[cchi_co]

Would it be challenging for small developers financially to design their games to meet these requirements? And for multiplayer online games to live without publisher support... Yet the proposal is a strong step towards protecting!

[NekkoDroid]

> Would it be challenging for small developers financially to design their games to meet these requirements?

I would doubt it. Already the smaller developers are less likely to be part of the current problem, most of those games at least work offline if they aren't already entirely DRM free.

And the ones that require online access, when the game is designed to be self-hostable this is 0 problem. I'd almost wager it is more difficult and time consuming ensuring they are the only ones that the game can connect to if they'd publish the server binary.

And regarding licensing of server software: you'd need to take into account that you need to publish it down the line when sourcing your dependencies, so I wouldn't count licensing complications a valid excuse, as it's already done with the game software itself.

[throwaway48476]

A source code dump would likely be 'reasonable' and not cost anything.

[RHSeeger]

It's not really as simple as that, though. What if your server code uses paid, 3rd party libraries?

[throwaway48476]

Aren't these usually source/blob available but require a license to include in a product?

[Moldoteck]

it doesn't matter as long as you dump the code or patch the games

[Nullabillity]

Too bad, should have thought of that before taking on the dependency?

[johnnyanmac]

That's not how indies work. By using an engine like Unreal or Unity, you take on dozens of third party dependencies on top of whatever Epic's licenses are.

[Nullabillity]

And Epic would have to sort that out unless they want to see their sales drop to 0 overnight…?