> Someone please define "reasonable playable state". Wouldn't this be the job of the lawmakers? > Source and internal sysops documentation? Maybe, why not. M

> Someone please define "reasonable playable state". Wouldn't this be the job of the lawmakers? > Source and internal sysops documentation? Maybe, why not. MMORPGs are the exception here, so most games will not necessarily be forced to deliver them. > You will likely need a separate server architecture that works independently of the userlist and matchmaking system. Bear in mind these systems are usually not made to be modular, they are custom-built to work in a given environment. Just open the APIs and let the community build their own. Maybe, the gaming-industry could even move to open standards, have open source-projects for most of those stuff, which would be beneficial for everyone. > but there should be a VERY CLEAR definition of what counts as "reasonable playable state". Why? In worst case, it has to be decided game by game. And for most games this is probably not a big deal, as they are not that hard entangled with online-features. I think any law should also giver the industry some leeway to establish a useful ground on their own. I mean, a solution here could go from removing licensing and allowing people debugging, so they can build their own backends. Or forcing companies to deliver the whole backend, including documentation and whatever. This is a pretty big range of options.