Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why old games never die, but new ones do

pleromanonx86.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 335 posts

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#241

Post by armada651 »

squigz wrote: post #169
CrossVR wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet the obscure forgotten stuff is still playable if you kept a copy of the disc. Those games didn't need a community to preserve them, because they were not designed to be ephemeral like live service games.

It's not like they were designed like that on purpose. It was a limitation of the technology of the time. If they could've made as many live service games back then, they would have. This comparison is also unfair for a couple more reasons: - It ignores the fact that when a game was released on CD back then... that's it. No updates. No patches. Nothing. You break it, that's it. Game ending bug that corrupts your save…

> It's not like they were designed like that on purpose. It was a limitation of the technology of the time. If they could've made as many live service games back then, they would have.

Not every game released today is a live service game and I'm pretty sure people would have had the same objections back in those days.

> Is romanticizing an era of gaming that was not all that great the way forward? I don't think so.

People advocating for video game preservation aren't advocating we all go back to CD-ROM. Video game preservation can be done digitally perfectly fine.

What people are advocating for is that games are designed to remain at least functional once the company doesn't deem it financially viable to provide services for that game anymore.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#242

Post by leecommamichael »

adwf wrote: post #35
ofcourseyoudo wrote: post #25

"Far more people are playing UT99 than in the past as you just need to download it there and play it." This is laughably untrue. But mostly this article just says "old good games are old and good". It's nice that they run on anything, but comparing the current slate of new-ish games against... the entire history of PC gaming, I actually think new games are doing just fine: - Fortnite - Apex Legends - Valorant - Overw…

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just adding info for context: Fortnite: July 25, 2017 (Battle Royale mode launched September 26, 2017) Apex Legends: February 4, 2019 Valorant: June 2, 2020 Overwatch: May 24, 2016 Call of Duty: 2003, Annual release League of Legends: October 27, 2009 Dota 2: July 9, 2013 Roblox: 2006 (initially as DynaBlocks, rebranded to Roblox the same year) Blame Claude 4 if any date i…

I will not blame an LLM, I will blame your laziness for repeating a message you didn't verify.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#243

Post by leecommamichael »

1. The article is about multiplayer games, not all games (as the headline would imply.)

2. I thought they might be talking about design decisions that make for "lasting fun" but really they're advocating for design decisions that afford the game being functioning software without the corporate entity which produced it continuing to breathe life (and money) into it.

I think it's fine that things die. Also my god that first line is a flaming hot take.

> It’s well known that video games today are disposable pieces of slop.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#244

Post by leecommamichael »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #157

> It’s well known that video games today are disposable pieces of slop. Lol. Don't agree with the premise. Alan Wake 2 is a masterpiece as is Outer Wilds.

Yeah, the entire article isn't clickbait but they make several very controversial statements in it. It's just talking about multiplayer games. The author isn't exactly a great communicator.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#245

Post by leecommamichael »

dartharva wrote: post #96

Author conveniently ignores the thousands of good indie games in the market currently and just dismisses the entire current generation as "disposable pieces of slop". Only someone willingly spoiling their taste in games will make such a ludicrous claim. Many of today's games are in fact a massive upgrade over past titles; it's just that competition and discoverability is too tough and they don't get enough marketing…

You conveniently ignored all but the first sentence, didn't you? I can respect that, but it is mostly an article about multiplayer games.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#248

Post by leecommamichael »

deadbabe wrote: post #47

Increasingly, games are more like events, in the past they weren’t. What you pay for is really like a ticket to participate. If you’re not playing a game with people right when it’s new, when the hype is at its peak, you will miss out on the shared experience and social conversation. There are many games out there you could only have experienced at their full potential for a limited time. You could play the game year…

Thanks for the refreshing read. In reality, when we play with each other in person, it tends to feel this way. The moment comes and goes. Maybe you had a great game of cards over beers with friends. That doesn't mean every game needs beers and cards. (Although honestly I don't see how that could go wrong with a good group)

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#249

Post by DrillShopper »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #212
safety1st wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's different is that new games increasingly incorporate planned obsolescence as a business strategy. The game won't function unless it can phone home, stream assets etc. from their server, and they can and do plan to shut that server off at some point, forcing you to move on and buy new games. Now what's really troubling is you can conceivably employ this approach with any form of digital entertainment. I think N…

Planned obsolescence doesn't account for games like Concord

Live service shooters usually have a very short lifespan unless they can displace Overwatch, Valorent, Fortnite, or Destiny

Even Halo (Infinite) couldn't manage it

Stop buying this kind of game if you are expecting game preservation from one of the worst studios running.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#250

Post by OsrsNeedsf2P »

999900000999 wrote: post #99

I want FOSS alternatives for every genre. I tried to make a FOSS MTG clone and I keep running into weird edge cases. Anyway, even small games need solid teams to get started. Even if the games are ultimately monetized , it would be nice to have a FOSS core. I want to play COD without a bunch of stupid skins and side effects. I would pay 60$ over the base 60$ to disable that non sense, it’ll never happen though. Back…

If you're into RuneScape, check out 20xxscape.org. It lists a bunch of authentic remakes, many of them open source

[0] https://20xxscape.org

Post reply on HN