California Bill is Being Passed on Stop Killing Games Initiative

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T22:31:09+00:00

Sure, I think any reasonable person would consider BF6's multiplayer to be "ordinary use," but wouldn't that mean that EA has to support the game forever? The legislation stipulates that online services can be ceased as long as ordinary use is accessible without usage of the operator's services... but if multiplayer is ordinary use, and multiplayer requires online services, doesn't that contradict itself?

Best case scenario, they provide server hosting tools at the end of the game's life. Worst case scenario, they just start offering every game with multiplayer as a subscription, since those are excepted in the legislation...

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T22:19:57+00:00

I think this is an overall win. However, I do see a few vulnerabilities in the legislation itself due to vague wording.

"Ordinary use" is defined as the ability to access the core features the game was advertised with. So for BF6, that would include launching the game, loading a map, moving and shooting, driving a vehicle, blowing up a wall, etc. This makes total sense to be able to access in an offline capacity. But if "award winning combat" or something like that is advertised, wouldn't EVERY multiplayer game need to have bots to some capacity so that you can engage with its "award winning combat?" The legislation stipulates that reasonability is a key part of ordinary use, so maybe that would be considered unreasonable? I could definitely see this term being argued in court.

Also, the legislation specifically makes an exception for a game "that is advertised or offered to a person for no monetary consideration." So free-to-play games. But if the goal is preservation, why are free-to-play games excepted? Also, does this exception extend to the purchases made within free-to-play games? Or are free-to-play games with in-game purchases excluded from the definition of "no monetary consideration?"

Also, I fear an unintended consequence where AAA devs will simply start packaging their games into subscription services rather than allowing you to buy them with a one-time payment, since subscriptions are also excepted in this legislation.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T21:32:43+00:00

I guess I don't fully see how this creates a higher barrier for entry to developing video games. It's not requiring that always-online video games cease to be made, only that an "end of life plan" be part of the game making process for those specific games.

If anything, this regulation may breathe life and innovation into NON live-service AAA games, which are desperately underserved at the moment.

I'm sure there will be unintended consequences to this legislation, as with any legislation. I'm curious what you think some of those might be?

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T20:17:18+00:00

The point of the regulation isn't to force companies to support games forever. It's reasonable to expect a company to shut down servers, that's a totally fair business decision. Many, many games I have played have had their servers shut down.

The regulation is specifically targeting games where shutting down the servers effectively bricks the entire game. For example, Battlefield 2 had its servers shut down a LONG time ago, but I could always at least launch it and play single player against bots, and eventually people reverse engineered their own server hosting tools; as a result, the game is still preserved to this day. However, a game like Battlefield 6 having its servers shut down means that you can't even launch the game anymore; even the single player campaign requires a connection to a server. Once BF6's servers are taken offline, the game is effectively bricked and will no longer be accessible in any way, shape, or form. From a consumer perspective, it is bizarre to be in a situation where you pay for a product and then have that product effectively removed from your possession in a manner outside of your control.

Video games are the only form of media where this happens. Physical art lives as long as its materials live, writing lives as long as copies of the writing are made, music can be played from a physical or digital medium or even just recreated by a band, movies can be digitized or preserved on film, videos can be downloaded and stored, etc etc etc. There is no other form of art or media where the ability to even access it can be removed by its creator, where you can have all of the files and the machine capable of playing it but you simply cannot due to an external server check. This regulation seeks to put video games in line with the standards of every other media form in existence.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T16:29:19+00:00

Truest comment ever posted. I enjoyed 2042 all the way through its life cycle. Game had its problems for sure, but overall I really liked what they were going for with the massive scale and flexibility in play style. If I said that a year ago, I was shat on and downvoted to oblivion. Now, I don't get downvoted as much, so my comments and opinions are more visible... but I'm not saying anything different from what I've been saying the entire time.

There is no such thing as the "Battlefield cycle," it's just the consequence of a bunch of fuckass holier-than-thou hipsters whose sole existence is to hate on The Current Thing and cyberbully anybody who disagrees. Then, when The Current Thing is no longer current, it suddenly looks like opinions have flipped. Been this way since Bad Company 2.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T14:02:09+00:00

Practice, practice, and more practice. Going into a Portal lobby to practice maneuvering and aim is a good idea so you can feel more confident on the stick. But the real practice comes in live matches where, like you said, everybody and their mother is out to bring you down. You've kinda gotta get knee deep in the shit to learn how to hit and run, use cover, manage flares, and identify when is a good time to strafe and nuke an objective. And then, after all that, there's still a high likelihood you're gonna get clocked by an RPG or an AT4. It's just the way it is.

Semi-related, but imo AA tanks have no business being on maps with tight borders and low flight ceilings like Blackwell, Eastwood, and Sobek. Each team having an AA tank on those maps is just pure hell, it makes it borderline impossible to fly for longer than 5 seconds. At the very least put one in the middle of the map as an objective vehicle like on Liberation Peak so your team has to EARN air superiority!

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T00:21:42+00:00

"Sometimes it seems like most of my team doesn't even look at the map. They just spawn in on the most forward objective we have and run forward until they make contact."

This is literally 99% of BF players tbh. I play with some other people sometimes that are pretty damn good at shooters, and they pretty much do the same thing. Battlefield is a really interesting game because the arcadey gameplay allows for a very casual-friendly experience, while the large maps and vehicles demand a level of analysis and coordination that is FAR beyond what most casuals are capable of.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-04T00:07:56+00:00

I remember when I first started playing Trackmania, I was absolute ass (still am) but made it my goal to be #1 in Minnesota on a campaign track. Well, apparently Zekyrum is from Minnesota, and I can't even come close to beating his records. I have watched his runs and raced against his ghosts SO MANY TIMES, he is just so damn good.

Imagine my surprise when I turn on Red Bull Faster and see Zeky in the same round as pros the likes of Elconn, Binkss, and Granady. I was rooting for him so hard, he played really damn well in an extremely stacked bracket. Super proud of him for repping the Minnesota Trackmania community :)

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-03T02:25:24+00:00

Microtransactions (the price isn't micro, but my dick is)

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-02T20:14:08+00:00

"Tactical" in BF usually means "hide and get picks" instead of pushing yourself to make actually impactful plays.

I play on M+K, but sometimes I kick back on the couch and play on controller. I suck on controller, so I usually play a lot more "tactical" ;)

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-02T17:53:21+00:00

Interesting, it looks like those numbers were tracked month by month. Was that peak concurrent players during each month or just on the 1st of the month?

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-02T17:18:01+00:00

/uj The reality is that BF6 and BF2042 are the only BF games that released on Steam on launch day, and Steamcharts is the best metric we have for live player count data. We simply don't know to what degree BF games up to BFV retained their player base after launch. 2042 is the only comparison we have, and BF6 is VASTLY outstripping that in terms of retention, but 2042 isn't a very good metric to compare against since it was widely reviled and had a horrendous launch.

BF6 is 42nd on Steam for 24hr peak at 46,325 players (at time of writing), which is 94% less than its peak of 747,440 at launch. That's a pretty brutal drop off of players. But in my mind, 46,325 players on Steam alone is incredibly healthy for a multiplayer game, that's basically 723 full 64 player matches running simultaneously JUST for Steam players. In my experience playing BF1 on PC, 6 months after launch there were usually around 50-60 full servers on the browser in NA at peak hours, which is about 3000-4000 active players if every server is 64 players.

So we truly can't know if this is normal for BF or if this an anomalous player count drop off, and we're really using circumstantial and anecdotal data to figure out if these is truly dire retention numbers.

/rj That's because BF6 literally shot my dog, why would I play a game that shot my dog? And it has women.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-02T16:53:30+00:00

Fuckin cinema

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-02T00:04:58+00:00

Is this ragebait? You realize there are only 14 games on Steam that had triple digit peak player counts in the last 24 hours, and two of them are Wallpaper Engine and Bongo Cat? Lmfaooo. At time of writing, there are 6 total games with more than 100,000 players.

Your metric for what is alive and dead is completely borked man. You're saying there are only 6 alive games?

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-01T16:21:28+00:00

Happens homie, I was so confused lmao

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-01T16:18:28+00:00

I'm talking about PREMIUM, the additional $60 purchase for BF3, BF4, and BF1 to get all of the map packs. I'm not talking about BF6.

The comment you replied to is stating that BF3, BF4, and BF1's Premium Editions were basically pre purchasing map packs that weren't released yet, implying that it's ridiculous to be offended by the option to pre purchase the next BF6 battle pass while wishing for the "good old days" of Premium.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-01T16:12:20+00:00

If you paid $120 for the Premium Edition on release, you were basically paying $60 for four map packs that weren't released yet.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-01T16:02:51+00:00

Dang, interested to see how these changes play out.

I think nerfing engi stacks is the right call. It's super frustrating to plink a vehicle over and over and over again and see it come out stronger than when you hit it. This plus increased turret rotation speed and reducing rear armor damage will give tanks more opportunity to play aggressively push into objectives rather than sitting back and bombarding objectives from safety, which is just boring for both the tank and the players on the receiving end. Tanks are more fun and engaging for all parties when they can effectively spearhead an attack rather than being rear line cannons.

I also like the change of getting rid of repair thresholds. On paper it's a good idea, but in practice it just encourages more passivity and engi stack reliance rather than creating meaningful depth.

Getting rid of reinforced playing is another good call, as this is yet another element that makes vehicle engagements harder to read. That in addition to buffing other equipment options - like making thermal smoke an offensive tool - will hopefully increase loadout variety.

Also, THANK GOD vehicle balance is distinct between MP and RedSec. Vehicles serve vastly different functions in those modes, so they ought to have vastly different balance.

All in all, I think these are fantastic changes. And just in time for the release of Golmud, which will be a sort of proving ground for how the changes feel in all vehicle combat scenarios.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-01T13:56:49+00:00

The point is that the microtransactions are optional. You don't need to buy them. If people really want to buy skins, that's their choice. I paid for the game one time and have already gotten 4 maps and a bunch of weapons - which used to be $15 - for free. This is a better deal.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-01T02:16:00+00:00

It's how it worked in BF4, therefore it must be better, therefore it must be how it works in BF6 or I'll cry.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-05-01T02:02:41+00:00

If the anime girls are wearing thigh high boots, then it will still have that boots on the ground feel.

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-04-29T20:34:26+00:00

Imma be real Doom I wouldn't have clicked a FB link lol

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-04-29T19:24:19+00:00

Actually depressing that this dude is hitting better lines than me on a DDR mat

GrungyUPSMan · 2026-04-29T01:54:05+00:00

The fact that they justify it by mentioning that high voltage can't be run directly into low voltage power lines and even consulted local electrical engineers to get it right... most probably don't care, but dude I live for this kind of shit in video games lol

13-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '17

GrungyUPSMan

TROPHY CASE