> Games used to be entirely this way, and some still are, but any manner of live-service game can’t realistically work in that model for an indefinite period of time like movies and music can.
Which is why the industry keeps pushing these and why we should oppose them.
> This is also true to a lesser extent for patches and DLC, although they shouldn’t be necessary (but day one patches are a thing, I imagine the games companies aren’t unhappy about this, as there’s an incentive to release a broken game with a day-one patch as a future copy protection measure).
Patches can be distributed as standalone installers that are fixed once released just like the original version remains fixed. This is how things used to work.
Being able to go back to earlier versions even if the developer wants to change things (for whatever reason) is precisely why we need archivable games.
Which is why the industry keeps pushing these and why we should oppose them.
> This is also true to a lesser extent for patches and DLC, although they shouldn’t be necessary (but day one patches are a thing, I imagine the games companies aren’t unhappy about this, as there’s an incentive to release a broken game with a day-one patch as a future copy protection measure).
Patches can be distributed as standalone installers that are fixed once released just like the original version remains fixed. This is how things used to work.
Being able to go back to earlier versions even if the developer wants to change things (for whatever reason) is precisely why we need archivable games.