Comment by saghm
3 days ago
>> They need to make the server binaries available, along with client functionality to let you choose a server.
> Game companies are not going to give you their source code.
Okay but what about the thing they actually proposed?
I’ve worked on games where the server code is python, or there’s “core logic” in SQL, or we’ve used third party libraries that aren’t suitable for binary redistribution. Most studios will share code between games and server code isn’t intended to be redistributed so will contain “secret sauce” for multiple games. I’m not saying these are deal breakers but saying “just give them server binaries” isn’t a handwave solution for most of the games that these sorts of acts target.
Yeah, the idea of game companies (especially MMO or live service ones) being mandated to release server binaries or code is completely unworkable. Companies are not going to want to give away their main proprietary advantage that they've invested into. Games are already a high-risk investment and this would make it even higher risk because the little competitive moat between studios would be eliminated. The industry has been hit hard by layoffs and making gaming even less desirable for investment will further accelerate that. Any failed game (which is most games, because gaming is a hits driven industry) would be saddled with even more liability. Not to mention most commercial middleware is under NDA, so having their source become public would likely destroy those companies, too.
I am not opposed to some mandatory disclosures at the time of sale - like "this multiplayer game requires centralized servers", etc. But straight up requiring server binaries is not going to be viable for a whole swath of online-only game studios like MMO/live service/subscription games etc.
How about "you need to release the binaries for the servers if you turn them off"? The intent of this sort of regulation is to prevent bait-and-switches were games become unplayable after players have invested their time and money.
8 replies →
> Companies are not going to want to give away their main proprietary advantage that they've invested into.
Companies never want to be regulated. Almost by definition. Thats why we have a government to force them to follow the law.
If IP rights are weakened by this, and its easier for competitors to reuse other people's code/innovations, then that sounds awesome to be, TBH!
> is not going to be viable for a whole swath of online-only game studios
If there is demand from players to play these types of games then someone will make them.
Its only getting easier to make games, after all. I'm not too worried about the dinosaurs losing their edge.
3 replies →
> I am not opposed to some mandatory disclosures at the time of sale - like "this multiplayer game requires centralized servers", etc.
The problem _here_ is if you use steam, or psn, or epic, or any third party provider you need that. It’s a bit like the California cancer label.
I think if there was a better criteria for “multiplayer”, “single player” , “required”, “online”, and “offline” it would help, but I’m not sure if that’s really feasible either.
3 replies →
[dead]