6 comments

  • Sohcahtoa8259 minutes ago
    &gt; Games with online functionality would also be required to provide an offline mode before the servers supporting them are shut down.<p>For some games, like MMORPGs, an offline mode doesn&#x27;t make sense.<p>In lieu of that, they need to make the server binaries available, along with client functionality to let you choose a server. They shouldn&#x27;t be required to offer support, but the nerd community is great at figuring things out. They&#x27;ll get it working and produce guides.
    • dawnerd49 minutes ago
      They should release either the server component or documentation for how it works and a way to unlock any protections around it. I’ve seen people argue before that releasing the whole backend stack would be an issue and I agree, but documentation shouldn’t be an issue.
      • pooloo25 minutes ago
        I would prefer that this become the standard for software, as a whole, to be open source after a while. Because there is a sustainability aspect, just like the rest of the tools in our world.<p>For example, a manual drill has no real draw backs it will always run. An electric drill with a cord, will likely always run and electrical components can be traced and sourced rather easily. A drill that was designed to use with a battery, will not always run, and has software&#x2F;firmware with some other limitations likely buried in the software.<p>The moment support is dropped, it should be released to open source to allow others interested to maintain it. Such as with the Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080 Ti... no longer supported with driver updates (outside of &quot;security updates&quot;). The firmware should be supported by the people if the company doesn&#x27;t want to support it, it still is an excellent card even 10 years later...<p>MMO or not, source code should just be released. Patents are not forever, source code shouldn&#x27;t be either. Though patent might be too long as well. 15&#x2F;20 years worked when things developed slowly, but now days its outdated within years and could benefit other advancements.
        • EvanAnderson0 minutes ago
          If a company is willing to continue maintaining a piece of code their monopoly should continue. If they choose to stop (because they can&#x27;t come up with a sustainable business model, can&#x27;t find somebody to sell the monopoly to who will, etc) it should become, at minimum, source available (if not out right Open Source).<p>This should be the case, especially, for software that drives long-lived hardware devices in infrastructure roles (public works, manufacturing, etc).
    • cosmic_cheese49 minutes ago
      I dunno, there’s plenty of projects that turn MMORPGs into self-contained single player RPGs and&#x2F;or simulate other players with bots, so I don’t really see any reason why they should be excluded.
      • chneu42 minutes ago
        I don&#x27;t think they&#x27;re saying exclude them, but expand the legislation to include a common scenario.
    • Klonoar21 minutes ago
      Releasing server binaries might be a stretch, but what about API specs?<p>Then any 3rd party could stand up a new server and at least have an inkling of where to go on.
    • phendrenad251 minutes ago
      That&#x27;s never going to happen. Game companies are not going to give you their source code. Usually the source of any game that gets shut down is shared with games that are still live. Example: if Fallout 76 is shut down, Bethesda giving you their source would essentially be giving you the source to Skyrim also. I&#x27;m not saying that I have the solution or that your idea isn&#x27;t good on some level, but we have to be realistic.<p>Counterpoint: maybe we could make proprietary software illegal, and make everything GPL so we can just request the source code to anything we want. With enough eyes all bugs are shallow, so why wouldn&#x27;t banks and nuclear reactors want their source to be audited by the public? lol<p>(Software might become de facto open source with AI decomp anyway)
      • saghm26 minutes ago
        &gt;&gt; They need to make the server binaries available, along with client functionality to let you choose a server.<p>&gt; Game companies are not going to give you their source code.<p>Okay but what about the thing they actually proposed?
      • Razengan3 minutes ago
        &gt; <i>That&#x27;s never going to happen. Game companies are not going to give you their source code.</i><p>We don&#x27;t need them to; AI can reverse engineer most shit now.<p>Even if US lobbying tries to hamper that, China will accelerate it.
      • SoftTalker36 minutes ago
        Well then they can simply not shut down the old games.<p>&gt; Software might become de facto open source with AI decomp anyway<p>Agreed.
      • stale200216 minutes ago
        &gt; That&#x27;s never going to happen. Game companies are not going to give you their source code.<p>Sure they will. They can be forced to by the government which is society&#x27;s monopoly on violence.<p>&gt; but we have to be realistic.<p>No we don&#x27;t. We can just force companies to do it, using the threat of the law.
  • lrvick19 minutes ago
    By the time something like this passes, everyone will have the ability to convert any game to unlicensed source code in a matter of hours.<p>Intellectual property is not going to be a thing anymore.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo01 hour ago
    I like this but why stop at Video Games?
    • john_strinlai1 hour ago
      it&#x27;s easier to formulate and pass something with a smaller scope, like this, and then expand&#x2F;iterate on it to apply more broadly.
      • hk13371 hour ago
        Maybe in one aspect but it also raises the question, &quot;Why is Congress concerned with details like this?&quot;<p>Just trying to point out what could be the opposition for this, not that it&#x27;s a bad thing to pass.
        • ygjb47 minutes ago
          Consumer protection is already clearly the focus of Congress, and with the demise of the Chevron deference in 2024, it seems that Congress needs to bind (such that they can) groups operated by the Executive Branch to uphold consumer rights explicitly instead of allowing regulators to navigate the commercial market.<p>The answer to Why is Congress concerned with details like this? is that the Supreme Court of the United States made it their concern by rejecting an established practice of deferring to expert regulators instead of electable people who probably lack the relevant knowledge and experience.
          • saghm19 minutes ago
            &gt; is that the Supreme Court of the United States made it their concern by rejecting an established practice of deferring to expert regulators instead of electable people who probably lack the relevant knowledge and experience<p>The current Supreme Court unfortunately unfortunately seems to lack the knowledge and experience to recognize the logic in this thinking (or just doesn&#x27;t care because it doesn&#x27;t fit their agenda)
        • saghm21 minutes ago
          I could use the same argument to oppose pretty much any legislation that isn&#x27;t like, solving healthcare or preventing climate change. For any given issue, there&#x27;s almost always something more important than it to at least some people, so if the best argument against fixing a problem is &quot;there are other problems that should be fixed&quot;, that&#x27;s a pretty strong argument in favor of the fix.
      • 2OEH8eoCRo01 hour ago
        I agree. I think this is why lobbyists will be flooding this guy very soon. They don&#x27;t want the door cracked.
    • infamouscow1 hour ago
      It&#x27;s easier to pass a bill for video games than try to cram movies and music in the same bill.
      • Brybry56 minutes ago
        I doubt it will become law either way.<p>Congress.gov says Rep. Ritchie Torres has sponsored 171 bills since 2021 and only one became a law, five passed the House and most of those were under Democrat majority. [1]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;quick-search&#x2F;legislation?congressGroups%5B0%5D=0&amp;congresses%5B0%5D=117&amp;congresses%5B1%5D=118&amp;congresses%5B2%5D=119&amp;legislationNumbers=&amp;legislativeAction=100&amp;pageSize=250&amp;representative=T000486&amp;senator=&amp;sponsor=on&amp;wordVariants=on&amp;wordsPhrases=&amp;q=%7B%22bill-status%22%3A%22passed-one%22%7D" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;quick-search&#x2F;legislation?congressGr...</a>
  • wang_li24 minutes ago
    I would say that it can be pretty simple to solve these problems. If a software company is going to implement a license server or a time limited certificate into a piece of software that will prevent the software from working, then they should be mandated to keep all customer payments in escrow and within 5 minutes of the software becoming unusable by the users, the money has to be returned, with interest and adjusted for inflation.
    • binlog14 minutes ago
      Yeah so simple, every gaming company basically has to operate without money.
      • wang_li6 minutes ago
        Or they can sell a product that doesn&#x27;t have artificial and arbitrary self destruct dates.
  • croes1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • sippingabonedry1 hour ago
    I&#x27;m glad they&#x27;re spending time and effort on issues important to everyday Americans&#x27; problems.
    • iugtmkbdfil8341 hour ago
      You sound dismissive, but gamers as a whole is a demographic that is hard to be ignored and happens to span groups otherwise counter to one another. Any politician who would not take advantage does it to their own detriment.
      • sippingabonedry51 minutes ago
        He represents a poverty-stricken district. Nobody should give a fuck about gamers until their basic needs are sorted.
        • SoftTalker41 minutes ago
          If your life is otherwise impoverished, a video game could be one of the few options for affordable entertainment, particularly if a viable market for used games exists (which is one of the things this legislation wants to mandate).
          • abeppu34 minutes ago
            I see we&#x27;ve downgraded to no bread and virtual circuses.
          • sippingabonedry37 minutes ago
            So the way we fix poverty is free PlayStations for welfare bums? Holy fuck.
        • iugtmkbdfil83449 minutes ago
          You know.. and I am just going to throw it out there: never going to happen. So we might as well do what can be done.
        • moate35 minutes ago
          So, to be clear, you believe government should focus on one problem at a time to the exclusion of anything else or am I missing something? That&#x27;s never been how government, of any form up to and including the utopian visions that people keep in their dreams, has functioned.<p>I agree, we have much bigger fish to fry, but &quot;I don&#x27;t care about this issue so nobody should&quot; isn&#x27;t how you build a coalition to get the poverty addressed. A lot of politics is &quot;hey Gamers, remember how I got you that thing you wanted? Well now I need support as I take on a bigger, more important topic&quot;. Inversely, saying &quot;I don&#x27;t care about your problem until another problem is resolved&quot; tends to fray the group because you&#x27;re quite literally telling people you don&#x27;t respect them or their needs&#x2F;wants.<p>You should check out the book &quot;Let This Radicalize You&quot;, great primer on how to organize and get actual results vs doomering on the internet.<p>Addendum (reason for edit): Here&#x27;s a list of other policy proposals and stances this guy is making: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ritchietorres.house.gov&#x2F;resources" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ritchietorres.house.gov&#x2F;resources</a> Draw your own conclusions, but he doesn&#x27;t seem like he&#x27;s 100% focused on gamer issues at present...
        • nearlyepic28 minutes ago
          &gt; Nobody should give a fuck about gamers<p>Buddy, gamers are a LARGE part of how Trump won his first term in 2016.
          • iugtmkbdfil83419 minutes ago
            I just realized where the anger comes from: this particular division is not something that D&#x2F;R team could easily splinter ( yet anyway -- I am sure we will soon be hating on the candy crush ppl ).
    • Razengan0 minutes ago
      I&#x27;m glad your mind can handle the concept of handling more than 1 thing at a time.
    • abeppu29 minutes ago
      You know how some engineering teams have a really difficult time prioritizing? Maybe in planning there&#x27;s a big long list of project ideas some of which really need more discovery to define scope. There can be stuff that seems really important to a long-term vision but is also hard to estimate and higher risk of scope creep etc. And there&#x27;s stuff that&#x27;s cheap&#x2F;fast&#x2F;low-risk but doesn&#x27;t solve the larger important problems? And even in the context of a company that is still burning through investor money, you fix _some_ of the smaller things even while you&#x27;re still figuring out the bigger things, b&#x2F;c otherwise you&#x27;d likely _never_ do the smaller things?<p>I&#x27;m not saying legislators are doing their best in a good faith effort to serve their constituents. But even if they were, you would sometimes see things like this, right?
      • sippingabonedry25 minutes ago
        I know some teams don&#x27;t let work out-prioritize the party planning committee.
    • philipwhiuk48 minutes ago
      Video games is about as big an industry as TV and movies.
    • bayarearefugee1 hour ago
      Yeah, I&#x27;m certainly not opposed to this law, but it seems like a strange thing to focus on as our democracy and the rule of law is crumbling in real-time.
      • skinfaxi59 minutes ago
        I sincerely don&#x27;t understand this mentality. Legislators consider more than one bill per legislative session. We can (and must!) push along multiple axes, otherwise we will always be behind right?
        • bayarearefugee57 minutes ago
          The house is engulfed in fire and we&#x27;re sweeping the kitchen floor.
          • skinfaxi57 minutes ago
            If this were the only bill being considered I&#x27;d agree with you. By this logic we would only focus on one issue at a time and others would get worse in the meantime, so we would always be behind.
          • 171862744053 minutes ago
            Just because the fire department is insane doesn&#x27;t mean that the cleaning crew needs to stop working.
      • Sohcahtoa8259 minutes ago
        &gt; the rule of law is crumbling in real-time.<p>Why would the people in charge focus on this? They consider it a feature, not a bug.
      • stale200212 minutes ago
        &gt; but it seems like a strange thing to focus on as our democracy and the rule of law<p>Society is improved one issue at a time, and if you sit around waiting for the revolution to come, you will end up like the socialists who never win any elections and achieve nothing for decades.<p>No, we do not need to overthrow all of capitalism overnight, or solve &quot;democracy&quot;, or whatever it is that you are advocating for, before we take any action to improve society.<p>That is code for &quot;just don&#x27;t do anything except LARP and complain, and attack anyone who actually is accomplishing things&quot;. Its a useless philosophy.