The Stop Killing Games campaign have revealed their support for a Californian bill related to game server shoutdowns.

cross-posted from: https://fedia.io/m/gaming@beehaw.org/t/3751309

The Stop Killing Games campaign have revealed their support for a Californian bill related to game server shoutdowns.

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    5 days ago

    Look, I’d be happy if they just open source the server code. You don’t need to force the fucks to run the damn software. That’s like the worst idea ever.

      • msage@programming.devEnglish
        2·
        4 days ago

        I don’t think it will.

        Imagine Bethesda sharing their backend code… they won’t. As they will be using it forever, after the heat death of the universe.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 days ago

          lol true, or their stuff running in an overlaid modern engine, like oblivion remastered.

          in the end it’ll be creation engineGamebryo all the way down

        • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.todayEnglish
          1·
          4 days ago

          I’m no architect but couldn’t they just switch the server code to something already in circulation that’s open source, or allow the community to make its own?

          Is the server code that integral that it can’t be changed?

          • msage@programming.devEnglish
            2·
            4 days ago

            Depends on many things.

            But ideally you want some game logic on the server side, to prevent cheating.

            You can just sync world state between players, but that will always cause weird glitches.

            I don’t develop games, so I’m no expert, but I my backend would have the ‘one true’ state of the world, and players would only interact with it by using verified actions.

            I did one such game, but it was turn-based tabletop, not very comparable to open-world games.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        From the Stop Killing Games discourse, that might not be feasible because of patents/licensing, work required and companies’ protectiveness… But a suggestion I remember was that the companies could just be required to release all of the proprietary server binaries, so that somebody dedicated to the cause can figure out how to spin up their own server. This means a company doesn’t have to clean up their sources and ensure they are actually buildable, and can just dump what they were already running somewhere.

    • Big Baby Thor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      I’m actually for a law that forces them to open source server code upon release. The only reason to keep it private is to have direct control over the experience.

      At that point they might as well be honest and have you pay subscription, because you don’t really fully own the product.

      And before you say that could exclude any kind of live service, DRMs can and should be updated independently. They offset server processing by utilizing your processor and memory anyways, so it’ll have little effect on that dubious practice.