> but their definition of optional includes "no multiplayer" as well. I don't think this is ideal by any means, but I do think it's a reasonable compromise. F

> but their definition of optional includes "no multiplayer" as well. I don't think this is ideal by any means, but I do think it's a reasonable compromise. For better or worse, many/most modern multiplayer games are architected to use a centralized, company-run software. The server software is not built to be deployed by end-users, and getting it to that state would involve very significant engineering effort. It's just not a reasonable ask.