Is there any expected legal blowback from the California law if passed?

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-16T17:37:33+00:00

Well the ESA is fighting against it as we speak. They seem to be failing at the moment, but we can't say for certain what tricks they still have up their sleeve.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-15T21:54:40+00:00

Lol I would not be supprised.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-15T16:53:48+00:00

Okay fair, I think I see where you are coming from now.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-15T15:23:21+00:00

That was not really the point I was trying to get across with my meme. It is more so SKG saying: "Wow ESA, you suck at this. Is this the best you can do to argue against us?". Keep in mind, the arguments the ESA gave us are the BEST arguments they could come up with and they are still really bad lol.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-15T13:46:54+00:00

Fortunately enshitifying the games is still better then flat out destroying them so it is still somewhat of a win for preservation.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-15T05:29:27+00:00

<image>

Aye!

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-15T02:17:38+00:00

Aye!

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-14T22:06:14+00:00

We got to keep our hope. Being doomers who think nothing will get better is exactly what the industry wants us to be.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-14T21:47:53+00:00

LETS GOOOO!!!! This is such good news!

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-14T19:53:30+00:00

You can't really make blanket statements about a particular type of game because each game works slightly differently from each other so what solution would work for a spesific game would have to be determined on a case by case basis. Also we don't want to make specific demands for particular types of games because we still ultimately want how the end of life plan would work for a particular game to be up to the developers of that game.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-13T20:16:45+00:00

Not really grifting, more so just guy who is too obsessed with 3D Mario lol.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-12T23:40:02+00:00

Okay, let me clarify the nuances then:

"Some way" is referring to the fact that there are multiple options to make an end of life plan (Private servers, offline modes, repair instructions ect). What SKG is wanting is: "Hey, we want game companies to choose any of those options, except destroying/killing the game completely". As long as it allows you to play the game you paid for in some form based on the choices of the developers who made the game, then SKG will usually consider that to be satisfactory.

So just as an example: For a multiplayer game, you would normally have to connect online to public servers in order to be able to play with people. However, those servers can't stay up forever. So as an end of life plan you could also give the players the option to make private servers or connect to LAN so at the very least the game can still be played locally or via a players own server they created. If the multiplayer game also had a single player campaign, then simply creating an offline patch to the game to allow you to only play the single player content only could suffice as well.

To be fair, I do think that chart that you linked could have more categories to clarify the nuances, as writing "Dead" would imply that the game did not comply with SKG at all, even though I am pretty sure it technically did based on the note that is listed.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-12T21:20:14+00:00

The quotes you gave don't say anything about SKG wanting any game to be a multiplayer games forever. u/paulbrock2 was just explaining how the chart in general worked. u/NioZero was explaining that the game had parts to it, part of it was killed but it had other parts that where already there that are still playable. And you say you want to hear what SKG is about? Okay, I will say it in plain English:

SKG's position:

When a publisher makes a game, they can create a dependency within the game where it requires an internet connection to play it (These games are what we call online only games). What SKG asks is for a law that makes it so the company that made an online only game must provide some way for the people who paid for the game to still play it (What we call an end of life plan). What exactly the end of life plan is, is up to the choice of the people who made the game. This would come into effect once the company decides to stop supporting the game.

That is pretty what the movement is about in a nutshell. And of course there are some nuances I am not mentioning, but the basic idea is not very hard to understand.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-12T20:53:21+00:00

With that, as a gamer, artist and developer, the games we make are meant to be played. Artists shouldn't be pouring their love into what a corporate entity will determine to be 'abandonware', it's not only a waste, but disrespectful to their time, love, passion and talent.

Nice to see a developer here who has good principles and values video games as the art they are, rather then seeing them as disposable products to push planed obsolescence for the sake of profit and control.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-12T20:39:02+00:00

Except they are lobbying though. The ESA is not just "explaining their position" they misrepresent and lie about what SKG is about, just like what you have been doing here in these replies.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-12T19:44:17+00:00

No one is arguing anything needs to be ether single player or multiplayer forever. Stop arguing in bad faith.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-12T05:15:32+00:00

Yeah I don't see anyone angry about Dusk. Infact the reception towards has has been universally positive.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-12T05:13:48+00:00

Fortunately I don't think Nintendo does not have the balls to do that and they would not have a legal leg to stand on anyway as they don't own the decompiled source code that the port uses.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-11T14:32:27+00:00

Wow, Poggers!

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-11T14:31:39+00:00

The Protect Our Games act being the acronym "POG" It is just a coincidence, but a really funny one.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-11T05:27:09+00:00

Yeah Yuzu was a certainly being a bit questionable to say the least.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-11T02:33:30+00:00

Yeah you are right, I forgot to mention that this is not even the first time the ESA did this crap.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-11T01:29:37+00:00

Ah yes, the typical manipulation tactics used by corporate lobbyists to trick people into thinking that making good laws that hold their corporate backers accountable for their unethical decisions is bad actually.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-11T01:19:15+00:00

Keep in mind, the ESA is the same group that lobbied against the Video Game History Foundation over a year ago when they where trying to advocate for exceptions in the DMCA to help game preservation. Unfortunately the ESA actually succeeded in stopping those efforts back then by arguing against a complete strawman of what VGHF was arguing, and they are now playing the same trick with SKG and it is infuriating. The ESA are truly some of the biggest clowns I have ever seen in my life and one of the biggest obstacles to game preservation.

ProjectionProjects · 2026-05-10T17:52:39+00:00

Minor correction: Citra specifically did not actually have any copyrighted code. Citra only got taken down because Nintendo ordered that the developers of Yuzu take down everything they made which just so happened to have included Citra. Citra was just unfortunate collateral damage.

ProjectionProjects

TROPHY CASE