| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 4 hours ago |
| So this only really applies to games you have to purchase once but are online-only? That's... an incredibly narrow law, that only covers a class of games which are particularly stupid by design. (Continuous cost without continuous revenue.) |
|
| ▲ | Paracompact 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I assume you're actually a gamer, and not just an economist speculating on a market you're not exposed to? Because I don't know how to reconcile your comment with my reality. There are tons of live-service single-purchase games, I would even say they the overwhelmingly default model in 2026 compared to WoW-style subscription games. If you want an answer to your "continuous cost without continuous revenue" riddle, the answer is in-game purchases, DLC, attracting new accounts over time, and the unspoken unadvertised promise "we can cut our losses at any time and shut down servers." This lattermost incentive is what is unhealthy for the market and what should be regulated to no longer be an incentive (short of having peer- or community-hosted servers, at least). |
| |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | See Diablo 4. One time purchase, live service game. I'm almost certain blizzard makes most of its revenue from it on the cosmetics shop. | | | |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are a bunch of these, and they are silly/unviable. I see a lot more free-to-play than single-purchase live service games, but the latter is a fun additional exploit in that they get you to pay up front for something that they never have any intention to survive long-term. Currently I'm heavily playing both a free-to-play with microtransactions title (Heroes of the Storm) and a subscription title (EVE Online), both of which are live service games which would be exempt from this bill by definition, but are both games I would meaningfully like to play even if the companies decided they didn't want to run them anymore. (Yes, I'm aware both games I am playing regularly are old as time itself.) Meanwhile, yes, there are single purchase games with an online model, and they fail and get shut down because they were never sustainable to begin with. The bill would arguably cover something like the FPS-of-the-years which are intended to grab everyone's attention for a few months and then die off when the company needs you to buy the next version of the title because they get no recurring revenue from you continuing to play the current one. (See Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.) | | |
| ▲ | Paracompact 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ah, I see your point better now. I agree that free-to-play and single-purchase live service games are essentially the same breed, that free-to-plays are similarly widespread, and would indeed like microtransaction-funded titles to be subjected to the same stipulations in the bill. > there are single purchase games with an online model, and they fail and get shut down because they were never sustainable to begin with I still don't think I agree with this (it's the exact same business model, just with an onboarding cost to e.g. be less dependent on MTX, or to cultivate a smaller but more dedicated fanbase, or to shut out bots), but that's beside the above points. | |
| ▲ | Akronymus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Currently I'm heavily playing both a free-to-play with microtransactions title (Heroes of the Storm) and a subscription title (EVE Online), both of which are live service games which would be exempt from this bill by definition, but are both games I would meaningfully like to play even if the companies decided they didn't want to run them anymore. (Yes, I'm aware both games I am playing regularly are old as time itself.) [emphasis mine] AFAICT, the MTX would make HOTS not be eligible for the "no monetary considerations" carveout. Edit, didn't realize you were the same person I replied to on another comment, sorry for repeating myself. | | |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No worries, I disagree with your read on the text of the bill there, but I can appreciate there being reason for debate. ;) | | |
| ▲ | Akronymus 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I can absolutely see how you came to your interpretation. Thanks for being so cordial. This definitely has to be ruled on to know one way or another for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jayd16 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Diablo 3 and 4 would be massive examples? Hell Divers. Monster Hunter, perhaps? Online head to head games like Street fighter? Maybe RTS games like Dawn of War? Pay Day. Seems like all of these would be hit and will move to freemium or subscription. |
|
| ▲ | numpad0 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is really about Ubisoft's The Crew, a one-time-paid mostly-singleplayer car race game about infights and revenges in an illegal street racing group, that required Internet connection, which server got shut down. So yeah. The required connection and authentication was likely an anti-piracy measure, so kind of doubly yeah. |
|
| ▲ | idle_zealot 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Continuous cost without continuous revenue That would be the case if the publisher had any intent to actually keep the service online. Empirically they do not, hence the law. |
|
| ▲ | wavemode 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > That's... an incredibly narrow law, that only covers a class of games which are particularly stupid by design. (Continuous cost without continuous revenue.) Eh, it sounds unintuitive, but in practice it's extremely common. Almost every first-person shooter (well, you could really expand that to "almost every competitive multiplayer game") made by major studios is either a one-time purchase or entirely free. The ongoing revenue comes from cosmetics and other in-game goodies. This sort of economy makes sense when you consider consoles (especially back in the day), where it's easy to get people to buy a disc but hard to get people to sign up for a subscription. |
|
| ▲ | Akronymus 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It also covers games with any form of MTX, even if the base game is free. So most live service games. |
| |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't read it that way. "Free-to-play" games generally include games with microtransactions, and the bill text does nothing to disagree with that: > (b) This section does not apply to any of the following: > (2) Any digital game that is advertised or offered to a person for no monetary consideration. This solely refers to the game being available for free, not for any additional powerups or cosmetics being available for free. | | |
| ▲ | Akronymus 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > > (2) Any digital game that is advertised or offered to a person for no monetary consideration. I'd argue buying any form of MTX creates a monetary consideration. Though, I guess it is kind of a gray area that's gonna have to be ruled on. > This solely refers to the game being available for free, not for any additional powerups or cosmetics being available for free. I didn't intend to mean additional stuff being free. I meant additional stuff you can buy, resulting in the no monetary considerations carveout not applying. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is absolutely not a gray area. MTX are monetary consideration. Free games in this case are more likely advergames. | | |
| ▲ | Akronymus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Gray area, as in it has to be ruled on in court because that's 100% gonna be an avenue for some companies to try and weasel out of obligations. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We shall call it the Diablo 4 law. |
| |
