That kind of reasoning makes sense if you have a single publisher controlling the entire market and they don't want to undercut their own business. But that's obviously not the case. There are plenty of publishers that want to publish games like Terraria, especially if they go on to sell more than 60 million copies.

I think the market is actually much more segmented than your comment implies. There's publishers who absolutely dominate certain niches, especially sporting games, and the only realistic competition they have are themselves.

It's worth keeping in mind that the "market" for a particular player can actually be incredibly small depending on their interests. In the most extreme example, a player might be a fan specifically of a single IP or series of games. Call of duty is one good example because there really are a lot of people who are like this. Video game IPs are a government granted monopoly on a small scale, and the word monopoly is not there for no reason, there is only one place to get CoD if you are a fan of CoD. Predictably, these companies follow the OA's suggested strategy very closely!

This would be why they’re trying to create consumer protection laws

So much this.

Its why Neverwinter Nights had extensive modding, local hosted server, and more....

But Baldurs Gate 3 doesn't.

NWN will still be playable in 10 years. BG3 likely won't be, or significant reductions in game quality will take place.

Knowling Larian I dont think that will be the case. what are you basing your assumptions upon? there is already extensive modding for bg3

Show me the local server executable.

Yes it is, I use a VPN to play on LAN mode with my family all the time from across the country.

It's called bg3_dx11.exe. BG3 doesn't have dedicated servers, one player hosts and the others connect to them. It (obviously) works on LAN, no internet connection required.

Larian are no longer involved with development of BG3:

https://www.ign.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coast-not-to-bla...

EDIT: Updated Link. It seems they've added free patches and won't be working on BG4.

Your article doesn't say "Larian are no longer involved with development of BG3". It in fact says they're still developing it, but won't be making BG4.

The official Larian BG3 Discord server is promoting a mod competition, and they're still adding content, bug fixes, and new features to the game as well.

I've updated the Link with the right one.

https://baldursgate3.game/news/the-final-patch-new-subclasse...

So it looks like they've released free content update and after this is is going to be hot fixes?

That announcement is about BG4 not BG3.

I've update the link. It seems they've released a bunch of free content instead in recent patches, which contradicts what they previously said somewhat.

BG3 is quite possibly one of the most modable games of the last five years, and the multiplayer game is self hosted (peer to peer)

I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. There is a lot of confusion about this, almost certainly from people who have never played the game.

By playable do you just mean new content? It will be perfectly playable in 10 years just like all the other classic CRPGs. It would be amazing if modding in content was easy like NWN, if that’s what you mean, because it obviously isn’t. It does seem like such a waste. I’m in a second replay and it’s enjoyable but just so long and will become more repetitive. There are certain sections in Act I that I can’t see myself enjoying a third time at all. Some smaller modules would be amazing. I think the closest thing to that will be Solasta II in the modern era.

My understanding is that WOTC wouldn’t extend their d&d license to be used in bg3 with that full set of modding that you want.

BG3 has extensive modding support to the point where people released mods that turn it from a "classical" rpg to a roguelike.

BG3 has public lobbies, private lobbies, and *all* games are hosted locally on the hoster's computer, can be played through LAN without internet. It also has split screen coop.

Nothing you said about BG3 has an ounce of truth to it, and it is one of the most consumer friendly games in a sea of anticonsumer garbage. Are you trying to discredit Larian for some reason?

This is literally every industry now. Shall we "regulate" all industries to be like this, then? Is that achievable?

Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point? "That's not what this is about. Ok, where are we heading then?

Paying for a subscription is explicitly not what this is about. No one is suggesting this for MMOs. Just that it be clear that it is a subscription, that you're not actually buying the game. What a one-time fee for an MMO? Give it an expiry date. You can keep pushing the expiry date, but you have to promise support up to at least that date.

AFAICT SKG doesn't really make a distinction between games bought with a one-time purchase and games that are subscribed to. In their FAQ, they explicitly say it would apply to MMOs too (see https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq "What about large-scale MMORPGs? Isn't it impossible for customers to run those when servers are shut down?) although they don't spell out whether they mean exclusively games bought with a one-time fee or games that are subscription-only.

Ross from Accursed Farms said this in a video FAQ on youtube:

" Would this initiative affect subscription games? Well, that's another question that depends on what the EU says. Personally, I think it's very unlikely because that doesn't fit well with other existing consumer laws. I think the only way you could even make that argument would be that this is necessary for preservation and most governments don't seem to care about that at all. However, I don't think this is a huge loss, since only a handful of games operate that way today. So if we can give up those but then save 99% of other games, I'm willing to make that bargain. "

so it seems like they actually are suggesting that they'd like for (a law that came out of) SKG to apply to subscription games but there's an understanding that it probably won't.

Then this is essentially a formalized buggestion, and what will almost certainly happen is companies will respond back with "Won't Fix"

A more accurate analogy would be: you bought a physical DVD and DVD player, but now the film studio is preventing you from playing the DVD that you own on the hardware you own. In which case yes, we should regulate. Paying for access to a constantly changing library is not the same as paying to permanently own a single product.

It’s pretty easy to solve static content like ebooks and video games; just legislate that your license is transferrable between services and media. Then I can legally torrent a game that is unsupported.

Content subscriptions like Netflix are different because you are not paying face value for one title. The better analogy here would be the game streaming services like XBox online. It’s clear you are not doing anything like “buying a game”, it’s the whole point of the business model. As you say, it would be a lot harder to make these laws apply there (but I bet that wouldn’t stop the EU from trying).

I think any legislation on this subject would have to reckon with the second-order effects; on the margin you’d be adding pressure for publishers to move to pure subscription services, if these laws don’t apply in those cases.

> legislate the that your license

What we should be doing is applying the laws that already exist: when I purchase a physical book I own a copy of it and can sell it, lend it, modify it.

Amazon and the publishers have zero say in the matter.

Buying a digital copy should be no different. I more of this stupid “you bought a license to access a copy” crap.

Let's step through this example.

All Xbox games around 2004 were physical CDs. Many had online services attached to them. Eventually, those servers were turned off. You can still play LAN and singleplayer. You still have your access to the physical bytes on the disk (though there is copy protection).

What should companies be required to do regarding the servers?

Not sue people into oblivion if they want to reverse engineer and create their own servers.

That is a perfectly rational suggestion. It is repulsive that large companies such as my employer do this.

Keep in mind that is one of the things that this movement is asking for. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all IMO.

Thing is, you are by default allowed to write mostly any contract / ToS you like (within the broad rules of contract law). So to implement this you need to explicitly ban “license for things that could be purchases”. And as I noted above the edge cases and market pressures make that non-trivial; do you also ban subscription services like Audible?

We already have subscriptions services for physical books and audiobooks.

They’re called libraries.

You don’t own the books when you check them out, and you wouldn’t own a digital copy when you check it out from audible.

As for market pressure, you don’t have to ban them. Require that if they want to rent digital copies out they must also allow for purchasing of them at a price that the average person would find resonable.

> Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point?

Actually not Netflix as they just offer a monthly subscription and not individual sales, but _YES_ by all means if I "purchase" (not rent!) a book or movie on Amazon (or anyone else), I'd like that, thank you.

I'm sure if movie studios could get together and throw a switch that made every 5+ year old disappear entirely, forcing consumers to keep buying new movies, they would. Just like every car manufacturer would choose to disable every 2+ year old car on the road if they could. Why do we give video game companies this power?

Because it turns out that you don't need a server side simulation of reality to stream some bytes over the internet, and yet Netflix literally does pull content whenever they feel like it

If Netflix decides to end their service and make every TV show and movie they have permanently unavailable, even through all other legal businesses, then yeah, it would be nice of them to give that stuff away.

The FTC is currently suing John Deere over this kind of thing.

Also, Netflix is a weird comparison here. That seems like it should be an online-only service, they're not selling the actual movies to you. It's one of the situations where the model actually makes sense, unlike single-player video games.

I mean, what you describe sounds pretty good. It sounds like you think it's not feasible for some reason (other than political will). Do you want to elaborate on that?

It certainly is feasible. Requiring it to happen though, would result in some interesting economic dynamics, I believe.

We currently exist in a two tier global economy where some countries are required to follow a strict set of laws, and others basically make their own. To be clear, I am saying that Russia and China do not care at all about piracy and IP theft and so on.

As you increase the rules that Western companies must follow, you run the risk that some day your only options will be non-Western companies, and that may or may not be a good thing. This is what has happened with manufacturing, and it was good for a while until it wasn't. It still is quite good in some pockets though, like batteries and solar.

> Shall we require Netflix to release server builds so that you can access their content indefinitely because you paid for a subscription at some point?

No. However, you should be able to make a copy using your own computer (onto the computer or onto an external media such as a DVD) and then you can play the movies that you have copied on your own computer (not necessarily the one used for Netflix) or DVD player. This should be possible without needing to use their software, and it does not mean that their software or their service should need to offer it as an option; it is done on your side. (They can refuse to serve the movie to you faster than the actual duration of the movie if they want to do, though, therefore making it take as much time to copy as it does to watch it normally.)

> Shall we "regulate" all industries to be like this, then?

Don't threaten me with a good time

I’m not sure “sellers would love to raise prices and have people keep buying” is the indictment that you think it is. Terraria and Modern Warfare, which is monetized the way you describe, are such different products…

Why would you want to spend 1000s of hours in a game? That must be eradicated with fire. Time is your most precious resource... why waste it on one game? Games need to be shorter, maybe 20 hrs or so for high budget single player games.

I detest this line of thinking. There are plenty of games that are playable for this length of time. I've played hundreds of hours of Factorio, and I am not even close to exhausting the experience. Terraria was a fine example, too.

It's time to learn how to let go of something that is akin to an addictive substance. I also spent countless hours playing MMOs. While I have fond memories of them, I was relieved when I managed to stop playing these exploitative games.

I agree that single player games and the day zero patch shenanigans must go in order to preserve them. But otherwise, I'm glad that after long years most of these games cannot be injected into your bloodstream anymore.

Some people enjoy things you don't , calm down.

I'm calm. All I'm saying is that 5-10 years of exposure to a game is more than enough.

You don't get to decide this

Well, the difference is that the MMOs are almost uniformly skinner boxes engaging in psychological warfare against each and every person that plays them, while Terraria is the videogame equivalent of going to a museum, seeing a beautiful painting, and remembering that there's endless joy to be found in the world.

It's time you stop telling people how to enjoy things.

Planned obsolescence even has affected video games too?