You yourself as the publisher are stating that you don't believe that those exact same trade secrets are valuable enough to continue selling (soooooo which is it????)

And again - there's no reason to allow commercial use by competitors...

> You yourself as the publisher are stating that you don't believe that those exact same trade secrets are valuable enough to continue selling (soooooo which is it????)

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.

Yes. the horrendously complicated code of "Send a request to a licensing server and get a response back"...

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.

I'm not talking about licensing servers. I'm talking about multiplayer game hosting.

edit: oh, I see, you are just misrepresenting my argument, cool.

>An increasing number of publishers are selling videogames that are required to connect through the internet to the game publisher, or "phone home" to function.

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....)

> (soooooo which is it????)

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.

Except how often does that _really_ happen?

Get real. ID Software showed the way to do this in the 90s and early 00s when they released the source code to their early Doom and Quake games, sometimes only 3-5 years after they came out. They didn't give up rights to ip and they didn't give up trade secrets either. Not only have those games enjoyed a high level of support ever since, but it's also enabled new creative works to be created even to present day. (ie Selaco)

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.

> corporations

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.

we're in 2024, not 1994. ID Soft made almost all the tech themselves. That doesn't really happen today with all the servies and 3rd party tools needed to keep up with consumer demand. If people were fine with Doom 1994 graphics, we'd still be playing Doom.

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.

> Giving away the source does not protect the game creator and actively harms them since they are giving up trade secrets.

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.

This initiative is not asking for source code. It’s asking to leave games in a playable state by any means possible. Company can release closed source binary and that would perfectly suffice.