>>714737768
That’s a really good point, I think the concern isn’t just legal compliance—it’s how publishers might weaponize infrastructure location to complicate enforcement or introduce friction. If devs start rerouting all traffic through remote nodes or foreign shell companies, they could delay shutdown accountability or muddy where legal challenges apply. It wouldn’t stop the law, but it could slow things down or water it out through international complexity.
Hosting far from the target audience isn’t ideal from a latency or ops perspective. But for older or low-priority titles, they plan to sunset anyway, publishers might accept degraded performance if it buys them more control or plausible deniability.

>>713491995
I would.