You are basically just saying "give up all rights to the ip you've sank a ton of money and time into"
And again - there's no reason to allow commercial use by competitors...
Code doesn't get thrown away because a game isn't being used anymore. The networking code for one game will not be completely different for the next game.
Please...
It's almost like I do software development for a damn living and have some idea of what's at play here.
You can make a half-assed argument for multiplayer only games (and I still wouldn't agree with you, but at least it would weigh more than my farts). But for single player games that require remote licensing?!?!?! No. Just no.
edit: oh, I see, you are just misrepresenting my argument, cool.
Right from the damn proposal. No one is in here demanding that folks continue hosting mp games for you (Although personally - I'd like to force them to provide the source to mp backends as well - but again, that's a real conversation).
you're just off-gassing nonsense at this point. This is aimed exactly at games that are primarily single player but require remote licensing servers (which have a funny habit of getting shut down right around the time the publisher releases a new version...)
Go read my first comment again... (Yes - all the way through....)
Simple, they use that tech in their next game that they hope brings more steady revenue. if you think about it as opportunity cost instead of absolute valuee the logic lines up.
Just say you'd prefer it to be legal for these corporations to defraud customers as a regular business practice rather than it be mandated that they can't do that and move on.
Scapegoating is always how these laws are justified. It's always "billionaires this or that" but the laws always include small to medium sized businesses and high income professionals that are not billionaires or mega corporations.
These laws hurt mega corporations but they are fatal to everything smaller.
Shocker but most people don't want to give all their IP away. Most others literally cannot because most tool licenses don't give you permission to distribute.
>Just say you'd prefer it to be legal for these corporations to defraud customers as a regular business practice rather than it be mandated that they can't do that and move on.
rules:
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Then maybe they shouldn't have published the game in the first place. If you can't do the bare minimum that the market demands/requires by regulation then you can't engage with it. Simple as.
The obvious and clearest response is simply this: If you as a publisher are so convinced that your game is obsolete... make the remote server source available under a permissive license to your existing license holders. Better yet - plan for releasing a copy of it at development time.
You don't even need to make the license permissive to everyone, or for everything (open source). You just need to make it possible for those who have purchased your product to continue to use the product, and there are MANY ways to do that which don't involve your consistent labor.
---
Basically - To directly address your point: If the alternative is that the publisher does crap like completely disable single player experiences because they've shut down remote licensing servers... fuck them.
That's not a company I think should be allowed to exist. If we can't limit them this way... them I'd be fully in favor of mandating they return the full purchase price of the item to every purchaser.
That purchase price represent your customer's labor.