← Back to context

Comment by mjr00

11 hours ago

> It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to.

It's nice in theory, but in practice many (most?) games are using middleware they don't have the rights to redistribute as open source. IIRC when the source code for Doom, the first major commercial game that went open source, originally came out, it had all of the sound code removed because it was dependent on a third party library. Not that you're going to have sound code in a server, but you may be using third party libraries for networking, replays, anti-cheat, etc.

6 comments

mjr00

Reply
Ukv  11 hours ago

If bills like this pass there'd be financial pressure for middleware providers to either license under terms that allow distribution at the game's end-of-life, or allow their middleware to be easily severed while still leaving the game playable - else they'd lose out on all customers selling games in California/EU/etc.

Which is also a nice side effect to reduce intellectual property barriers for developers that do already want to distribute their server or source code.

dminik  11 hours ago

This has an easy solution. If the middleware cannot be used in a new regulatory environment then it will either die or adapt.

  • collingreen  11 hours ago

    Sometimes the easy solution isn't easy for all sides or even realistic. "Fuck the publishers" is easy but not going to get a lot of publisher buy in.

    We all agree there is a foolproof method to fixing all bugs - delete all the code.

    We also all probably agree that isn't the optimal balance.

    • lovehashbrowns  11 hours ago

      Should’ve thought of that before accepting significant amounts of money in exchange for a game they plan to kill when it’s no longer financially advantageous for the publisher. They’re so happy to rake in what, $60, now $70, soon $100 for a product they can disable access to for any reason at all or no reason at all, with no notice? How’s that fair? Why’s it only unfair when the hardship goes the other way around?

      1 reply →