> So, we'd have to work on slimming that down
...why? My reading of the law is that you need to make the binaries accessible, you don't have to provide the hardware to run it on.
Ubisoft doesn't have the most stellar reputation for example (I don't work there anymore) so people look at things we do by accident as if they are intentionally malicious.
Also, the California law is one law, the EU is also looking at this and it's likely to look different - that's why "Stop Killing Games" doesn't really mean anything yet, even people within the movement have differing definitions.
Of course there'll be idiots, but I doubt you'll see a stronger backlash than to a company shutting down the servers without any solution, like they can do now.
if no one can run the binaries, despite them being accessible, then the regulation has failed and there will be a new movement to alter the regulation.
the spirit of the law is that i can reasonably spin up an instance of the server for me and my friends to play.
Fans have reverse-engineered and stood up servers for tons of games with no access to the server binaries. The idea that they wouldn't figure it out when given much better resources (server binaries or source code) is crazy.
i wasnt implying they couldnt figure it out.
i was implying that you would have to be an incredibly rich turbonerd to stand up a massive cloud instance for some of these games. which sort of defeats the entire goal of the regulation.
To me this is about both preserving the access to what consumers purchased, but also future preservation of art.
Copyright is not a natural right. It is a monopoly granted by the government to creators, specifically with the goal of the progress of art and science.
Games that completely die because their servers are shut off, in my opinion should just lose copyright outright. Why should the people via the government provide you with a monopoly on publishing something that you have stopped publishing?
If the company puts an artificial proof of work demanding a rack of the latest data center GPUs, that should be illegal.
If the binary has the same hardware requirements that the company used when the service was up, I see it as totally fair.
ubisoft would surely be willing to spend an extra $500k on server hardware while developing a $25MM game, and subtlety bloat their server-side code so that they can say "this is the hardware we had to use to run it".
there are a million ways to slow down code/increase hardware requirements that look plausible.
This isn't the 2000s. People can rent a computer out of a data center. This isn't some hard problem here.
how much does 190GiB of RAM and 38 CPUs go for, hourly?
$1,349.04/Month
(m6g.12xlarge in us-east-1)