upvote

points

by georgeecollins1 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby weberer32 minutes ago|
next
[-]
It doesn't need to be open source, you only need to provide server binaries to download. This was the standard until circa 2010. People were able to host dedicated servers themselves.
reply
upvoteby Terr_7 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That would be an improvement over nothing, but closed-source means that the game is still going to die when someone finds a security vulnerability (or sometimes just a gameplay glitch) that can't be feasibly patched.

Imagine an MMO where any troll can take down the server, or where special text in the chat causes everyone's client to crash, or there's a dupe/infinite money glitch.

reply
upvoteby neksn4 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Closed source binaries rot.
reply
upvoteby bluGill25 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I want to host a closed search server that's not being updated on today's internet. It might be good enough for home use, but definitely not if I want my friends to connect.
reply
upvoteby Imustaskforhelp25 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Although I get the idea of providing server binaries but if one has to absolutely do it, then provide great modding efforts behind it.

But I have found that the greatest modding efforts/community can be generated by open source. Balatro for example is easily modified in the sense that although it might not be open source but iirc its lua files are visible.

There are other games as well which have something similar imo although that being said its possible to create modding efforts without open source in general too with say something like for example old versions of counter strike.

Personally I would prefer open source though if its possible but I understand that some game studious might be worried about it but I don't quite understand it if they are shutting down the game anyway though. I think that @mjr00's comments are nice about third party library etc. which cause issues in open sourcing so its good to have a discussion about that too (imo)

reply
upvoteby strags5 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to.

That might be fine for very small titles - where the "game server" is a relatively simple binary that can be run anywhere. Larger titles depend on a huge amount of infrastructure, for authentication, progression, matchmaking, etc... It's not feasible to open-source all of that, especially given that it may well still be in use for more recent titles.

reply
upvoteby mjr0037 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
> It seems like the fair solution to this problem is to open source server code if you are going to cease support for an online game. That way the community has the opportunity to run their own servers if they want to.

It's nice in theory, but in practice many (most?) games are using middleware they don't have the rights to redistribute as open source. IIRC when the source code for Doom, the first major commercial game that went open source, originally came out, it had all of the sound code removed because it was dependent on a third party library. Not that you're going to have sound code in a server, but you may be using third party libraries for networking, replays, anti-cheat, etc.

reply
upvoteby Ukv30 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If bills like this pass there'd be financial pressure for middleware providers to either license under terms that allow distribution at the game's end-of-life, or allow their middleware to be easily severed while still leaving the game playable - else they'd lose out on all customers selling games in California/EU/etc.

Which is also a nice side effect to reduce intellectual property barriers for developers that do already want to distribute their server or source code.

reply
upvoteby dminik33 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This has an easy solution. If the middleware cannot be used in a new regulatory environment then it will either die or adapt.
reply
upvoteby collingreen27 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Sometimes the easy solution isn't easy for all sides or even realistic. "Fuck the publishers" is easy but not going to get a lot of publisher buy in.

We all agree there is a foolproof method to fixing all bugs - delete all the code.

We also all probably agree that isn't the optimal balance.

reply
upvoteby lovehashbrowns6 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Should’ve thought of that before accepting significant amounts of money in exchange for a game they plan to kill when it’s no longer financially advantageous for the publisher. They’re so happy to rake in what, $60, now $70, soon $100 for a product they can disable access to for any reason at all or no reason at all, with no notice? How’s that fair? Why’s it only unfair when the hardship goes the other way around?
reply