> 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.