5 ms·
>I'm not talking about things like multiplayer games What is and isn't a 'multiplayer game' isn't so clear cut. Neither is the reason why 'multiplayer games' s
by macspoofing 4y ago
>I'm not talking about things like multiplayer games
What is and isn't a 'multiplayer game' isn't so clear cut. Neither is the reason why 'multiplayer games' should be exempt from this.
But let's leave that aside, the problem is that there isn't a simple, clear-cut legislation to fix this. Instead you would need to create a big regulatory and enforcement framework, along with a technical framework defined and built by the publishers .. and even then it isn't so clear-cut that this is enough. And yes, all this would raise the barrier of entry for indie developers who now would need the equivalent of 'regulatory approval' to release their games.
Given that this would take an enormous amount of effort to pass, only to satisfy a small number of video game aficionados, it's hard to see why any government would expand the effort and political capital to do it.
- Karunamon 4y agoI believe the threat of legislation by itself may do the trick, without the need to actually get into the process. Do you remember how the ESRB was formed? There was a governmental push as a result of complaints about videogame content, with the government vowing to form a legislative solution unless the industry regulated itself. As it turns out, they got together and came up with their own ratings system, and it was largely a success. Again, my criteria for success is that digital content should not be arbitrarily removed from the purchaser. That's it. However we get there is an implementation detail. The hypothetical indie could shove the files on an S3 bucket and call it a day. The hypothetical multibillion-dollar mega corp could push an update to their console which redirects all download links to an absolutely basic file store of some kind that the console would work with.