Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that's the reason why they do not want to open source their old games. In other words, either their finances are too tight to spare the effort, or they simply don't care about their games as works of artistic merit that might need to be preserved or even improved across generations of devices and operating systems, but rather just as products to earn money off of and then abandon.
Game studios are businesses, not charities. Why should they dedicate resources to making a very small group of people happy? And yes, the games are products: they cost money to make and they make money when they are sold.
Doesn't mean that you can't be charitable without being a charity.
> Why should they dedicate resources to making a very small group of people happy?
Because some might believe that the output of their work could be classified as a work of art in some ways and that it might be nice to preserve it.
> And yes, the games are products: they cost money to make and they make money when they are sold.
Sure! And if a game makes a sufficient amount of money, it wouldn't be a big deal to put some effort into doing nice things!
Of course, cynical attitudes and corporate behavior like what happened with a lot of Microsoft game studios suggest otherwise. The world quite sucks sometimes. Luckily, that's just due to the behavior of bad actors, not some inherent truth about the world being a profit-driven rat race, because that's of their making.