[mjr00]

> 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.

[Ukv]

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]

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

[collingreen]

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]

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?

[dminik]

Right, like "Oh no, this first video game related regulation in the entire history of the industry is too much for us."

[account42]

A lot of "hard" solutions are only hard until there is a legal/business requirement for them. Licensing is the poster child example for that.

[Permit]

This is not the only possible outcome. Another approach would be not to offer software within the affected region. U.S. local news is often not available to European visitors now due to GDPR. Similarly, Canadian news outlets are not available on Facebook due to Bill C-18. If I was an indie game developer I would consider this approach and simply avoid selling within California.

Larger game studios would likely adjust as you say. However they too could adjust in such a way that they only offer subscriptions within California as that appears to exempt them from this rule. Many outcomes are possible beyond simply adjusting to the legislation in the way you are suggesting.

[rahkiin]

Lets skip California, the 5th biggest economy in the world.

[account42]

Ok, then customers in California/EU would be at least aware of the deal they are getting and more ethical companies would have a competitive advantage. Sounds good.

[gsich]

Then don't. People will find a way to replace those.

[account42]

So?

A) This state is not inherent but a result of there being no general requirement to release the sources. Middle ware would use different licenses if that was required to have any customers.

B) Omitting the sound code did not stop the community from releasing source ports based on that release, with sound of course.