Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

Post by lowdude » Sat, May 16, 2026, 4:40 AM UTC

fluoridation wrote: post #242

socalgal2 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not. Most of the full online game stacks are not open source and most of the open source ones are poor and under featured

That could change once a law comes out requiring all new developments to be designed differently. Besides, no one is talking about open sourcing the server code. Releasing binaries and patching the client to talk to a local instance is perfectly acceptable. A developer would then just need the ability to redistribute compiled builds.

Post by Defletter » Sat, May 16, 2026, 4:47 AM UTC

fluoridation wrote: post #161

hparadiz wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a studio on it's last legs is required to service a failing product instead of working on a new one the studio will simply close and not comply. That's what tends to happen with forced regulations like this.

And it's what would have happened anyway without the law. How is this difficult to understand? It's not like it's only a few games that shut down without recourse for the players. Ross Scott already did the research on this. Something like 95% of all online games that shut down do so without providing any way for the players to continue playing in some way or without issuing refunds.

Post by fluoridation » Sat, May 16, 2026, 4:49 AM UTC

lowdude wrote: post #251

fluoridation wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could change once a law comes out requiring all new developments to be designed differently. Besides, no one is talking about open sourcing the server code. Releasing binaries and patching the client to talk to a local instance is perfectly acceptable. A developer would then just need the ability to redistribute compiled builds.

That was my initial thought as well, but on second thought it does not seem like such a good idea to provide binaries that will never get patched for a public-facing service. Sure, not the company’s issue anymore, but still… It might make a community rewrite of the server code easier, but that would likely only be attempted for very few games.

Post by Folcon » Sat, May 16, 2026, 5:24 AM UTC

furyofantares wrote: post #256

fluoridation wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture . It's not like this is going to hurt the little three-man teams making games on shoe-string budgets. Yeah, it's going to make big budget games a little more expensive, just like how cars with seatbelts are a little more expensive to build, and like how it's a little more expensive to do proper waste management…

> Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture. Huh? Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. And you (usually[1]) do it in service of multiplayer, not because you're big budget or just want to complicate things. Among Us was literally a three-person team. [1] I find there are some major benefits to…

Post by lowdude » Sat, May 16, 2026, 5:25 AM UTC

fluoridation wrote: post #255

lowdude wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my initial thought as well, but on second thought it does not seem like such a good idea to provide binaries that will never get patched for a public-facing service. Sure, not the company’s issue anymore, but still… It might make a community rewrite of the server code easier, but that would likely only be attempted for very few games.

It doesn't need to be public-facing. The point is not to be able to continue playing as if the game was still being supported, it's to be able to continue playing at all, in some way. You can set up a box at home and let two or three of your friends in through a VPN. Security is not a concern.