[Manuel_D]

Releasing server-side code would be a non-starter for lots of companies. For one, many of them don't actually own all of the code they use to implement the game server. There's lots of proprietary middleware in use in online games.

Perhaps a workaround is to just have 1 server online indefinitely. Technically the online services are still functional - the match queue times would just be very, very large.

[Ukv]

> There's lots of proprietary middleware in use in online games

If bills like this pass, there'd be financial pressure on middleware providers to allow distribution at end-of-life (or for their component to be easily severed) else they'd lose out on all customers selling games in California/EU/etc.

[phendrenad2]

Yep, everything is negotiable. So is price.

[FeepingCreature]

It's not like the market for middleware changes by this. I honestly don't see it having much of an effect on price. They're gonna take their middleware and go where exactly?

[XorNot]

Its not pressure to release the source code. Its that they need to release the server so anyone can run it.

From Day 1 any Doom client could be a multiplayer server and this is how it worked for almost all games - Descent, Quake, C&C etc...

[Manuel_D]

Right, but presumably the Doom and Quake server code was written by id Technologies themselves. That's not the case with a lot of modern multiplayer games. They license middleware like Photon Engine and don't have the rights to redistribute the server software, even in binary format.

I guess they could just strip our the parts of the server code that they don't have the rights to redistribute, but then it wouldn't be functional.

[db48x]

Or just not use that kind of component in the first place. There are bound to be alternatives that they could use and redistribute.

[kbenson]

Even if this law just caused companies to put into their sales contracts that they will support the servers to a certain date X years in the future and then handling of the online services would pass to a third party that might charge a nominal fee to administer the service, that would be an enormous win for the free market (in that it makes obvious what was ambiguous about a good) and for people both better knowing how a good will function in the future and what future costs there might be. In a way, this could just force companies to provide the equivalent of a warranty for the functioning of the online aspects of the software.

People far too often forget the absolutely vital aspect information plays in the free market, and anything that increases information (for example, how long a good should be expected to continue to function) is a net good, when compared to a complete lack of information about that.

[jnovek]

Release a spec. Release a binary distribution. I’m sure they could find a way to make it happen if it was in the studios’ interest.

[rafram]

> Technically the online services are still functional - the match queue times would just be very, very large.

That would violate the law.

[Manuel_D]

Would it? Online services are not terminated. There's no SLA defined in the law:

> 60 days before a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall communicate all of the following information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of the digital game:

> (i) The date on which services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game will cease.

> (ii) Any services that will no longer be provided by the operator.

> (iii) Any game features that will no longer be available to the purchaser.

> (iv) Any known security risks that may result from the cessation of services.

> (v) How the purchaser can continue to use the digital game, or obtain a refund, pursuant to paragraph (2).

Scaling in the number of game servers isn't termination of service, though, and would not match the conditions laid out above.

[rafram]

Laws aren’t interpreted that way. If you realistically can’t use the service, that’s termination.

[Manuel_D]

But again, the players can use the service. The companies scaled back network resources, degrading the experience, but the service is still fundamentally available. Unless they put specific SLAs in the license agreement, the players are still receiving the online services that they advertised.