(Sorry for the strange title wording)
Many companies usually skirt around the law, especially when it involves their bottom line. Because I have no idea how to make a stricter wording, I've decided to make it a poll instead.
In essence, the question is; after the law is in effect (whose exact wording is not decided yet, I know), when it comes time that a developer shuts down a game, what of these is most likely outcome for most of cases?
Rank them for what you all think is most/least likely.
If you think an option is missing; put it in the comments
1,000People are also trading
This isn't really a direct comment on the market here, but as a game dev I feel that much of the discourse around "Stop Killing Games" really underestimates the burden it puts on developers. I think the biggest thing you will see as a result of this is games that otherwise would have been developed and released in Europe not getting developed or released in Europe at all.
@ElijahRavitzCampbell can't they do an obfuscated source dump and call it done? I'm not saying this is an ideal end state, just that I'd think you could do that retroactively and if you were to do this retroactively on games, that might be all you get.
What is some of the extra burden you're suggesting?
@BodeyBaker no? Games frequently have rightly coupled & complex server & service architectures, 3rd party libraries and engines protected by IP law, publisher contracts limiting the manner in which they are released, etc. It's not easy to get a clean single player / self hosted version of a game that wasn't meant for that. Especially for a company that is cutting support because they don't have the $ to support the game!
Games frequently have rightly coupled & complex server & service architectures, 3rd party libraries and engines protected by IP law, publisher contracts limiting the manner in which they are released, etc
Agreed but I don't think that's necessarily relevant
If rulings only apply to a phone home to ensure the copy isn't pirated. There are multiple ways that could be relatively low cost.
If the rulings only apply to defining the API, with a way clients will accept whatever the handshake is, so an open source server can be made. Agreed, a lot more overhead than people probably assume but still should be quickly available and I wouldn't expect companies to do it well, just something sloppy they can poin at.
I don't see what the game company choosing to use microservices that are scattered would, for all possible wordings of a law, require that whole architecture released.
Agreed on issues over bled IP but isn't that half of what this case is, fronting game companies to have to balance that IP with longer term support.
@BodeyBaker If the law was something entirely different than what is being proposed, like a requirement that phoning home as piracy protection is removed when a game is removed from stores, and that seems fine. That's not the discussion that I'm seeing right now. Most of the discourse I see seems quite maximalist.
@ElijahRavitzCampbell I did a quick search before I commented to see the status but couldn't find much. Do you have links? I mean to people talking about the legal / government side, not random gamers / programmers that are screaming loudly