wsve

8 ms·

1.
by wsve 2mo ago
Geez man. I've seen your replies in this thread multiple times. At this point, I have to wonder: why are you so against legislating the actual sale of ownership of video games? How could enacting this theoretical legislation, that you
2.
by wsve 2mo ago
> Rent and Subscribe would NOT be clear because they imply ongoing payment. Yes, exactly. Video game distributors should be forced to choose a pricing model: "Sell", or "Rent". No more "License, until we or the D
3.
by wsve 2mo ago
Don't blame "regulation" on this, as if politicians do this because they're dogmatically "pro-regulation". That is not a real political stance, and it's childish to frame these bills in that manner. Califo
4.
by wsve 2mo ago
Maybe, but regularly reframing regulations that people like (consumer protections, OSHA, lemon laws, etc.) as regulations will hopefully remind/reinforce that the whole "pro/anti regulations" framing is a childish mind
5.
by wsve 2mo ago
All your examples make clear to the customer that their access is temporary and conditional on their continued and ongoing payment, and that ownership of the good/service is retained by the seller. On the other hand, "buying a gam
6.
by wsve 3mo ago
I think you missed the truth behind this article: private Minecraft servers are not piracy, or illegal, in any sense. The EULA that server admins must agree to in order to use the server states that other servers are allowed. There's
7.
by wsve 3mo ago
That's right, my bad, I just meant that he's clearly doing just fine but said something very wrong instead
8.
by wsve 4mo ago
> A single match might require separate proprietary systems for matchmaking, player inventories, anti cheat, metrics tracking, and database management. Many of those come with licenses that don't allow you to just give away the code
9.
by wsve 4mo ago
The law isn't requiring that all online features of the game be available. Just a minimal viable product to play the base game online. No storefronts, no news prompts, no matchmaking servers, just server lists. You don't need AWS
10.
by wsve 4mo ago
> Second is an actual concern about this specific regulation. This is a concrete concern about the incentives it creates. Like I said in my OP comment, the problem with saying "this regulation will push devs to subscription-based ga
11.
by wsve 4mo ago
Consider the infrastructure you're talking about. What parts of the game service would need to be implemented with micro services and/or calls to a cloud computing and storage? It would be matchmaking, storefronts, news updates,
12.
by wsve 4mo ago
For releases you're generally building it all at once in a merge request/deployment pipeline anyway
13.
by wsve 4mo ago
Please reread my initial comment. That's the assumption everyone is making, but WHY would it actually cost so much more? What's so much more expensive? Some games already do this, why would it be so much more expensive for others?
14.
by wsve 4mo ago
Why would releasing your server executable as a standalone be difficult to impossible to comply with the law? Many games already do this
15.
by wsve 4mo ago
> The most obvious example is pretty much any form of inviting a player/having idenities. The storage of users and inviting them is what brings in the scaling complexities in your average online game, and that's when you'd
16.
by wsve 4mo ago
> so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition. Please reread my comment. You're doing the exact same thing. You're saying this like it's a given, but it is not. WHY would it be more attractive?
17.
by wsve 4mo ago
Blanket dismissal of regulations is about as silly as a blanket dismissal of laws. Some laws are "bad", some are "good", but the point is who do they hurt, and who do they serve? Regulations are tools, like laws, and can
18.
by wsve 4mo ago
> I've seen some supporters of this style bill push for 'offline play' being a requirement. That seems a bit silly to my eyes, self-hosting a server seems sufficient. But not included in this bill, so not an issue here &gt
19.
by wsve 4mo ago
> gives the game developers a perverse incentive to further embrace more exploitive revenue models such as free to play and subscription based services? This is what I fail to see an explanation of anywhere in these comments. WHY would t
20.
by wsve 4mo ago
Agreed that's what they were likely trying to do with that comment, and I'd argue the problem with it is that it fear-mongers about regulations while failing to actually scrutinize what the negative effects are. Also, we should
21.
by wsve 4mo ago
That is very far from the point, not only because what I meant was that some restaurants are not as good compared to others, but also because the connection between eating out vs eating at home and regulations is basically non-existent? I
22.
by wsve 4mo ago
>See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs. All this says is that it's possible for regulations to have negative, unintended consequences. It's about as rele
23.
by wsve 4mo ago
> Well, they're not selling you the game. They're licensing you the ability to play their game. I don't think that's a reasonable reading of what it means to "buy a game", by most people's interpretatio
24.
by wsve 4mo ago
I'm always shocked by how irrationally anti-regulation this site is. I have yet to see any explanation why this regulation would be, in practice, cost/legally prohibitive in any way. This seems like a consumer protections slam dun
25.
by wsve 4mo ago
Consumer protection laws are "weird"? I'd hate to live in your world...
26.
by wsve 4mo ago
Yes it's definitely the opposite of trickle down. Higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce income inequality and provide more funding for social programs
27.
by wsve 4mo ago
It's a label for a very real tax policy and the advertised reason behind it, it's definitely a thing (or was, at least, the argument is less common today)
28.
by wsve 4mo ago
Uh... Can you name me a single job where the tradeoff is "You won't get paid much because this position is so respectable"? There are respectable jobs where you don't get paid much because the area of work simply does
29.
by wsve 4mo ago
Yes, but notice that the pope gets paid very well
30.
by wsve 4mo ago
"status-compensated"?

More ›