Why is that ridiculous? Seems like a totally fine solution to me. Probably not possible in most cases due to licencing issues, but if not this is the best thing a developer could do. But making games and/or their servers open source isn’t even the only option. In most cases it will suffice to just provide server binaries and patch the game to make it work with self-hosted servers, or just patch it to make it playable offline. It’s that simple. Developing games with that in mind makes this even easier.
Comment on #StopKillingGames Update: Germany becomes 4th county to hit threshold
dino@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago“open them up”? make them open source or what? thats ridicolous
Spectrism@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
They’ve got options.
- never build in forced server components to begin with
- patch out the need for the server as part of the last update before support ends
- give buyers access to run their own servers with an officially-provided executable and set the client to connect to that executable
- open source the whole thing
And maybe others. It’s about making sure that a product you have paid for actually works as it was sold to you. It’s honestly a really basic consumer protection concept. You sell me a television and it stops working within a reasonable lifetime due to your own failure, and you’re obligated to repair or replace it. The same should be true of software.
dino@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Lol, yea exactly. Thats why electornic devices stop working after their guarantee runs out 80% of the time… ;)
B0rax@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
No. Remove the need for a server that the company provides for example.