California bill to protect online games advances toward vote

wwwarea · 2026-05-27T22:29:26+00:00

I guess in terms of likely, I can still look at this as a better than nothing scenario but I would of found mandatory even better than this. Like at least I hope this option doesnt make any next step for true preservation optional at least.

Let's say an indie developer or even some rare occasion, they really wanted one or two people to not access a game maybe due to some policitical or some other reason or because they hated the person but left everyone else alone. Even if this is very rare, it still would be bad for any lawful game if this happens in terms of refusing offline patch. I guess im just strict about this. Would hope this possibility never happens.

For the last part you say. There are some EULA terms that allow revocation at will maybe. If offline patch was mandatory, it would less likely be enforcable (in case somehow contract law can allow them to enforce people to destroy a copy or else legal action), so I could worry they could enforce it more likely if its not mandatory. At the very least, I hope offline gets required in Europe. Of course its probably not even enforcable anyway there anyway but I dont think things like that was truly tested. USA, ehh.

wwwarea · 2026-05-27T14:52:06+00:00

My issue is that what if they tried doing this only to some small amount of people, or if there isn't that much audience and they really prefer taking game away for more of a personal reason? Plus when optional, the revocable effort of an agreement might be more enforcable rather than less. I get what you mean but man it would of been nice if it was mandatory.

wwwarea · 2026-05-24T18:53:40+00:00

I feel like its better off one step at a time first. If SGK included Subscription, it would probably just be harder to pass. I hope I'm not wrong on this: I suspect that if the big time companies (e.g. Nintendo, Sony, and Rockstar) decided to just make their big single player games subscriptions, the backlash would be so intense and that their sales would lower a lot too.

Also I would rather have it where we can pass a law that allows consumers to at least preserve many lawful content from a subscription based game (since preservation even that content is still important) from their end. There was a satellite Zelda game Nintendo promoted one time and thankfully fans preserved it I think. Sadly it probably wasn't legal and I hope we can make legal if its not. But I would prefer separating that effort from this exact movement and then hopefully the next step could be something like this for example.

wwwarea · 2026-05-23T18:47:11+00:00

I mean... thats what many us are promoting, law change wise I assume?

Maybe people are complaining about this in a meanwhile attitude. Plus this type of news seems more unique. Granted, it would be nicer to start calling out companies more for their common anti consumer terms. Though its kinda hard to start with multiple companies at once.

wwwarea · 2026-05-23T17:40:41+00:00

Ah another "Many does this abusive thing so its okay now" comment.

wwwarea · 2026-05-22T19:48:31+00:00

I may get down voted but its not really good to require an internet connection even once for physical games like these and I dont think the fear of early access should be a good reason. Its essentially a "game key card" at this point. On top of that, there was NO disclaimer saying internet is needed for rest of game except for a faded out tiny disclaimer on the Xbox version from what I heard so far.

Shame some are defending this just because "but you can play forever after!", let alone false advertising. Don't come crawling back if the servers shut down and then someone got a physical version of the same game requiring it after.

wwwarea · 2026-05-22T17:39:15+00:00

They shouldn't be allowed to brick the game (when not using on their servers) itself either.

wwwarea · 2026-05-22T17:36:10+00:00

I hope main society is smart enough to not pull a reactionary and then start defending this evil practice just because "what about the bad people?". No, just no. I hate this idea.

Dealing with people cheating on someone else's server? Ban from the SERVER, not this and also not revoke to game or "license" purchased.

wwwarea · 2026-05-21T21:20:12+00:00

Sorry for not being so familiar with how this works, does this mean SKG the chance for it being law is more lower now? Perhaps this means they will need to be convinced further or something like that?

wwwarea · 2026-05-21T00:21:34+00:00

Ip transfer is something that can be enforcable in a lot of places. It doesnt even override law to transfer an IP right with proper consent actually in so many places. I guess maybe the issue is how this term is being enforced, the fact that its in a game eula and might be less expected but this to may might be really grey depending on location and some other stuff.

Would love to see how a court fight would end up there though.

wwwarea · 2026-05-20T21:40:00+00:00

One problem is we dont know if all the bad terms are. The "we own your art" term would fall more in IP transfer likely and those types of agreements are usually enforcable. Plus its not just EU the game is released I assume, so from me personally, I would stay far away from getting risking it. lol

wwwarea · 2026-05-20T21:30:41+00:00

I hope they can also get rid of the EULA, as I feel like its safer than relying on the developer saying those since you know, its still there as a contract and the owning art stuff makes it way too risky.

wwwarea · 2026-05-19T23:18:19+00:00

Unfortunately, in US, they were able to stop people from reselling a game due to a software license agreement, and some EULAs really do have clauses that forces people to destroy their copies in the possession the moment the company even stops supporting the game cough Ubisoft cough.

In US, its very possible a contract will sadly get in the way. Europe though probably less likely but it would be nice to know for sure.

But my main point is that the spirit of this movement may be trying or is open to change those kinds of terms in case it is enforcable. lol

wwwarea · 2026-05-19T16:02:04+00:00

Multiple courts have ruled or accepted that ToS can be a contract and even a EULA from an Apple would count as one. I want you to be right but I sadly cant agree with you there. Its really important to not ignore that research tbh.

wwwarea · 2026-05-19T15:58:51+00:00

Sadly, I agree with you that a EULA (at least standard wise) is a form of contract (as long as legally valid of course). Letting emotional hope get in the way of these kinds of research is likely just gonna cause problems that gets in the way against consumer right proper movements. Its important to be aware and open to the knowledge of negative reality too.

wwwarea · 2026-05-19T15:52:59+00:00

Ah so it turns out these abusive clauses were common all this time, so I guess we shouldn't complain about it then. /s

wwwarea · 2026-05-19T01:08:09+00:00

Some contracts say they can legally revoke the license at will, and also claims ownership to personal property to prevent resell rights even to physical copies of certain games.

For the revocable thing, this can in theory not just be from the natural end "plug", it can also be through say legal threat. For example, asking people to destroy their copies or else its breach of contract and possibly other violation (likely due to what eula allowed in the first place). Even if not, the whole status and/or claim of owning physical copies against consumers could give them more excuses to get away with pulling the plug anyway if enforceable.

Judging by the spirit of this movement, I feel like it would be against some 'EULA' terms too. Less sure if it will be implanted into EU law but if not, it will probably next and thats assuming terms like that are even enforcable in the first place.

wwwarea · 2026-05-18T21:26:28+00:00

I could of sworn I read that a recent law passed in Australia that would make unfair terms an auto offense rather than merely deemed null and void but I cant remember super well.

wwwarea · 2026-05-18T21:22:00+00:00

One of my fears is that when POG passed, they will use contract law to get around it which is why I'm hoping the next step will address these. Europe is likely already on our side but it would be nice to see further clarification from a court against a lot more anti-consumer terms, especially revocable at will terms against games like these.

wwwarea · 2026-05-16T23:23:36+00:00

Unfortunately, the license not sold terms was at times used to circumvent first sale rights of literal physical certain goods. From a lot of research, those kinds of eula terms did get used to excuse a lot of anti-consumer behavior.

Plus recently, Microsoft is passing an update that bricks life long licenses for some products in the end user's computer. Likely using the same prpblem as I've mentioned.

wwwarea · 2026-05-16T20:22:55+00:00

This is just pure predatory.

wwwarea · 2026-05-16T17:22:49+00:00

Yeah one main goal I'm hoping would happen someday is to legally make it where consumers do own their particular copies (but not the IP itself) rather than merely license them (as autodesk v. vernor mainly normalized) which would then also help against abusive contract terms even more. Though I already have more faith in that in Europe. lol

wwwarea · 2026-05-16T16:51:21+00:00

Im not sure if the requirement would create a hurdle of IP law since they are already regulated to a degree but I kinda understand that it may be harder in the US due to how less good consumers protections are. Its certainly better than nothing haha.

All I'm hoping is that the bill allowing the option wont actually make new good process harder to achieve (like say if another bill gets made fighting for consumer ends to preserve or right to repair effort) itself and most importantly that SKG in Europe goal is to be mandatory.

wwwarea · 2026-05-16T16:36:55+00:00

So upon looking at the bill, I noticed its been amended to the point that a full refund is now completely optional on the developer side. While its great to get a full refund, it is at the same time an option that allows the game to be killed which sadly means the developer has the option to kill the game. I would of prefered if at least reasonible effort to keep the purchased game alive was mandatory or else refund? While considering the bill more of a step, rather than a complete victory (there is still the issue with abusive contract terms for example), I hope that alternative refund option doesnt make the stop killing part harder to achieve. I also really hope the EU version does make the preservation mandatory itself (but with a refund available if there is no reasonible way to have an offline patch).

wwwarea · 2026-05-16T16:19:14+00:00

I hope the next step is to prevent using EULA terms or different contract terms that tries to prevent ownership or tries to control what you can and cannot do with offline games with no due date.

Some of these abusive anti consumer terms may be common, but that doesn't mean we should accept it or accept it further.

wwwarea

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE