> 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?