|
| ▲ | knollimar 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Ab1921 in california doesn't propose this. Its either an offline copy, a copy that works without servers, or 100% refund. Basically patch or refund. I can't wait to see "you haven't met your patch obligations" on a balance sheet and a full indie game being underwater |
|
| ▲ | DSMan195276 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The government will release it with all the copyrighted code and assets that's owned by a bunch of third-parties? Ex. if I license my artwork, music, characters, code library, etc. to a game developer and they don't create a legally releasable version of their server, then the government will forcibly break our licensing agreement and I just get screwed? |
| |
| ▲ | BlarfMcFlarf 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If everyone in the industry knows what the rules are, you can make contracts and agreements and licensing that works with those rules. |
|
|
| ▲ | runevault 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So you're assuming game devs write every line of code in their server infrastructure. First, could be using a third party library you have license to use on a limited number of machines that make up your backend servers. Second you could be paying for third party API access to something like snowflake. You either have to rip out the code (which may or may not break the server, but still requires developer time to do) or write replacement code which likely takes even more dev time to do or you would have done it instead of paying for the library/access to the service. |
|
| ▲ | dijit an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Gamedevs dont' use git (not the serious ones anyway) they use Perforce or PlasticSCM on self-hosted servers. |
