Comment by Scaled
2 days ago
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.
Binaries are slightly less contentious, but still problematic for MMOs and other titles where they're just not designed to run on consumer gear, might have credentials baked in or might reveal trade secrets to competitors.
Fundamentally, entertainment and technology both are time limited experiences and can't reasonably be expected to last forever. Usually games get shut off when the playerbase has already moved on -- even if the binaries are available, you'd likely be playing in a ghost town.
> Binaries are slightly less contentious, but still problematic for MMOs and other titles where they're just not designed to run on consumer gear, might have credentials baked in or might reveal trade secrets to competitors
They are expected to run for at least a certain amount of time though, so maybe the solution is a requirement to post how many years it's guaranteed to be around, and if it isn't kept around that long, the server needs to be made available.
I don't think it's particularly relevant what hardware it's supposed to run on. Trade secrets are a legal privilege, so it's totally fair for society to say that certain other factors are more important in this extraordinarily limited set of circumstances, and if you're baking credentials into your server code directly, that's kind of your own fault, and I don't see "intentionally doing things in a riskier way" as something valuable to preserve.
The intent of the EU privacy directive was to clarify when websites were storing your data, instead every website has a click through banner that says they use cookies.
The actual implementation is very important.
I don't see the parallel here. You're saying you think that if companies are required to make the server binaries available after shutting down a live service game, people are going to be spammed by banners? Or is there some other emergent effect you're concerned about that you expect me to be able to infer?
2 replies →
One general difficulty with implementing this is dealing with the case of a company going under. It's hard to compel performance out of a bankrupt organisation, so in a lot of cases it might still fall through. (And if this becomes a thing, you might see video game studios setting up companies to operate each game to exploit this).
1 reply →
> 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.
Basically by eliminating IP rights, what you're suggesting is to make games not commercially viable. Do you expect content creators to work for free?
What will happen is the money is invested into other industries and we'll see another video game crash like in the 80's.
Nobody is eliminating all IP rights. This is about games that are shutdown that they aren't making any money off of anyway.
Additionally, IP rights are already way too strict, and with technology we don't need nearly as much investment into it to make games. Productivity is massively improving. Huge R&D simply isn't needed anymore.
Nobody but you mentioned “eliminating” IP rights. Stop being disingenuous
> 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.
This is a fair observation, but storefronts are subject to similar long-term concerns. I have lost plenty of Wii games when that store shut down.
That sounds like an argument around also enforcing some sort of consumer protections when shutting down a storefront, not an argument against protections for consumers when live service games are shut down
I don’t have a good answer but I agree with you.