Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowpid | Hacker News Reader

" 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.

View on HN

>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).

Of course I agree with you on art view point but you see the point: Nobody wants to use an older GIMP version while I play old Pokémon games.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com