3 ms·

> gives the game developers a perverse incentive to further embrace more exploitive revenue models such as free to play and subscription based services? This i

by wsve 4mo ago

> gives the game developers a perverse incentive to further embrace more exploitive revenue models such as free to play and subscription based services? This is what I fail to see an explanation of anywhere in these comments. WHY would this law make a subscriber-based revenue model so much more enticing? WHY would this law make single-purchase games with multiplayer servers suddenly so non-viable from a business perspective? The latent assumption I keep seeing is that the mere existence of a regulation in an area will drive people away from that model, but that's simply not how businesses operate. It's a cost/benefit analysis. So what is the cost?

ang_cire 4mo ago
Yep, this is the "higher taxes will drive new yorkers to florida!" fear-mongering (sometime, sadly, even by people who don't actually know better but automatically shill for companies). There are so many games (like Hitman: WoA, which I love btw) that "require" online access in order to provide the same functions that previous games by the same devs provided fully offline (e.g. keeping track of your weapon unlocks). This is just clawing back some of the consumer protections that the "we're not selling you a product, we're selling you a temporary and arbitrary license that we reserve all rights over" BS snuck around.
- Vaslo 4mo ago
  Your example about New York and Florida is a terrible one because it’s true statement. Why would you use that example? Are you saying it’s not true (demonstrably true with residential data)? Or are you saying it’s happening but not to the extent that the fear-mongerers express it?
  - ang_cire 4mo ago
    You're wrong. There is no wealth-tax based mass migration of the wealthy from NYC to Florida. 1) https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009-E.Eisner-PIT-update-2023-data.pdf https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009... > As we get more data on the post-pandemic period, we increase our knowledge of the major upheavals that took place in New York between 2020 and 2022. Despite the state suffering a deep recession and massive out-migration during the pandemic, data show that New York’s tax base remains resilient. When taxes on millionaire earners were raised in 2021, tax revenue to the state increased by an estimated $3.6 billion and there was no detectable increase in high earner out-migration.
- rafram 4mo ago
  In both cases, it’s true. Higher taxes will drive some New Yorkers to Florida! That’s why the state government has to research the impact of a tax increase and set the brackets at a point where the amount they bring in, after subtracting lost revenue from people who move away, is maximized. A sensible tax increase won’t drive many New Yorkers to Florida, and it’ll make up for the few who do leave. In this case, studios will need to do the same calculation with the cost to package and release server software / the income they’ll lose from going to a subscription model.
  - ang_cire 4mo ago
    'Some' is a meaningless non-metric. Some people do anything. Actual studies [1] show that the rich are not moving in response to wealth taxes, and in fact when they do move, it's almost never due to taxes. > As we get more data on the post-pandemic period, we increase our knowledge of the major upheavals that took place in New York between 2020 and 2022. Despite the state suffering a deep recession and massive out-migration during the pandemic, data show that New York’s tax base remains resilient. When taxes on millionaire earners were raised in 2021, tax revenue to the state increased by an estimated $3.6 billion and there was no detectable increase in high earner out-migration. 1: https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009-E.Eisner-PIT-update-2023-data.pdf https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009...
    - rafram 4mo ago
      I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue against the idea that people tend to gravitate toward the cheapest option.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - ang_cire 4mo ago
        Because they don't? Do you eat at the cheapest restaurant every day? Do you think that every Michelin Star restaurant immediately fails and shutters? Do you think everyone buys the $80 prepaid flip phones, and no one actually buys the $700+ iPhones? Most people don't gravitate towards the cheapest option (in fact, many people find the cheapest option automatically suspect and won't buy it), but rather want a balance of affordable and desirable. No one living in NYC is doing it because they're gravitating towards the cheapest option in the first place, they're there because it has a high level of desirability comparative to its cost, even as expensive as it is.
rafram 4mo ago
Because the law specifically exempts subscription-based revenue models, so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition.
- wsve 4mo ago
  > so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition. Please reread my comment. You're doing the exact same thing. You're saying this like it's a given, but it is not. WHY would it be more attractive?
  - jcranmer 4mo ago
    Because doing so gets them out of obligations to release tools that may be difficult-to-impossible to release to comply with the law.
    - Rohansi 4mo ago
      Sure, but it's not actually easy to just change your pricing model. Most gamers do not want to pay subscriptions even though they would pay for DLC and battlepasses. Free-to-play needs microtransactions that people actually buy so they tend to be pay-to-win or convenience items (inventory/bank space) that punish free players.
    - wsve 4mo ago
      Why would releasing your server executable as a standalone be difficult to impossible to comply with the law? Many games already do this
  - rafram 4mo ago
    Because the alternative now costs more. That is just a basic function of human decision-making. If there are two options, and one becomes more expensive, it will become more common to pick the other. It very slightly tips the balance toward the option that hasn’t become more expensive.
    - 4mo ago

by wsve 4mo ago

ang_cire 4mo ago

Yep, this is the "higher taxes will drive new yorkers to florida!" fear-mongering (sometime, sadly, even by people who don't actually know better but automatically shill for companies). There are so many games (like Hitman: WoA, which I love btw) that "require" online access in order to provide the same functions that previous games by the same devs provided fully offline (e.g. keeping track of your weapon unlocks). This is just clawing back some of the consumer protections that the "we're not selling you a product, we're selling you a temporary and arbitrary license that we reserve all rights over" BS snuck around.

Vaslo 4mo ago
Your example about New York and Florida is a terrible one because it’s true statement. Why would you use that example? Are you saying it’s not true (demonstrably true with residential data)? Or are you saying it’s happening but not to the extent that the fear-mongerers express it?
- ang_cire 4mo ago
  You're wrong. There is no wealth-tax based mass migration of the wealthy from NYC to Florida. 1) https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009-E.Eisner-PIT-update-2023-data.pdf https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009... > As we get more data on the post-pandemic period, we increase our knowledge of the major upheavals that took place in New York between 2020 and 2022. Despite the state suffering a deep recession and massive out-migration during the pandemic, data show that New York’s tax base remains resilient. When taxes on millionaire earners were raised in 2021, tax revenue to the state increased by an estimated $3.6 billion and there was no detectable increase in high earner out-migration.
rafram 4mo ago
In both cases, it’s true. Higher taxes will drive some New Yorkers to Florida! That’s why the state government has to research the impact of a tax increase and set the brackets at a point where the amount they bring in, after subtracting lost revenue from people who move away, is maximized. A sensible tax increase won’t drive many New Yorkers to Florida, and it’ll make up for the few who do leave. In this case, studios will need to do the same calculation with the cost to package and release server software / the income they’ll lose from going to a subscription model.
- ang_cire 4mo ago
  'Some' is a meaningless non-metric. Some people do anything. Actual studies [1] show that the rich are not moving in response to wealth taxes, and in fact when they do move, it's almost never due to taxes. > As we get more data on the post-pandemic period, we increase our knowledge of the major upheavals that took place in New York between 2020 and 2022. Despite the state suffering a deep recession and massive out-migration during the pandemic, data show that New York’s tax base remains resilient. When taxes on millionaire earners were raised in 2021, tax revenue to the state increased by an estimated $3.6 billion and there was no detectable increase in high earner out-migration. 1: https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009-E.Eisner-PIT-update-2023-data.pdf https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251009...
  - rafram 4mo ago
    I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue against the idea that people tend to gravitate toward the cheapest option.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ang_cire 4mo ago
      Because they don't? Do you eat at the cheapest restaurant every day? Do you think that every Michelin Star restaurant immediately fails and shutters? Do you think everyone buys the $80 prepaid flip phones, and no one actually buys the $700+ iPhones? Most people don't gravitate towards the cheapest option (in fact, many people find the cheapest option automatically suspect and won't buy it), but rather want a balance of affordable and desirable. No one living in NYC is doing it because they're gravitating towards the cheapest option in the first place, they're there because it has a high level of desirability comparative to its cost, even as expensive as it is.

rafram 4mo ago

Because the law specifically exempts subscription-based revenue models, so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition.

wsve 4mo ago
> so they become more attractive than they currently are by definition. Please reread my comment. You're doing the exact same thing. You're saying this like it's a given, but it is not. WHY would it be more attractive?
- jcranmer 4mo ago
  Because doing so gets them out of obligations to release tools that may be difficult-to-impossible to release to comply with the law.
  - Rohansi 4mo ago
    Sure, but it's not actually easy to just change your pricing model. Most gamers do not want to pay subscriptions even though they would pay for DLC and battlepasses. Free-to-play needs microtransactions that people actually buy so they tend to be pay-to-win or convenience items (inventory/bank space) that punish free players.
  - wsve 4mo ago
    Why would releasing your server executable as a standalone be difficult to impossible to comply with the law? Many games already do this
- rafram 4mo ago
  Because the alternative now costs more. That is just a basic function of human decision-making. If there are two options, and one becomes more expensive, it will become more common to pick the other. It very slightly tips the balance toward the option that hasn’t become more expensive.
  - 4mo ago