carry this, and open sourcing it because you sold it once is a big jump. Not all binaries are simple to ship, either.
I'm fine with the Californian law where they mandate marking it as a license and not a purchase, but a flat fee for minimum 10 years service I think is reasonable.
Everything is entitlement, of course. Videogames are not a necessity. But our parents could pass their music collection to their kids, and we want the same for ourselves with videogames.
Most indie games will have no problems with this either, so I am not concerned.
Clearly the market hasn't worked well for the consumer, so it's time to set laws.
Personally, this bill makes me want to buy games more. I would likely pirate things much, much, more if everything's "licensed" even if I buy it. I agree with the bill because everyone wins except for the capitalists that want us all permanently renting.
Wait, what? Aren't that bill literally supposed to do exactly the opposite?
"Are you selling the games? Here are your new duties and obligations, and tomorrow you will get even more, get ready to publish source code or something! What, your game only on paid subscription? Guess what? Keep doing what you are doing, that bill has nothing to do with you!"
Video games are definitely an essential need for the modern leftist internet incel, so to allow capitalists to risk time and money producing games you can choose to voluntarily play, and then allow them to charge rents in exchange for you volunarily playing those games....well that's the definition of criminality!
The government should seize the video game means of production and all video games should be government produced. Quality will definitely go up, not down, the more the government starts meddling in this highly essential market.
Video games are basically healthcare imo. And Cuba has free healthcare thats amazing I hear from Hasan.
Cuba would probably produce the sickest video game titles. If only the evil Americans didn't embargo the Cubans, they would be on GTA10 by now.
We should give our money to folks like GOG (www.gog.com) who provide DRM-free games, all downloadable and playable offline. no need to be online. No need to create an account. no need to play (heh) by someone else's rules.
It's not a transfer. If a trust owns a game, then the trust owns the game. A transfer of trust is not a transfer of ownership of the trust's property.
Now, moving a steam account into a trust might be a breach, if they care. Even using a trust to buy a game might also be a violation of some form, perhaps, buried in the toc.
But the trust itself is a legal entity and it can own things. Just because the people behind the trust changes doesn't mean it was a transfer on the public side of the trust.
No it's not different, the whole point is the legality. You can still pirate all your games, you can still give the password of your account to your heirs, and you can still download all the steam games and provide the crack to "unlock" steam and it will work, but not legally.
GOG is very clear on this: you CANNOT provide the installers to anybody, those are for yourself only.
It is easier, for sure.
It's still a terrible situation that should be solved legally.
With gog? of course i can. I have the files and i can give them to my family. They can then play them.
The fact that I'm "buying" a license holds as much weight in this issue as the countless eulas and privacy policies i supposedly agreed to.
We "endusers" live in a world were we are compelled, yes compelled, to enter legal agreements to do anything, and where these terms are dictated and changed unilaterally. Terms like these should and are meaningless yo everyone except for courts that foolishly hold them valid. For everything else, they should and are ignored.
From the legal perspective, you don't truly own the game on any of the platforms.
From the technical perspective, the moment the game is on my PC I can run it.
For passing games to your heir legally, there is no way.
For passing games illegally both steam and gog work.
For steam, you can download the steamdll and backup all your library and be good to go.
For gog you don't have to do that, but if we are talking of illegally backing up all your games for after you die, you are good.
As long as you are alive, you can play both gog and steam games for as long as you want.
I think this solves the problem at the wrong level. Ultimately, if you can make the licensing model work (and you can), it is far more profitable than an ownership model. As such, in a system where the scoring function is profit, the system will naturally tend toward a licensing model. An example of this would be operating at a loss for a while to outcompete competitors operating on an ownership model, to the point where they become negligible, so you can crank up the prices in a market that has become dependent on a licensing-based oligopoly, and rake in the profits.
To disrupt this natural tendency, you need an external influence which is not beholden to this scoring function. A good example (but not the only one) of such an external influence would be government regulations.
You could try to influence the cycle as consumers, but there are two significant roadblocks for this approach. Firstly, consumers are highly decentralized, and heterogeneous in their beliefs and actions. Sure, _you_ may understand and believe that a licensing model is bad, but how about the billions of others who are less politically engaged? The second is that consumers operate largely in the same profit driven system as the corporations we're trying to change. It takes a very principled individual to buy gta 6 at a 50% markup just so they can -own- the game rather than just rent it indefinitely.
I don't know of any instances in history of consumers making any meaningful impact in this way. Tons of examples of government regulation effecting meaningful change though.
Imagine this from the perspective of a small indie studio, not from the perspective of a gamer. Lots of collateral damage with our first principles thinking here.
If we want to get serious about this there need to be exceptions. You can't force a one man shop to sing and dance the same rule set you would apply to all of Microsoft. At least, if your goal isn't to kill indie gaming and further expand the moats of the very people who would be inclined to lobby for this kind of moat expansion legislation.
What issues do you see? From the article, when selling a game you either have to ensure its continued online functionality or have to provide an offline mode. That seems reasonable to me.
It would actually be beneficial for end-user software in general.
Well, there is no actual bill text because this idiot is more interested in announcing what "he will introduce" than actually writing legislation.
But let's assume it has a hard requirement that a game work offline. Let's say an indie developer releases something where some component that fails when some random server stops responding. If the law or regulation is poorly written, that could create liability for them. Hell, it could create an opening through which well-funded studies could target indie competitors.
Really curious to see how this will benefit AAA game makers and hurt indie Devs in near future. I have serious doubts that these billion dollar companies will just eat up such rules.
He hasn't introduced squat. I complained about this two days ago [1][2]. It's incredibly disingenuous to pretend to announce legislation while keeping the text–possibly unwritten–secret.
(Torres is running for reëlection as a Democrat in a solid-D district [3].)
Hot take: I think the battle for ownership is focusing in the wrong thing a bit.
Everyone is pushing for the rights of keeping the game alive after support ends, but in the move to digital I'm much more concerned with the loss of second hand markets.
Historically, my concern hasn't been running a 2005 game in 2025. Emulation tends to find ways. My concern is that this generation I was able to game at about 10 bucks per game (buying for 30 selling for 20 after I'm done, roughly) and the next generation is shaping at 100/game. That's a 10x increase in practice for the hobby.
I think this doesn't really apply to games. Video games have had an incredibly sticky price.
The Legend of Zelda in 1987 was $50. Adjusted for inflation it would cost $151 today.
Diablo 2 released in 1999 at $50. Today that would be $101.
Diablo 3 released in 2012 at $60. Today that would be $88.
Diablo 4 released in 2023 at $70. Even this would be $77 today, despite being only 3 years ago.
Zelda Tears of the Kingdom released in 2023 for $70.
I do agree that the lack of a secondary market is concerning, but I think that in practice subscription services, piracy, and F2P games fulfill the niche of low cost gaming (for now). Don't know what the future holds though.
>I think that in practice subscription services, piracy, and F2P games fulfill the niche of low cost gaming
F2P is not an alternative because (good) games are not a commodity, each piece is individually valuable (otherwise why conserve?). Subscription services are just enshittification waiting to happen.
Piracy is actually an alternative, but we all lose if consumers are pushed to that.
The lack of secondary market is not only a concern for low cost gamers, it also pushes for monopolies in several different dimensions. For example, you're less likely to move platforms if you can't resell your library. You're also less likely to give a chance to a less known dev if you can't resell in case you don't like it.
This is ignoring just how much more copies those games now sell as they did when Diablo 2 was popular and just how insanely have revenues risen while keeping the price.
It's like comparing a price of a modern car to a 1920's Rolls Royce and saying "eh, they're cheap, they're less than 500.000$, why are you complaining?"
Assuming it passes, I wonder if this will have an unintended side effect of giving studios and publishers “no choice” but to only make SaaS-based games going forward.
Let them, let's see what happens when their sales plummet. GOG exists, & there's so many games in this world that it'll last me a lifetime to play all the ones that seem interesting to me. The market will be the judge and I think the final outcome will be favorable to the consumer.
I think we've reached the logical endpoint of populism.
This bill essentially can be distilled down to: "Companies are required to give me whatever I want for whatever price I want and they have to give me customer support forever."
Will just result in every game moving to a Saas model. And then a bunch of braindead people will be complaining about that as if the thing they voted for didn't cause that shift, requiring another piece of legislation that just kills the smaller publishers altogether.
Fine then let's reframe it: why can't the companies release games on their terms at their prices and allow consumers to decide whether they want to transact?
Why do you believe game companies have special rights that book and music publishers don’t? If I buy a book or CD, I can keep that copy forever, sell it, lend it, donate it, give it away, or let my kids inherit it. I own that copy.
Why can’t I do all those things with a copy of a game I bought?
There's an important legal difference between books and CDs, which I'll get into at the end of this. For now let us just look talk about books.
> I can keep that copy forever, sell it, lend it, donate it, give it away, or let my kids inherit it
The works because the way most of us acquire copies of books doesn't involve entering into any kind of contractual arrangement with the copyright holder, so as long as what we want to do does not violate the copyright owner's copyright rights we can do anything with that book that we'd be legally allowed to do with a similar physical object (say a blank notebook).
Copyright law does give the copyright owner the exclusive right to distribute copies but there is an exception, the first sale doctrine, that says the owner of a particular lawfully made copy does not need permission from the copyright owner to "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy".
If we bought our books through some channel where they could require us to agree to a contract in order to be allowed to buy they could include restrictions on what you can do with the copy, just like game companies do.
It would be hard to enforce since they would have to do it by suing people who violate the contract which would be impractical almost all the time.
Compare to digital goods, especially executable digital goods, where they can make it so using your copy requires checking in with a server of theirs which can refuse to let you use the thing if it thinks whoever bought it has broken the contract.
The important legal difference between books and CDs is that exception to the first sale doctrine, the one that says you can "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without copyright owner permissions does not fully apply to CDs, has an exception to the exception.
The exception to the exception says that for copies of computer programs and musical sound recordings the outer exception does not apply to disposing of possession by "rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending" when it is "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage". So for CDs if you want to lend them make sure it is not for commercial advantage.
BTW, the exception to the exception also has an exception, making it not apply to embedded systems and console games. (There are also exceptions for libraries).
You are comparing products that aren’t equivalent. If I “buy” a book on Kindle, that book might have restrictions (natural or artificial) that don’t apply to a physical book.
The product is what it is. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. If you bought a physical Xbox disc 20 years ago, you wouldn’t expect to be able to use it on PlayStation.
Everyone has an inherent right to free speech and we have only chosen to temporarly not use it to encourage the creation of more useful science and art. If we decide we are no longer getting a fair deal we can choose to excercise our right to free speech again and poof goes your copyright and other imaginary property. Or we can set reasonable limits again so that everyone benefits.
I was thinking about this problem; the solution would be that when you buy a game you get certificate of ownership, meaning that you can invoke your ownership right at any games distribution platform e.g. Steam, EGS and GOG or any console digital store. But the problem is that there would be a backlash by aforementioned games distribution platforms and publishers because they want you to buy the game wherever you go and wherever you play.
192 comments
[ 0.35 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] threadToday, I don't. I think it's probably a week's worth of work with AI and 1-2 developers.
However, enforcing this law is going to be tricky. How well does the peer to peer have to work? How about off line mode? How much support does the developer provide for community servers? Is it only a one-time support?
A developer going bankrupt isn't going to be able to do too much.
It’s never like the server becomes lost media when they shut down services. Most development studios have an easy way to run the server stack locally for development anyway. The problem is forcing someone to actually spend several hours doing packaging to get it deployable and the general reluctance of companies to “lose control” of what they have. There are many alternate servers that have existed that developers have intentionally axed like AlterIWNet because of control reasons, not because the complete solution already existed.
Allowing your game to not require an internet connection or checking in with servers from the get go is the way. Easy peasy.
This take, and OP's, both feel like they're ignoring nearly half a century of how games have functioned in favor of the over-engineered industry of the past ~15 years. Again, as I said in my first response I'm maybe speaking out of ignorance here, but why are we acting like it's incredibly difficult to do something we were very capable of doing for a very long time, and for less effort than what we put in now?
They deliberately chose to design against it, because they discovered they can extract a lot more money by offering paid Progression Boosts so that players can more-quickly acquire Artificially Scarce Reward, or selling additional draws of a virtual lottery.
If anything, offline play has become more technically feasible than ever before, because it's so much easier to make AI opponents instead of offloading it to human adversaries.
I'm just surprised that folk on a tech-focused forum are putting forth auch short-sighted technical constraints as an example of why this sort of legislation won't work.
Imagine a Korean company makes a game and sells a license to an American company to publish their game. Eventually the American company shuts down and is now forced to release the playable game.
This version of the game is now going to compete with the Korean version of the game, because nobody will be enforcing the region lock anymore.
Your reaction to this is probably "great, screw region locking!" but judging by how some of these Korean games do in the west it's entirely possible that they will forego a global/American release altogether. They make most of their money from the Korean or Chinese region. Why would they risk that for a smaller global region?
Personally, I wouldn't mind this, but I can certainly see how this could backfire and keep some of the eastern games exclusively eastern.
All that needs to be done is to produce a game that will remain playable if the company shuts down. Simple as that. It doesn't need to phone home anywhere, it doesn't require an internet connection, it just... turns on and plays.
At that point, any company can just fold whenever they'd like without having to do anything in this area, and everyone who bought the game can breathe easily, double-click their icon and start playing while the publisher's employees go look for other jobs.
If you have a game that's available in multiple regions published by different companies, then the "playable game" will start competing with the still published game in other regions.
This creates financial risk for the developer of the game (in the original region). They might be better off not releasing the game in the US/EU to avoid this risk. Many KR and CN games already don't release globally or it's done as some kind of afterthought.
>A developer going bankrupt isn't going to be able to do too much.
Banktupcy at this scale simply means ownership of the IP and game changes to someone else. So they'd be on the hook if they want to operate in any jurisdiction with such a law.
Nothing has been introduced anywhere. It's still silly-season bluster.
Yep, he's running for reelection.
WoW launched in an essentially unfinished state. Molten Core, the first 40-man raid, didn't have a loot table. I'm not sure it was even accessible on launch day. And when it did get a loot table, it had placeholder graphics for the tier 1 set.
This was fine: it would take months for players to be able to tackle end-game content, so the game didn't need to launch with it all ready to go. But a law requiring Blizzard to keep a launch-day WoW available wouldn't be especially satisfying.
Even if you changed it to be "its full functional state" or something similar, that gets weird. After Molten Core was BWL, which you couldn't reach on launch. And so on and so forth. WoW changes a ton over an expansion, and each expansion brings even bigger changes (do you play pre-Cata or post?). Do we require Blizzard to keep available each and every patch version? Hotfix version? How do players decide which they want to play? I really enjoyed the Argent Tournament, but I bet most preferred actually reaching ICC (which itself had a bunch of time locks before you could reach Arthas, himself).
[1]: Even beyond everything outlined, WoW gets weird when you consider Classic and now Forever.
An ever-evolving game with properties of a SaaS would likely not exist under this new law.
Blizzard already knew how to build self-contained products with self-contained expansions even before WoW was released. StarCraft was the original game and StarCraft Broodwar was the expansion. It will affect game release cycles and properties of what you get with the game, but that's seems like part of the point of the legislation.
For example, massive expansion of free to play games with cosmetic microtransactions.
When the game ends... what is it that you've bought? The cosmetics, you never bought the game. If they give you an offline "shooting range" mode where you can wander the maps in the cosmetics you bought, have they satisfied the requirements? Again, you never bought the game you bought the cosmetics.
A step farther, loot drops in loot boxes that take time to unlock, on the order of days, weeks or months. You buy something to accelerate the unlock process down to hours. What have you bought? Just a faster unlock of something you'd have received anyway. So what are you owed when the game goes end of life? You didn't buy the game, you didn't buy the contents of the lootbox.
This is actually true of a large market segment.
Consider, there are existing laws against libel which were written before video screens existed. Did those laws encounter insurmountable, analogous circumvention issues when the printed word no longer required ink?
Problem is with “purchase” imho.
One of the big issues with DRM is that it's not legal in the US to break the digital lock even if the work is in the public domain, so that needs to be accounted for as well.
Bad laws passed by the elite to the elite for the benefit of the elite is the real problem. Why should I respect that?
Just because it's a law?! That's the poor flimsy justification?
My understanding is that the Library of Congress has the authority to designate situations in which it is legal to remove DRM on electronic copies of books you have purchased, such as to run it through a TTS program for those that are visually impaired. Does this not apply to other art mediums?
It's the dumbest and most obvious weakness of our system of government and it will never be fixed.
The incumbents would probably file lawsuits, but would they win?
If Congress can set copyright terms retroactively, why can't they set copyright terms retroactively?
What happens if they do the thing where you have to file for a renewal every year and the first 14 years are free and automatic, but then the renewal fee starts at $1000 and doubles for every year over 14?
> violate treaties the US has signed.
This is just an excuse the industry uses after bribing their way into some documents that can be renegotiated at any time. The US has been the ones pushing for this nonsense to begin with, so if they stopped, most other countries would be happy to enter into a different treaty. And the remaining ones would be the ones with the most to lose if they were the only ones to not sign onto the new agreement at the point when the US and most others pull out of the corrupt one.
And the legal basis is completely different, copyrights are created as an artificial right in the Copyright Clause, given for a limited time and purpose. They are not property in the traditional sense and Congress has absolute power over them.
Expanding exceptions to copyright law would be nice for different reasons, but custom servers and emulation were already legal before companies figured out they could put arbitrarily difficult roadblocks in the way of them.
Also while we're here, DMCA 512 was also a piece of horseshit, albeit less because it curtailed online freedom and more because it isn't a good way to adjudicate low-stakes copyright claims.
This sounds like fairy dust for this use case. You’re playing a real time game where latency matters, and you’re running all that latency sensitive traffic through a network of relays running on altruism - each hop would introduce latency and you’d deal with contention in the network.
The play experience would be awful.
We already have reverse engineering tools, and the vast majority of 20 year old media isn't producing new revenue.
Will never ever happen. Disney alone would spend billions to stop any meaningful copyright reforms
If you look back at what was created in the past, 30 years seems like an absolute minimum, 50 years seems about right -- perhaps with a registration requirement for the full term so that works with an unclear publication date and ownership can be easily traced. That would mean the film Logan's Run would just be leaving copyright protection now.
For context, I believe in the UK, there is a 50-year term for broadcasts, computer-generated works, Crown Copyright (125 years or 50 from first commercial publication if within 75 years of creation), and certain classes of films. There's a schedule here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-...
“Someone” might, but most people won’t. Do you think studios are going to announce the next blockbuster and most people will be like “eh, I’ll just wait 20 years, maybe I’ll have a kid and raise them until adulthood to pass the time”?
Portal is going to be 20 next year. I bought Portal 1 and 2 for a couple of bucks like a decade ago already.
I’d even say 20 years default is two long. Especially because there are things which are just abandoned. Make it shorter and add limited options to renew for limited time.
That is a laughable fantasy. It protects those with money and legal resources to enforce it, and that’s it.
I’m reminded of the case where some late night show played a video they found online as part of a segment, then later were able to copyright strike the original video. The original creator, being an individual, had no recourse.
> A studio can't take a 20 year old story and make a blockbuster out of it without licensing the story.
Again, laughable. Disney has done it but was never sued for being too big. It was done to Harlan Ellison too (who did spend years fighting it and won). Ripoffs happens frequently, you don’t hear about them that much precisely because studios in general know to rip off those without the means to put up a fight.
How much money does George Lucas need, I guess he’d only have a networth of a few hundred million vs a few billion.
I make music and buy tons of it. I’ve never been like, yo Nas is coming out with a new project, I’ll just wait 20 years to buy it on sale.
Right now if I want to sample a song made 50 years ago I still have to pay thousands to license it even if everyone involved has long since left.
Most of the money goes to some massive label.
Likewise, I don’t think Nas would struggle if his older albums were made public domain.
He’s still the only one who can perform the tracks live. He can still make new music, like the 6 projects he made in the last few years.
Sony/Columbia would only stop profiting off the deal they had an 18 year old sign decades ago.
That's the point. Someone finds something not successful, sees that they could make a lot of money off it, takes it for their own, has copyright over their new content. The labels you're talking about would gladly just mine what was released ${term}+1 years ago.
The point is that everything is copyrighted by default, unless you release it into the public domain.
> Right now if I want to sample a song made 50 years ago I still have to pay thousands to license it even if everyone involved has long since left.
And that's right. Why should someone else get to make money off someone else's work without compensating them for it, if they haven't released it to the public domain?
You're assuming that copyright protects the big labels -- it protects your creations too. The most famous case of this is Charles Dickens: https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/blogs/making-your-ma...
Pretty hard to send money to the afterlife.
50 years after the album came out means that most of the original artists aren’t going to be here.
With LLMs training on everyone’s copyrighted material anyway we’ll need to rethink copyright anyway.
A lot of media is defacto lost anyway as the rights holders refuse to republish it.
A 20 year period makes it much easier to save this stuff.
This will happen regardless. We've already built a massive wealth of recordings over the last 100 years that, if the law is followed, will eventually become available for free use. Unless the idea is to lock it up forever in order to keep present artists from having to compete?
But 20+ year old culture largely loses relevance. Even in a world where people pay for access to everything via streaming, the most popular music from 2006 is basically unknown to gen alpha. Only the very coolest people are still listening to Jibbs' masterpiece, "Chain Hang Low." In fact, one might argue that if it did cause people to retain their connection to previous culture, that such "mining" would be a positive.
10 years seems closer to obsolescence, and that's for productivity software. How many people still play The Ship (apparently none because the servers are shut down)? Battlefield 2142 (servers shut down, C&D issued for revival project, apparently there are a handful of people still though)?
This sounds counter intuitive, but the added friction is THE WHY they don't want to call it a rental on paper, only on appeals.
The same applies to concerts and weekend club: This is an event with a defined time limit.
You call a car leasing a leasing, you don't call it a sale with a small print.
along with everything else introduced that doesn’t go up for vote yet
More realistic would be improving copyright law. I think it'd be reasonable to state that copyright lasts 20 years from the first 'transfer' (sell, licensing, etc) of a creation. 20 years is long enough to fully monetize, but also short enough to really enable some interesting acceleration/derivation in society. For instance just about now XBox 360 games would be coming out of copyright protection. That seems perfectly reasonable, especially in the era of LLMs where 'sidestepping' copyright is going to be increasingly trivial anyhow.
Do you think it's possible we could simply sell physical copies on physical media and deal with the necessity to build new products every so often?
FYI the IoT wave was firmly industry driven.
Otherwise yeah, you'd be able to buy most stuff on GoG for pennies by now.
[1] - https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User...
History's disproven the notion that easy copying means constantly depreciating prices. The premise is flawed unless something so fundamentally different about piracy in 2026 is happening compared to 2000.
if people can buy the game with ownership, then how does subscription like software adobe is exist ?????
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Unlike freedom of speech, this right is intended to be limited in scope and duration. So let’s promote that progress! While we’re at it, we can reduce the length of copyright altogether.
Frankly this bill should be extended to cover similar situations in business and consumer software, etc. Abandonware has always been a legally murky area.
It’s entirely another to force them or restrict them from engaging in transactions between consenting parties that do not infringe on a third party.
If we want to talk about "consenting parties" well me decompiling your code and selling it to a 3rd party is consensus, and infringing on IP rights.
The fact that they weaponize the government against me sharing code is a handout given to a group that doesn't deserve it.
People were pointing out the issues with DRM 20+ years ago, but it was largely a theoretical concern at the time for most people. Now it's more real in exactly the way people said it would be (oops, your new computer doesn't have a CD drive, and newer windows doesn't allow the old DRM drivers anyway so your old games are unusable. Better buy our new digital version again. Oops we've decided to remove your access to the new digital version. No refunds.) for them, so the idea of passing laws against it is gaining popularity.
What I care about is consumers, not the protectionist racket.
If they don't like it, well there are tons of indie game studios who are taking advantage of the lastest technology to build good games.
And maybe a carveout if your licensing gets pulled.
I really want copyright to stay the hell out of the way of just letting players reverse engineer old games, but it's an international thing at this point
Does an LLC shield this? Do you have to carry the perpetual 25% on your balance sheet indefinitely?
This is a common excuse publishers use to yank games, so if you do this the bill would be crippled.
We have a right to own our videogame, there is absolutely no necessity to have an exclusion, make the server open source if you want to shutdown the server
"The right to own games" is just an entitlement. I don't see an argument for where this originates; it's entitlement to someone else's effort, or effectively mandating only selling games with that extra effort bundled in.
I don't think it's fair to expect hobby projects or small studios to be legally obligated to carry this, and open sourcing it because you sold it once is a big jump. Not all binaries are simple to ship, either.
I'm fine with the Californian law where they mandate marking it as a license and not a purchase, but a flat fee for minimum 10 years service I think is reasonable.
Most indie games will have no problems with this either, so I am not concerned.
Clearly the market hasn't worked well for the consumer, so it's time to set laws.
"Are you selling the games? Here are your new duties and obligations, and tomorrow you will get even more, get ready to publish source code or something! What, your game only on paid subscription? Guess what? Keep doing what you are doing, that bill has nothing to do with you!"
Video games are definitely an essential need for the modern leftist internet incel, so to allow capitalists to risk time and money producing games you can choose to voluntarily play, and then allow them to charge rents in exchange for you volunarily playing those games....well that's the definition of criminality!
The government should seize the video game means of production and all video games should be government produced. Quality will definitely go up, not down, the more the government starts meddling in this highly essential market.
Video games are basically healthcare imo. And Cuba has free healthcare thats amazing I hear from Hasan.
Cuba would probably produce the sickest video game titles. If only the evil Americans didn't embargo the Cubans, they would be on GTA10 by now.
Now, moving a steam account into a trust might be a breach, if they care. Even using a trust to buy a game might also be a violation of some form, perhaps, buried in the toc.
But the trust itself is a legal entity and it can own things. Just because the people behind the trust changes doesn't mean it was a transfer on the public side of the trust.
It may not be legal, as I said.
So you CAN pass your collection over to your heirs on an hard disk.
Whether this is legal it’s a different matter.
GOG is very clear on this: you CANNOT provide the installers to anybody, those are for yourself only. It is easier, for sure.
It's still a terrible situation that should be solved legally.
The fact that I'm "buying" a license holds as much weight in this issue as the countless eulas and privacy policies i supposedly agreed to.
We "endusers" live in a world were we are compelled, yes compelled, to enter legal agreements to do anything, and where these terms are dictated and changed unilaterally. Terms like these should and are meaningless yo everyone except for courts that foolishly hold them valid. For everything else, they should and are ignored.
Steam is not the same since you dont truely own the games you buy.
From the legal perspective, you don't truly own the game on any of the platforms.
From the technical perspective, the moment the game is on my PC I can run it.
For passing games to your heir legally, there is no way.
For passing games illegally both steam and gog work. For steam, you can download the steamdll and backup all your library and be good to go. For gog you don't have to do that, but if we are talking of illegally backing up all your games for after you die, you are good. As long as you are alive, you can play both gog and steam games for as long as you want.
To disrupt this natural tendency, you need an external influence which is not beholden to this scoring function. A good example (but not the only one) of such an external influence would be government regulations.
You could try to influence the cycle as consumers, but there are two significant roadblocks for this approach. Firstly, consumers are highly decentralized, and heterogeneous in their beliefs and actions. Sure, _you_ may understand and believe that a licensing model is bad, but how about the billions of others who are less politically engaged? The second is that consumers operate largely in the same profit driven system as the corporations we're trying to change. It takes a very principled individual to buy gta 6 at a 50% markup just so they can -own- the game rather than just rent it indefinitely.
I don't know of any instances in history of consumers making any meaningful impact in this way. Tons of examples of government regulation effecting meaningful change though.
Why would you just give money to an entity which is bound by bad laws, no matter how good it is right now?
Don't they understand e-waste and how is it piling up?
If we want to get serious about this there need to be exceptions. You can't force a one man shop to sing and dance the same rule set you would apply to all of Microsoft. At least, if your goal isn't to kill indie gaming and further expand the moats of the very people who would be inclined to lobby for this kind of moat expansion legislation.
It would actually be beneficial for end-user software in general.
Well, there is no actual bill text because this idiot is more interested in announcing what "he will introduce" than actually writing legislation.
But let's assume it has a hard requirement that a game work offline. Let's say an indie developer releases something where some component that fails when some random server stops responding. If the law or regulation is poorly written, that could create liability for them. Hell, it could create an opening through which well-funded studies could target indie competitors.
He hasn't introduced squat. I complained about this two days ago [1][2]. It's incredibly disingenuous to pretend to announce legislation while keeping the text–possibly unwritten–secret.
(Torres is running for reëlection as a Democrat in a solid-D district [3].)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50123852
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50123154
[3] https://www.cookpolitical.com/house/race/483646
Everyone is pushing for the rights of keeping the game alive after support ends, but in the move to digital I'm much more concerned with the loss of second hand markets.
Historically, my concern hasn't been running a 2005 game in 2025. Emulation tends to find ways. My concern is that this generation I was able to game at about 10 bucks per game (buying for 30 selling for 20 after I'm done, roughly) and the next generation is shaping at 100/game. That's a 10x increase in practice for the hobby.
The Legend of Zelda in 1987 was $50. Adjusted for inflation it would cost $151 today.
Diablo 2 released in 1999 at $50. Today that would be $101.
Diablo 3 released in 2012 at $60. Today that would be $88.
Diablo 4 released in 2023 at $70. Even this would be $77 today, despite being only 3 years ago.
Zelda Tears of the Kingdom released in 2023 for $70.
I do agree that the lack of a secondary market is concerning, but I think that in practice subscription services, piracy, and F2P games fulfill the niche of low cost gaming (for now). Don't know what the future holds though.
F2P is not an alternative because (good) games are not a commodity, each piece is individually valuable (otherwise why conserve?). Subscription services are just enshittification waiting to happen.
Piracy is actually an alternative, but we all lose if consumers are pushed to that.
The lack of secondary market is not only a concern for low cost gamers, it also pushes for monopolies in several different dimensions. For example, you're less likely to move platforms if you can't resell your library. You're also less likely to give a chance to a less known dev if you can't resell in case you don't like it.
It's like comparing a price of a modern car to a 1920's Rolls Royce and saying "eh, they're cheap, they're less than 500.000$, why are you complaining?"
This bill essentially can be distilled down to: "Companies are required to give me whatever I want for whatever price I want and they have to give me customer support forever."
Will just result in every game moving to a Saas model. And then a bunch of braindead people will be complaining about that as if the thing they voted for didn't cause that shift, requiring another piece of legislation that just kills the smaller publishers altogether.
Nobody is forced to play video games.
Why can’t I do all those things with a copy of a game I bought?
Note: I'll use US law here.
There's an important legal difference between books and CDs, which I'll get into at the end of this. For now let us just look talk about books.
> I can keep that copy forever, sell it, lend it, donate it, give it away, or let my kids inherit it
The works because the way most of us acquire copies of books doesn't involve entering into any kind of contractual arrangement with the copyright holder, so as long as what we want to do does not violate the copyright owner's copyright rights we can do anything with that book that we'd be legally allowed to do with a similar physical object (say a blank notebook).
Copyright law does give the copyright owner the exclusive right to distribute copies but there is an exception, the first sale doctrine, that says the owner of a particular lawfully made copy does not need permission from the copyright owner to "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy".
If we bought our books through some channel where they could require us to agree to a contract in order to be allowed to buy they could include restrictions on what you can do with the copy, just like game companies do.
It would be hard to enforce since they would have to do it by suing people who violate the contract which would be impractical almost all the time.
Compare to digital goods, especially executable digital goods, where they can make it so using your copy requires checking in with a server of theirs which can refuse to let you use the thing if it thinks whoever bought it has broken the contract.
The important legal difference between books and CDs is that exception to the first sale doctrine, the one that says you can "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without copyright owner permissions does not fully apply to CDs, has an exception to the exception.
The exception to the exception says that for copies of computer programs and musical sound recordings the outer exception does not apply to disposing of possession by "rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending" when it is "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage". So for CDs if you want to lend them make sure it is not for commercial advantage.
BTW, the exception to the exception also has an exception, making it not apply to embedded systems and console games. (There are also exceptions for libraries).
You are comparing products that aren’t equivalent. If I “buy” a book on Kindle, that book might have restrictions (natural or artificial) that don’t apply to a physical book.
The product is what it is. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. If you bought a physical Xbox disc 20 years ago, you wouldn’t expect to be able to use it on PlayStation.
One senator makes a press release saying that he plans to introduce a bill protecting game ownership.
It's not clear if this bill has any chance of being voted in - and even if it does, we have no idea what is actually in the bill.