Isn't Microsoft corporately deaf about the topic of videogame preservation?

[morushroom]

I feel like Microsoft with their Windows and dependencies they eventually abandon is too ignorant and corporate to notice that artistic value of the games we can no longer play because of their critical changes could be lost to time. The changing architecture of the systems is too harmful, and they don't really notice it.

There a lot of old games that work only with community patches, and the most obscure ones are doomed to drown in the sea of obscurity.

Isn't Linux more flexible and compatible when it comes to videogame preservation? Why shouldn't we switch to Linux if we care about companies getting out of their way to make native support for their games and allow them to be played even after tens of years?

[detergent1]

At 8/21/24 07:07 AM, morushroom wrote:I feel like Microsoft with their Windows and dependencies they eventually abandon is too ignorant and corporate to notice that artistic value of the games we can no longer play because of their critical changes could be lost to time. The changing architecture of the systems is too harmful, and they don't really notice it.
There a lot of old games that work only with community patches, and the most obscure ones are doomed to drown in the sea of obscurity.

Isn't Linux more flexible and compatible when it comes to videogame preservation? Why shouldn't we switch to Linux if we care about companies getting out of their way to make native support for their games and allow them to be played even after tens of years?

what can I say. I don't know what you want

[Gimmick]

It's amusing to see microsoft being painted as the target of ire when it comes to videogame preservation when they had gone to huge lengths to ensure backward compatibility. In fact, when I think of "backward compatibility", I don't think "linux", I think "microsoft".

Put another way: why should it be the responsibility of the OS manufacturer to ensure that games are compatible forever and not the responsibility of the game developer to do so? It's entirely backward. To expect Microsoft to do so is just asinine. Like no shit Linux is better in this regard because it's not driven by any particular profit motive -- if YOU want a game to work on it, then YOU (aka the community) have to make patches for it to do so, at your own expense.

If you want a company that is actually completely deaf to the topic of videogame -- or even software -- preservation, then it's fucking Apple. Their cha-cha with x86_64 got rid of 32 bit support, despite, you know, the entire point of x86_64 being to preserve compatibility with 32 bit applications while adding support for 64 bit ones. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future they completely get rid of their Rosetta translation layer so that even the x86 apps won't run on the Apple ARM chips anymore.

Also, you should probably post this in the Video Games forum. This is not a forum for gamers, this is for game developers. Which is why I'm of this view -- asking game developers why OS manufacturers aren't making their games compatible with their systems is akin to asking OS manufacturers to just do their work for them.

[morushroom]

At 9/3/24 09:00 PM, Gimmick wrote:It's amusing to see microsoft being painted as the target of ire when it comes to videogame preservation when they had gone to huge lengths to ensure backward compatibility. In fact, when I think of "backward compatibility", I don't think "linux", I think "microsoft".

Put another way: why should it be the responsibility of the OS manufacturer to ensure that games are compatible forever and not the responsibility of the game developer to do so? It's entirely backward. To expect Microsoft to do so is just asinine. Like no shit Linux is better in this regard because it's not driven by any particular profit motive -- if YOU want a game to work on it, then YOU (aka the community) have to make patches for it to do so, at your own expense.

If you want a company that is actually completely deaf to the topic of videogame -- or even software -- preservation, then it's fucking Apple. Their cha-cha with x86_64 got rid of 32 bit support, despite, you know, the entire point of x86_64 being to preserve compatibility with 32 bit applications while adding support for 64 bit ones. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future they completely get rid of their Rosetta translation layer so that even the x86 apps won't run on the Apple ARM chips anymore.

Also, you should probably post this in the Video Games forum. This is not a forum for gamers, this is for game developers. Which is why I'm of this view -- asking game developers why OS manufacturers aren't making their games compatible with their systems is akin to asking OS manufacturers to just do their work for them.

Actually you're so fucking right.