If games are a kind of software, why must games face this kind of regulation when other kinds of (actually more important) software doesn't / won't?
In saying this, I'm not in favor of this regulation, actually the opposite - because imagine if this regulation passed for games and then passed for software in general next.
MMORPGs are software provided as a service, but this proposed regulation wants to make them playable even after the service provider discontinues service. If applied to software in general then that means all SaaS once it has any customers, then it has the obligation to make (and keep?) that software usable indefinitely.
And what if the reason you had to discontinue was out of your control? Eg. one of your critical service providers went out of business? Guess you'll have to recreate that service provider's whole service so your now open source software can still work on top of it before you can actually go out of business yourself.
It is just an absurd expectation for game companies to have to consider this. And in the end it just makes it harder for the smaller not-established game companies while giving the bigger companies another boost, concentrating their advantage.
A reasonable requirement would be having the server code, data, and assets be released to public domain when they shut down the service. If they're not operating it, I don't see any good reason to allow people to squat on content that people want to run for themselves. A year after the last commercial offering is sufficient time.
If you run a SaaS and then shut it down, game or otherwise, then you should have to release that software under a permissive license, or to the public domain, along with any non-code assets necessary for functionality equivalent to the last commercially offered state.
The world would be better, we'd end up with fewer leeches and rent seekers.
By selling software, the developers benefit from the protections of copyrights. Mandating the release of source and assets after the end of commercial activity benefits society. This would require government to work with an archive organization of some sort - maybe offer tax incentives to any site that freely hosts said content, for up to 5 years after the release.
There are all sorts of valuable things we could be doing that benefits society and individuals instead of making it all about ruthless corporate bloodsucking and maximizing markets.
Part of the problem is sometimes the company doesn't have the license to release (i.e. "redistribute") the server code. In that case they're stuck - the law requires them to both release and not release the code.
Or what about scenarios where the company doesn't have code access to a critical dependency? It's not so unusual either - using a non-OSS DB or cloud service would qualify.
I think a better version of the law should mirror right-to-repair efforts: service providers have to release an API spec and not block attempts to point the client code at the new server, analogous to improving the "repairability" of the software with third party components. Constraining this event to when the service shuts down should mitigate economic concerns for companies.
Something like mandating the binary be released for the version operating at the end of the product's life would be good - not ideal, but since making everything open source by fiat isn't feasible, this would still allow people to operate software after it's been abandoned.
Since the only wording is "providing reasonable means to continue functioning of" when someone interprets this as extreme as "MMORPGs must run their servers in the cloud forever in case someone tries to sign on 70 years from now" and someone else interprets this as mildly as "Games with single player modes must be allowed to launch without server connectivity at the time cloud services are retired" it becomes difficult to immediately refocus talk about how "this" does/doesn't should/shouldn't will/won't apply to other software since it's not even a strong agreement on "what" we're really talking about.
That said I'd hazard a bet most people supporting this also support similar feelings about generic software as well. Sometimes it's just easier for regulation to start in one "obvious" case and spread out from there rather than hope to wait for everyone to agree to change everything at once.
" If games are a kind of software, why must games face this kind of regulation when other kinds of (actually more important) software doesn't / won't? "
I am neutral to the iniative but I can answer this question very clearly: Games are cultural products and you want to get the exact same experience (as you want to see the same film and not something else)
Using GIMP or Photoshop is a very different experience: Does it matter? Not so much. You can use an alternative and in case user will change. The Crew or Gran Turismo? You don't want to change so much.
>I am neutral to the iniative but I can answer this question very clearly: Games are cultural products and you want to get the exact same experience (as you want to see the same film and not something else)
Maybe this is a bit too philosophical, but: you'll never get the exact same experience. Year 1 Wow is not even the same game as year 20 WoW. Braid in 2008 won't give the same "wow" factor in 2024, be it due to stiffer competition or your opinion of the creator himself over the course of 16 years. these will affect a game no matter the state, single or multiplayer, indie or AAA.
There can be some archival benefits, but I don't think anyone would expect to start a MP game 10 years from now and get the exact experience as a day one player (for better and worse).
Some people do want to use an older version of Photoshop though. The people who do want older gimp can still pull it from somewhere. Pretty sure Adobe's been hell bent on making sure CS6 is as useless as possible.
I feel it goes the same for games (a most proprietary platform). There will be some playing pokemon Red in 2024, but most people moved on to Sword/Shield or Scarlet/Violet. Most don't necessarily care if Red/Blue is legally available (and with the 3ds shop gone, I don't think it is as of now).
Their FAQ talks about using games as the first step in fighting companies discontinuing services of various kinds (not only cultural products).
It is true there is a cultural aspect for games and they mention it, but if a regulation like this passes, then it is easy to imagine what other regulations would be pushed next.
Yes it could be great for consumers, but too many regulations means it becomes harder to start and do businesses and the advantages fall to the established players and in the end there are less options in the market(s) due to monopolies so the consumer is actually worse off.
" It is true there is a cultural aspect for games and they mention it, but if a regulation like this passes, then it is easy to imagine what other regulations would be pushed next. " Does it? That is a strong conclusion. Also we can distinguish between different solutions in this discussion anyway.
" Yes it could be great for consumers, but too many regulations means it becomes harder to start and do businesses and the advantages fall to the established players and in the end there are less options in the market(s) due to monopolies so the consumer is actually worse off. " From a regulation point this is easy to tackle: Just give some sort of limit to tackle only the big players.
Respecting basic property rights is not up for debate. If a business model relies on violating them, then it probably doesn't deserve to exist in the first place.
The problem there is that games don't usually advertise a subscription, like basicall all SaaS products do. They masquerade as a good for a one-time payment, then turn around and pretend it was a rental all along.
Note that it's not about running servers for all eternity. It's about patching out the requirement of an _official_ server and/or releasing dedicated server software, at least _after support ends_, like games have done for decades already.
MMOs can be both. If it quacks like a good, it is one, no matter what they say in the ToS/EULA. Stuff like World of Warcraft would likely be unaffected, because they are up-front about the duration you pay for.
In saying this, I'm not in favor of this regulation, actually the opposite - because imagine if this regulation passed for games and then passed for software in general next.
MMORPGs are software provided as a service, but this proposed regulation wants to make them playable even after the service provider discontinues service. If applied to software in general then that means all SaaS once it has any customers, then it has the obligation to make (and keep?) that software usable indefinitely.
And what if the reason you had to discontinue was out of your control? Eg. one of your critical service providers went out of business? Guess you'll have to recreate that service provider's whole service so your now open source software can still work on top of it before you can actually go out of business yourself.
It is just an absurd expectation for game companies to have to consider this. And in the end it just makes it harder for the smaller not-established game companies while giving the bigger companies another boost, concentrating their advantage.