""There is a broader discussion to be had within the industry of what does an end-of-life cycle look like in games--what is a fair end-of-life cycle for a game?" he said. "Should it just be buried and killed and no one can access it any more, and people who spent five or seven years working on it cannot really look at their creation any more because the service turned off? There is a very interesting and very complicated discussion that Stop Killing Games probably kick-started out of frustration.""
""We want to make games live forever," he said. "At the same time, if we put too many barriers on game creators and what the end-of-life cycle looks like, we might get fewer games, because people will be scared of, 'Okay, now I need to put up the funds to create it, promote it, and then upkeep it for 10 years, 20 years, because the regulator said so.' That might in turn cause there to be fewer cool games for gamers. I don't have the perfect answer yet, but it's good that the discussion is taking place.""
Renewed debate surrounds preservation and end-of-life cycles for games, especially online-only and live-service titles that become inaccessible when services shut down. Advocacy by groups such as Stop Killing Games has intensified scrutiny of whether developers and publishers should be required to maintain access indefinitely. Imposing statutory preservation obligations would raise upfront and ongoing financial commitments for creators, increasing operational risk and potentially discouraging new projects. Balancing cultural preservation with sustainable creative production is necessary to avoid reducing the variety and number of games available to players.
Read at GameSpot
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]