>>714208680
>Use Docker, retard.
Wow. You just Dockerized away technical complexity with one sentence. Magical. Except you still have to:
>Write a proper Dockerfile
>Manage images for each update
>Document environment variables
>Deal with the fact that most end users don't know what the fuck Docker even is
And oh yeah, hope the game wasn’t built with hardcoded paths, legacy dependencies, or fragile build scripts, which half of indie games are because the dev team is one guy and a raccoon in a basement.
Docker isn’t a “make this idiot-proof” button, it’s just a container. If the software’s a mess, now you’ve just packaged a mess.
>Doom did it without issue.
Yeah, in 1993, with like 500 KB of assets and a codebase that fits on a napkin. You’re comparing Doom to modern server authoritative, state synced, event driven architecture with account services and encryption layers. it's like saying "ummm b-b-b-but horses never broke down, why don't we just use horses again?"
>Just put a big ‘run at your own risk’ stamp on it.
When someone runs your ancient server binary, gets their machine botted, and the headlines say “X indie dev releases malware vector!!!!” you think anyone’s gonna go “Oh but it had a warning”? You still get shat on.
>who fucking cares about reverse engineering?
You clearly don’t, because you’ve never shipped anything commercia. If you release a working server binary and someone reverse engineers it to run a modified, monetized version with your art, your name, and your janky legacy netcode, guess who deals with the DMCA shitstorm, brand damage, and idiot users getting tricked? Reverse engineering isn't a problem for fans. It's a problem for devs. Especially ones still making other games.
Look, You're not wrong to want self-hosting kits, Docker images, and preservation paths. You’re just wrong to act like they're trivial, cost-free, or owed.
There's a huge difference between asking indie devs to do that and forcing them through the fucking law.
