Comment by sheept
9 hours ago
The distinction makes sense, but I wonder if the bill will inadvertently incentivize games to move to subscription based models, which would be ultimately be a worse experience for consumers.
9 hours ago
The distinction makes sense, but I wonder if the bill will inadvertently incentivize games to move to subscription based models, which would be ultimately be a worse experience for consumers.
Ultimately consumers can then make a better choice, to simply drop those subscription based games.
They could, but there is very little evidence to show that a dislike for subscription models outweighs people's desire to consume quality content.
Evidence is strong that people follow the content they want, and then secondarily choose the least friction delivery model.
I still support this law. If they move to subscriptions to “dodge” this law, that’s fine in a way. At least consumers won’t be under the false impression they own something in the rare case they’re paying a subscription to play a game.
It would basically mandate subscription model for online games. Also wonder if it'd introduce legal risk for online mode in a game that also has local play, say Call of Duty or the newer Super Smash Bros, or if "ordinary use" is clearly not that.