| ▲ | wagwang 5 hours ago |
| The reasonable compromise should be to force devs to release server binaries if they are not willing to run the servers themselves. |
|
| ▲ | bob1029 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't think forcing a person or business to divulge their intellectual property, simply because they no longer wish to provide downstream products or services, is reasonable. That said, as a consumer I really don't like when something goes away. Overwatch 1 was probably the most brutal experience for me. In the end, I don't think anyone has any kind of special entitlements here. The server binaries will almost always include other proprietary information that the studio will not want to release. Any sanitation of this binary further condemns this as a silly idea because now you are also compelling the individual or business to do additional (presumably unpaid) work so that arbitrary consumers can use their products or services indefinitely. |
| |
| ▲ | wagwang 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If they dont want to release the source then just keep running the servers! I think its ridiculous that people can buy games and the games just stop working and its ok because of some legalese that literally no one reads. Alternatively, why not just align your incentives with the user and charge subscriptions. Games are interesting because players will sink a lot of time and sometimes money in and so it goes beyond a smart alarm clock or a fitness tracker imo. | | |
| ▲ | gopher_space 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I think its ridiculous that people can buy games and the games just stop working and its ok because of some legalese that literally no one reads. It's entertainment. It's ok for entertainment to end, especially when it's this cheap. There aren't any situations where I haven't gotten my money's worth out of a title I've played for 1000+ hours. > Alternatively, why not just align your incentives with the user and charge subscriptions. Because most people balk at subscriptions. And that's kind of the answer to a lot of "why don't they just" questions in this area. They can't release the server because of proprietary libs, but they're using those because it's way, way, way cheaper than not doing that and the people who write those libs really know what they're doing. People won't buy your game at the price you'd need to set to do everything in house. | | |
| ▲ | 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | gs17 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's entertainment. It's ok for entertainment to end Sometimes it ends right after you bought it with no way of knowing it would, or before you bought it. Not everyone gets 1000+ hours out of a title, sometimes the day you install they announce that the servers are going down forever. | | |
| ▲ | gopher_space 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'd rather discuss actual problems people had with specific titles. Hypothetical edge cases always turn into corner cases during cross-examination. If we think about people who bought a game closing on day one we need to think about the people who shop at stores with a no-return policy. I'm not sure who's problem that should be. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | circuit10 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If this was about open source software I’d agree about not forcing people to do additional work, but if you’re selling something for money you should be obligated to do the bare minimum of stripping secrets out of a binary so the product you sold can actually work (and this will be barely any work if it’s designed with this in mind in the first place) We already obligate them to do other basic necessities for consumer protection such as refunding or replacing faulty products | |
| ▲ | duskwuff 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The server binaries will almost always include other proprietary information that the studio will not want to release. Or even information that they are contractually forbidden from releasing. A typical scenario would be a game developed as a fork of a proprietary codebase which was licensed from another company. Forcing the licensee to release material would infringe on the rights of the licensor. | | |
| ▲ | stouset 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Setting aside for a moment whether or not this specific legislation is a good implementation of the idea, I cannot understand how people don’t comprehend that this only happens because there is currently no obligation to release their server binaries or code. The second that becomes a legal requirement with associated penalties, developers will stop licensing technology under those kinds of terms. | | |
| ▲ | cityofdelusion an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would developers stop licensing? They will just tear the middleware out and release as-is, leaving the community to fill the API gaps. | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right, they'll stop licensing proprietary sever code. But that in turn drives up the cost of game development since they'd have to either purchase redistributable licenses or develop their own networking software. I suspect companies will just scale down the servers to 1 instance with bare minimum support. Technically the online service is still active, thereby eliminating the requirements to distribute source code, even if it can only handle a handful of active players and terrible latency. |
| |
| ▲ | bob1029 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's also scenarios like games that depended on GameSpy being forced out into the cold. Battle for Middle Earth 2 is a good example of this. The LOTR rights expiring isn't what got them. It was another provider going away in a puff of smoke and not enough player base to justify a complete rewrite of the backend. https://www.ea.com/news/update-on-ea-titles-hosted-on-gamesp... | |
| ▲ | circuit10 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It would at least be reasonable to expect this for future games, just treat the server binary the same way as the client in terms of what code you include (there way be some more involved if they have to migrate off a reusable codebase but I think it’s worth it) | | |
| ▲ | duskwuff 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think it's reasonable for a law to dictate how software must be developed. If a developer wants to create some software by taking some licensed code and modifying it, that's their prerogative - it seems rather overreaching for the law to mandate that any licensed code must be structured as a library. (And in practice it'd be rather limiting for that to be the case.) | | |
| ▲ | Maxatar 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Almost every law that exists about software exists to dictate what a consumer is or isn't allowed to do with software on their own computer using their own hardware. For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certain narrow circumstances; somehow this is what you find to be unreasonable? | | |
| ▲ | duskwuff an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think you may have misunderstood the situation I'm outlining: 1. Developer A writes some software. 2. Developer B licenses that software from Developer A, under the terms that (for instance) it only be used internally by Developer B and not disclosed. 3. Developer B makes modifications to that software and uses it as part of the implementation of a video game server. 4. Developer B goes bankrupt. Under this proposed law, Developer B would be obligated to release the modified software, breaching their agreement with Developer A and potentially causing them financial harm. | | |
| ▲ | circuit10 an hour ago | parent [-] | | For new games, they would know from the beginning that they’ll need to release the server software eventually, so they wouldn’t be able to agree with those terms |
|
| |
| ▲ | circuit10 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is of course reasonable to restrict what you can do with a product you’re selling for money. There are plenty of laws and regulations that already do this. Without these kinds of laws intellectual property wouldn’t even exist - copyright was only created to benefit society by providing an incentive for people to create and invent things It’s no different from mandating that the software can’t be malware that puts a ransom on your data, contain other people’s copyrighted content without permission, or just not work despite you claiming that it does when you sold it And it’s not mandating that anything is structured in a particular way, just that the game works as the buyer would expect and how they achieve that is up to them |
|
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Or even information that they are contractually forbidden from releasing. Laws trump contracts. |
| |
| ▲ | argentite 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > now you are also compelling the individual or business to do additional (presumably unpaid) work This is not unpaid work as they had already received payment at the time of purchase of the game. They should take into account the cost associated with this work at the time of sale. | |
| ▲ | singpolyma3 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | True. Better would be to eliminate society damage like "intellectual property" and require everything to be available regardless | |
| ▲ | xboxnolifes 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Company's only exist so far as state law allows them to operate within them. It's not forcing them to do something after some point in time, it's a requirement to be a business at all. | |
| ▲ | arikrahman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The binaries can be obfuscated. | | |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not meaningfully. AI-guided reverse-engineering is very effective. This also isn't relevant to third-party code obtained under license. It is a de facto restriction on code dependencies, which may significantly increase development costs. | | |
| ▲ | nekitamo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | While AI isn't particularly good with obfuscated code, it is true that code obfuscation in most old games can be removed relatively easily. The attack and defense state-of-the-art has moved on from those days. |
|
| |
| ▲ | redsocksfan45 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | nine_k 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It would be enough to guarantee no legal threats against users who reverse-engineer the protocol and implement their own server. (A catchy name for it: "Fair Game Act".) |
|
| ▲ | Akronymus 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No, the reasonable compromise should be that the game remains playable, how that is achieved is up to the dev. Some will release the binaries, some make the spec open to the public for people to implement their own, some will patch out the online requirement, etc... |
|
| ▲ | maccard 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This should be true for all software then, not just a subset of software. |
| |
|
| ▲ | TylerE 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What if, as a very high number do, the server uses something like a proprietary SQL database? |
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | So what, dedicated hackers will find a way around that. There's bigger fish to fry. |
|
|
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The developers may not have licenses for all the components of the server-side code. Lots of proprietary middleware is in use in online games. |
|
| ▲ | kristiandupont 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The backend for a game is not just an .exe file. It can be a mess of a system that relies on all kinds of services that need maintenance and that one dev who knows how to reset the cache. I agree that it's shitty that buyers can lose access to a game they bought, but I really struggle to see how this could function practically. |
| |
| ▲ | lucb1e 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It can be a mess of a system that relies on all kinds of services Nowadays, this is much less of a "can" and more of a "definitely is" :( Based on what I see as (non-game) security consultant in terms of service complexity, what modern FOSS projects consider a normal container constellation, and on what I see from at least one indie dev whom I personally know. It has been a topic I've brought up since he put so many hours into it and the game is fun and the binary didn't even run if you don't have a compatible Google Play Services version, much less the various back-ends that it connects to for accounts, level data, level thumbnails, matchmaking, etc. until you even get to the real-time multiplayer server | |
| ▲ | ChoGGi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At the very least this hopefully stops them from suing modders that recreate the server software. |
|
|
| ▲ | doctorpangloss 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| i don't know, do game developers have a right to sell a Remastered Multiplayer Edition later? in my opinion, yes. |
|
| ▲ | kgwxd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Government forced speech is never reasonable. If you don't like the arrangement, just don't buy the game. Tell them why you didn't buy the game. Hope for a better future where more of the industry is built on open source. That's all anyone can do. That's all anyone should be able to do. |
| |
| ▲ | autoexec 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Government forced speech is never reasonable. Government forced speech includes food companies needing to add ingredient labels on packaging including allergen info, landlords needing to notify tenants before entering their homes, stores having to post accurate prices for the products they sell, and employers having to provide workers with safety data sheets for the hazardous materials they work with. These are all perfectly reasonable. Thanks to government forced speech we have more freedom/rights and better lives. | |
| ▲ | wredcoll 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's always someone willing to blame the victim. The answer to companies committing fraud is not "buyer beware". | | |
| ▲ | wilg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Except shutting down a game is not fraud. | | |
| ▲ | toraway 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How is selling something and then removing the ability to use what was paid for not fraud? (setting aside the EULAs companies currently get away with using to sidestep the question) There's even a specific term for scams where you pay money based on a specific description for an item being sold that is then changed after the time of sale known as a "bait and switch". |
| |
| ▲ | ethin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What are you proposing then? The government is not allowed to compel speech for good reason. | | |
| ▲ | Y-bar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s not a Carte Blanche that forbids the government from everything. The government can compel speech from food and other producers to print content and nutritional labels on their products. The government can compel speech on a yearly basis when we file taxes. The can compel speech such as guidance maps and websites to be accessible to the blind (ADA). They can compel vehicle owners to provide insurance and ownership information, which is a kind of speech. | |
| ▲ | hgoel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Welp, better get rid of all nutritional facts, allergy warnings, medical side effect notices and all the other signage mandated by government for your safety. | |
| ▲ | ppseafield 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is not just free speech, it's commerce, and the government has the ability to regulate commerce. Warranties and lemon laws are not regulating speech - they're regulating sales and the legal requirements for those sales. Providing a method for playing a game a customer purchased after the company decides to abandon it is putting a legal requirement on the sale of goods. |
|
|
|