Re:California bill would require patches or refunds when onl...
by dudul on Friday May 15, 2026 @07:03PM
(#48155064)
Is your argument that companies would be forced to obey the laws if they are mandated to open source discontinued games? And it's a... bad thing?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:California bill would require patches or refunds when onl...
by thombat on Friday May 15, 2026 @07:30PM
(#48155276)
Not OP, but it's more the warning not to underestimate the cost required for compliance, and apprehension of this cost may deter their creation.
Re:California bill would require patches or refunds when onl...
by avarun on Friday May 15, 2026 @07:17PM
(#48155177)
Huh? The point is that game developers would never be able to use commercial libraries again. Thus making all development significantly more expensive.
Re:California bill would require patches or refunds when onl...
by wsve on Saturday May 16, 2026 @04:40AM
(#48158179)
But what commercial software licenses are you using to write backend server architecture for a video game? There's no need for a dependency on FMOD or anything (unless you're doing something very unusual)
Re:California bill would require patches or refunds when onl...
by rahkiin on Saturday May 16, 2026 @12:31PM
(#48161630)
Big AAA games have access to Unreal or Unity code and they change the code to fit their needs. They are not able to share the Unity/Unreal code
Re:California bill would require patches or refunds when onl...
by account42 on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @05:22AM
(#48191112)
They are not able to share that code now because licensing the code in a way that it cannot be shared is currently a viable business model for Unreal and Unity - that would change with the proposed law and the middle ware providers will be forced to adopt different terms if they want to continue existing.