logoalt Hacker News

wagwangyesterday at 8:11 PM9 repliesview on HN

The reasonable compromise should be to force devs to release server binaries if they are not willing to run the servers themselves.


Replies

bob1029yesterday at 8:20 PM

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.

show 8 replies
nine_kyesterday at 9:07 PM

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".)

Akronymusyesterday at 9:15 PM

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...

maccardyesterday at 9:53 PM

This should be true for all software then, not just a subset of software.

show 1 reply
TylerEyesterday at 8:25 PM

What if, as a very high number do, the server uses something like a proprietary SQL database?

show 1 reply
Manuel_Dyesterday at 9:15 PM

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.

kristiandupontyesterday at 9:04 PM

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.

show 2 replies
doctorpanglossyesterday at 8:15 PM

i don't know, do game developers have a right to sell a Remastered Multiplayer Edition later? in my opinion, yes.

kgwxdyesterday at 8:17 PM

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.

show 2 replies