So now you have shifted to goal post from "providing a simple runnable binary" (not feasible due to baked in third-party licensing) to "open sourcing the game code, so people can rewrite the game to patch the missing parts".

The few examples you point out as "open source released with stubs" are also usually games that are decades old and cultural landmarks, where there was economic incentive from the right holders (good PR) to release them (e.g. Quake). This isn't tennable for your typical game that has to shut down online services because it's financially unsustainable.

▲

skotobaza 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's just one of the options, albeit the most beneficial for gamers.

> "open source released with stubs" are also usually games that are decades old and cultural landmarks

Not necessarily.

Edit: the goalpost is "the games should remain playable after the publisher stop supporting it". It hasn't moved an inch. So I'm not sure what you are talking about...

▲

maccard 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You've not just edit'ed and added to your comment, you removed a point about supporting open sourcing the games as a solution.

> : the goalpost is "the games should remain playable after the publisher stop supporting it". It hasn't moved an inch. So I'm not sure what you are talking about...

Many people (myself included) have absolutely no problem with that in principle. It's how do you do it that we have a problem with. Saying "just have every video game use the architecture that I have in my head that works, and isolate them from how all other software works" isn't practical.

	▲	skotobaza 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You've not just edit'ed and added to your comment, you removed a point about supporting open sourcing the games as a solution. I did not remove anything from my comment. Just added a statement since the alleged "goalpost moving" was referenced twice in the thread, so I had to reread my posts to check if it was really there. Hence my confusion. > Many people (myself included) have absolutely no problem with that in principle You can propose your own solution to the problem, not just criticize what other people say. > just have every video game use the architecture that I have in my head I'm not proposing any specific architecture.

▲

hobofan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every single suggestion you are making ignores the associated cost to the developers/publishers of the game, and when confronted with it you don't engage with the point by either refuting or accepting it but instead pivot to an entirely different argument.

In debate terms this may not be "moving the goalpost", but rather "topic drifting" or whatever the proper term for that is.

If you are fine with making game development an even riskier financial endeavour than it already is, and placing the needs of consumers higher than that, you can just say so!

	▲	skotobaza an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Every single suggestion you are making ignores the associated cost to the developers/publishers of the game The developer is the one who should think about costs. You shouldn't force it on consumers. > If you are fine with making game development an even riskier financial endeavour than it already is Yes, I'm absolutely fine with it. We already have a lot of games to play, and if developers have to be very considerate before making something and the number of released games decreases because of this, so be it.