[hobofan]

> The developers definitely have the resources to do so since they were getting money for the game

There is no guarantee that they did!!! Yes, the examples we are pointing out (typical "friendslop" games from the last years) made bank, and should be able to afford to afford and EOL path.

However for every successful game that uses those technologies there are ~100 that "didn't make it", or barely broke even that are now also forced to do additional work on something they either post-hoc now was financially unfeasible, or have to do up-front work on something where it's a gamble whether it will be financially feasible.

In my personal opinion, completely downplaying the effort and financial reality that comes with making games compliant, and based on that creating carveouts for e.g. sub-$100k-revenue games was the downfall of SKG. If they would have made an effort to recognize that, they would be able to mobilize a large base of the indie developer community as well.

[skotobaza]

I get what you mean - if the developer stops supporting the game then they might run out of money to make the changes. This can even happen spontaneously in some cases. But I'm still expecting at least some effort in preserving their product, their legacy. Some people might call it naive (and it probably is), but for me personally the baseline is that games should be playable at least in some way. Maybe the experience will not be the same, maybe there will a lot of lag, maybe something will break. But it is still better than not being able to play the game at all.

I don't think anyone is downplaying the effort of making a videogame that is both easy to host for the small developers and for the community. But unfortunately developers themselves often choose to pursue financial goals disregarding everything else. So it's understandable that gamers are not happy and demanding some solution. And that the industry is trying to push back.

[hobofan]

> they might run out of money to make the changes

They may have never made any money to begin with, as they ran out of money during the development phase of the game because they were trying to comply with the regulation, and never got to release the game. Regulation almost always places a higher proportional burden on the smaller players, while larger players can afford it, which is why sensible regulation has carveouts for smaller players.

> maybe there will a lot of lag, maybe something will break. But it is still better than not being able to play the game at all

How is that better? A multiplayer game with awful lag isn't enjoyable anymore, and a game without joy is just a chore.

[skotobaza]

> they ran out of money during the development phase of the game because they were trying to comply with the regulation

I don't believe it. This is not the biggest spending point when making a videogame. If a developer uses this as an excuse, there was probably something else wrong with the development.

> How is that better?

Well, being able to play a game is better than not being able to play the game. I've played multiplayer games with high lag, you can get used to this. Especially if you want to play the game. Also, community can fix some stuff on their own, but only if they have something to work with.