Literally all they'd have to do is release the server executable(s) they already have. The community will do whatever work is necessary to get them running even if they require a cursed stack and client modifications.

> I had the opinion that it'd be too expensive for developers to support offline mode, peer to peer, or community servers after shutdown

It’s never like the server becomes lost media when they shut down services. Most development studios have an easy way to run the server stack locally for development anyway. The problem is forcing someone to actually spend several hours doing packaging to get it deployable and the general reluctance of companies to “lose control” of what they have. There are many alternate servers that have existed that developers have intentionally axed like AlterIWNet because of control reasons, not because the complete solution already existed.

Why is this an existential issue? Every game that could be played, on all platforms, from all studios, for decades, met this requirement because they could be played offline right out of the box.

Allowing your game to not require an internet connection or checking in with servers from the get go is the way. Easy peasy.

AI or not: the main idea here is that future developed games under such policy would already be built to go offline/p2p at a moment's notice. It's relatively easy to make the switch if you build for it (or if your engine has tools to support it).

>A developer going bankrupt isn't going to be able to do too much.

Banktupcy at this scale simply means ownership of the IP and game changes to someone else. So they'd be on the hook if they want to operate in any jurisdiction with such a law.

They don't have to do anything. They just need to stay the hell out of our way. They don't even need to release anything, we'll do it all ourselves at zero cost to them. Just don't bother us with idiotic lawyer nonsense, that's literally the only thing they have to do.