4 ms·

When you’re licensing content from third parties the more permissive rights you need the more expensive it is. Music is a very good example where it might not e

When you’re licensing content from third parties the more permissive rights you need the more expensive it is. Music is a very good example where it might not even be possible to get a perpetual license. A bunch of games have removed music as their license to it has expired for example. In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content, code and so on needs to have been licensed for that use. That is typically more permissive than licenses as mentioned up thread and so more expensive.

charcircuit 1y ago
Stop killing games is not about forcing developers to perpetually sell games. They can still stop selling games. They just can't leave it in an unplayable state. If developers want to get the rights to distribute a song for 5 years with their game, they can still do that.
- meheleventyone 1y ago
  No I’m talking about the distribution of games. With physical media that’s all fine because once the license expires they stop making new copies. People that own a copy are fine. With digital distribution once you’ve EOL’d a product you still need to make it available right? Otherwise how do people that have paid for it get it? But that means you can’t distribute elements you no longer have the license to.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    With online distribution games can be made unavailable for purchase. You are not distributing it anymore. Only people that previously purchased can still download the game. There are multiple such cases in stores such as Steam or GoG. I own games that are not available for purchase anymore. Those games were not killed. I can still download and play them.
    - meheleventyone 1y ago
      Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        You've signed a pretty shoddy license agreement if it requires you to refund all your customers, in full, after a few years. That's just bad business.
        meheleventyone 1y ago
        If you’re saying that a change like SKG would lead to developers needing to take a perpetual license then you should say that rather than alluding to it with a non-sequitur like this. If that’s what you mean then I’d say maybe but doing so would definitely increase the cost and complexity in using licensed content. Which is likely to be passed on. Interestingly though reading the EU petition and the petition authors views it would be fine to remove the content once the licence expired.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Developers already need to license whatever they're licensing in perpetuity, since they need to sublicense to the people who buy their games (regardless of format). Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell you the physical media. Licenses aren't yes/no affairs. Stop Killing Games doesn't change this in any way.
        meheleventyone 1y ago
        No they don’t need perpetual licenses for physical copies. They just need to stop distributing physical copies when they lose the license. For example a reissue of a rhythm-action game (or a release on another platform) might be missing songs from previous releases of the same title. The issue with digital distribution is that you can’t redistribute the content once the license has expired. So if someone needs to redownload the game for whatever reason then they can’t provide content they no longer have a license for.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Games already handled this today on Steam, Apple Store, Play Store, etc by taking down the store page preventing new copies from being sold. Users can still redownload it. That's how things work today, and is how they would still work if SKG gets what they want. This isn't a new problem and is already the industry standard for how expiring IP works for the digital distribution for games.
    - dijit 1y ago
      then why can't you buy Need for Speed: Most Wanted from 2005? (small hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/needforspeed/comments/1ceaq0r/where_can_i_get_nfs_mw_2005/ https://www.reddit.com/r/needforspeed/comments/1ceaq0r/where...)
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        Did you reply to the wrong post. A publisher stop selling games when the license expires is standard practice in the industry.
surgical_fire 1y ago
> In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content You start your argument from a presumption that releasing an offline game is almost an impossibility. Are you trying yo argue that offline games have zero things licensed? This sounds like a major argument in favor of offline games. Sounds to me that the simple solution is just stop licensing things with such draconian requirements. If I play a racing game I care about it being fun. If the car I am using in-game is a BMW or a made up brand for the game is immaterial.
- meheleventyone 1y ago
  It’s about the distribution of games, doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline you need a license to distribute IP that you don’t own. Never making a licensed product or using third-party IP is definitely one solution but I don’t think is the intent nor without adverse effects.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline Then the solution seems simple. Making the game available offline does not seem to have any impact in terms of licensing.
    - meheleventyone 1y ago
      I don’t think you’ve followed the discussion then.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        Only in the sense that you are arguing against strawman versions of the idea in favor of the status quo.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        If you’re saying that because they said the solution is simple, then it would seem you have not followed the discussion. To them, it is as “simple” as not using the things that require onerous licensing. Whether the game is offline or online only matters as much as the licensor might prefer one or the other; obviating the onerous licensor (making your own assets and/or doing business with more agreeable people) is a simple solution. Simple meaning the complexity to understand it, not to implement it.
foobarchu 1y ago
This seems pretty easy. If the license to the music goes for X years, then build that expiration into the game. After X years, licensed music goes away, and the game is still playable. This is completely in scope of SKG. Everyone understands that not every feature has to be retained to stay the playable game. That expiration date should, of course, be on the box. The consumer deserves to know.
- archagon 1y ago
  That’s absurd. I can still pop in my Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater CD from decades ago and listen to the original soundtrack. TTL licensing should be illegal.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Yea, nobody seems to be addressing this: Content never expiring was the default for many years, when games shipped on physical media. Industry defenders are acting like this is impossible, where it routinely happened for a long time.
    - thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
- dijit 1y ago
  That would be frustrating to code for. Before anyone says that its as simple as a switch statement, it’s not, its date enumeration and a switch statement, and an alternative codepath for testing and more assets: on every hot path, when you already only get 8ms for your frame is an annoying cost. The expiration date properly visible is not a terrible idea though; or at least a “this edition is valid for x years” after which, updates that fix issues may remove content. Hrm.
  - db48x 1y ago
    I guess that only leaves the third option: don’t license music or other assets that way. It’s really not that hard. Instead of writing a contract that promises that you won't distribute the music with your game for more than X years, write one that promises you’ll only sell the music with your game for X years, but that you might still distribute it to anyone who made their purchase before the cutoff. You see? It’s not that hard. You can license music and still make a game that doesn’t die after a few years. If EU law changes to make that a _requirement_, then you simply stop signing any licensing deal that would break the requirement.

charcircuit 1y ago

Stop killing games is not about forcing developers to perpetually sell games. They can still stop selling games. They just can't leave it in an unplayable state. If developers want to get the rights to distribute a song for 5 years with their game, they can still do that.

meheleventyone 1y ago
No I’m talking about the distribution of games. With physical media that’s all fine because once the license expires they stop making new copies. People that own a copy are fine. With digital distribution once you’ve EOL’d a product you still need to make it available right? Otherwise how do people that have paid for it get it? But that means you can’t distribute elements you no longer have the license to.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  With online distribution games can be made unavailable for purchase. You are not distributing it anymore. Only people that previously purchased can still download the game. There are multiple such cases in stores such as Steam or GoG. I own games that are not available for purchase anymore. Those games were not killed. I can still download and play them.
  - meheleventyone 1y ago
    Offering the game for download but not sale is still distributing it and you’d still need licenses for all the content you’re distributing. In the cases you mention the games still hold the licenses which is common but not universal.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      You've signed a pretty shoddy license agreement if it requires you to refund all your customers, in full, after a few years. That's just bad business.
      - meheleventyone 1y ago
        If you’re saying that a change like SKG would lead to developers needing to take a perpetual license then you should say that rather than alluding to it with a non-sequitur like this. If that’s what you mean then I’d say maybe but doing so would definitely increase the cost and complexity in using licensed content. Which is likely to be passed on. Interestingly though reading the EU petition and the petition authors views it would be fine to remove the content once the licence expired.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Developers already need to license whatever they're licensing in perpetuity, since they need to sublicense to the people who buy their games (regardless of format). Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell you the physical media. Licenses aren't yes/no affairs. Stop Killing Games doesn't change this in any way.
        meheleventyone 1y ago
        No they don’t need perpetual licenses for physical copies. They just need to stop distributing physical copies when they lose the license. For example a reissue of a rhythm-action game (or a release on another platform) might be missing songs from previous releases of the same title. The issue with digital distribution is that you can’t redistribute the content once the license has expired. So if someone needs to redownload the game for whatever reason then they can’t provide content they no longer have a license for.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Games already handled this today on Steam, Apple Store, Play Store, etc by taking down the store page preventing new copies from being sold. Users can still redownload it. That's how things work today, and is how they would still work if SKG gets what they want. This isn't a new problem and is already the industry standard for how expiring IP works for the digital distribution for games.
  - dijit 1y ago
    then why can't you buy Need for Speed: Most Wanted from 2005? (small hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/needforspeed/comments/1ceaq0r/where_can_i_get_nfs_mw_2005/ https://www.reddit.com/r/needforspeed/comments/1ceaq0r/where...)
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      Did you reply to the wrong post. A publisher stop selling games when the license expires is standard practice in the industry.

surgical_fire 1y ago

> In the context of EOL of a game if you have to provide it for free to owners in perpetuity any third party content You start your argument from a presumption that releasing an offline game is almost an impossibility. Are you trying yo argue that offline games have zero things licensed? This sounds like a major argument in favor of offline games. Sounds to me that the simple solution is just stop licensing things with such draconian requirements. If I play a racing game I care about it being fun. If the car I am using in-game is a BMW or a made up brand for the game is immaterial.

meheleventyone 1y ago
It’s about the distribution of games, doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline you need a license to distribute IP that you don’t own. Never making a licensed product or using third-party IP is definitely one solution but I don’t think is the intent nor without adverse effects.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > doesn’t matter whether it’s online or offline Then the solution seems simple. Making the game available offline does not seem to have any impact in terms of licensing.
  - meheleventyone 1y ago
    I don’t think you’ve followed the discussion then.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      Only in the sense that you are arguing against strawman versions of the idea in favor of the status quo.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      If you’re saying that because they said the solution is simple, then it would seem you have not followed the discussion. To them, it is as “simple” as not using the things that require onerous licensing. Whether the game is offline or online only matters as much as the licensor might prefer one or the other; obviating the onerous licensor (making your own assets and/or doing business with more agreeable people) is a simple solution. Simple meaning the complexity to understand it, not to implement it.

foobarchu 1y ago

This seems pretty easy. If the license to the music goes for X years, then build that expiration into the game. After X years, licensed music goes away, and the game is still playable. This is completely in scope of SKG. Everyone understands that not every feature has to be retained to stay the playable game. That expiration date should, of course, be on the box. The consumer deserves to know.

archagon 1y ago
That’s absurd. I can still pop in my Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater CD from decades ago and listen to the original soundtrack. TTL licensing should be illegal.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Yea, nobody seems to be addressing this: Content never expiring was the default for many years, when games shipped on physical media. Industry defenders are acting like this is impossible, where it routinely happened for a long time.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
dijit 1y ago
That would be frustrating to code for. Before anyone says that its as simple as a switch statement, it’s not, its date enumeration and a switch statement, and an alternative codepath for testing and more assets: on every hot path, when you already only get 8ms for your frame is an annoying cost. The expiration date properly visible is not a terrible idea though; or at least a “this edition is valid for x years” after which, updates that fix issues may remove content. Hrm.
- db48x 1y ago
  I guess that only leaves the third option: don’t license music or other assets that way. It’s really not that hard. Instead of writing a contract that promises that you won't distribute the music with your game for more than X years, write one that promises you’ll only sell the music with your game for X years, but that you might still distribute it to anyone who made their purchase before the cutoff. You see? It’s not that hard. You can license music and still make a game that doesn’t die after a few years. If EU law changes to make that a _requirement_, then you simply stop signing any licensing deal that would break the requirement.