[dkersten]

> The sort of second problem I have with this is the idea that flops aren't worth archiving.

So many game companies go out of business after a flopped game (hell, even seemingly successful companies like Telltale Games are going out of business) that I doubt anyone has the energy to care about archival in this instance.

> Of course caring about archival makes developing games harder, just like caring about accessibility does, and just like caring about framerate does, and just like caring about localization does.

The difference is that these other things help them meet business goals while archival only becomes important years down the line, when the company may not even exist anymore. The games industry is already notorious for incredibly long hours and crunch time, how can you expect these people to give up even more time?

[gmueckl]

Besides, there are often no entities who can legally keep archives of the work done at a studio when it is closed down.

Publishers should institute a rule for their own sake that says that the deliverable must not only be the full game but also all source files in editable format, including proprietary tools as well as an image of a build server capable of producing a running product when follwing a documented sequence of instructions. But this will likely cause legal trouble when third party engines and tools are involved. I guess this also needs a cultural change in the wohle industry.

[dkersten]

That’s a very good point. Yes, it would be incredible if publishers would take archival on and have code + source assets as part of the deliverables.

[gmueckl]

With remasters of old titles now being economically viable, the necessary incentives for publishers are becoming real.