[skotobaza]

> Is that good public policy?

Yes, because you will not be limited in time to enjoy a single title. Like it's the case with other media - books, music, movies, etc. This is good because future people (who haven't even been born yet) will be able to enjoy the same slice of entertainment that we enjoy right now. Just like we can still enjoy games made 40 years ago.

[l23k4]

Everything is good policy if you're only willing to list the benefits, and not acknowledge that there are associated costs.

Perhaps the audience that would consume these old games simply won't be big enough.

[skotobaza]

But we are interested in benefits first and foremost since we are consumers, i.e. people who use the product. Regarding the costs, nobody dismisses them. But saying that the costs of giving the game to community are tremendous is simply misguided. Developers and publishers have been doing this since the beginning, it's not something new.

The reason why publishers don't do this is also very clear - they want us to play their newer games and spend money there. They are not doing this because it's hard for me. They just want to maximize the profit, that's it.

[l23k4]

> But we are interested in benefits first and foremost since we are consumers

We're only consumers when we consume, but that is not the extent of our participation in society. To optimize for consumption is a shortcut to certain doom.

> But saying that the costs of giving the game to community are tremendous is simply misguided

Tremendous, no. Significant? Yes. The cost could very well be in the millions for a single project, but how many hours of gameplay does that actually buy? Do those later hours come at a significantly increased cost?

>The reason why publishers don't do this is also very clear - they want us to play their newer games and spend money there. They are not doing this because it's hard for me. They just want to maximize the profit, that's it.

I get why someone who plays games would want this. But as someone who doesn't play games, why on earth would I want to encourage this? It defies most basic economic theory.

You're suggesting a subsidy for gamers which everyone else would to pay for in the form of slower economic activity and lower tax revenues. I do not want to subsidize your games.

[skotobaza]

> The cost could very well be in the millions for a single project

How did you come to this number? Something simple like giving the binaries with docs doesn't cost that much money. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

> how many hours of gameplay does that actually buy?

You seem to confuse the cost of continued support with the cost of giving it to the community. Nobody is asking publishers to continue support when they don't want to.

> But as someone who doesn't play games, why on earth would I want to encourage this?

You are not expected to support this if you don't care about it... But don't act surprised when you find out that some people do play games and they do care about them.

> You're suggesting a subsidy for gamers which everyone else would to pay for

No, that's not how it works. Not even close.

[walletdrainer]

>> You're suggesting a subsidy for gamers which everyone else would to pay for

>No, that's not how it works. Not even close.

As far as I can tell, legislation which enables you to play a game in perpetuity instead of for a limited time will likely reduce the amount of tax revenue your gaming-related activities generate.

A useful metric to focus on here is the cost per hour of entertainment. The price of the game itself might stay the same, but the cost of your gaming itself would be subsidized.

[skotobaza]

> legislation which enables you to play a game in perpetuity instead of for a limited time will likely reduce the amount of tax revenue your gaming-related activities generate

How so? If I'm sure that a game is not going to die, I will be more willing to pay for it. The more such games exist, the more money I will be willing to spend on them. Hence more taxes from me. Otherwise I will stick to older games that don't have this problem, which will bring less taxes from me because of the cost.

> cost of your gaming itself would be subsidized

By whom? I know there are currently tax returns (or exemptions is more correct term probably) for gaming companies. But how does having end of life plans change this?