The linked GamesRadar article has way more substance than the Forbes article, which says a lot of nothing wrapped around one quote from the GamesRadar article.
https://www.gamesradar.com/games/publishers-are-absolutely-t...
https://www.gamesradar.com/games/publishers-are-absolutely-t...
But here’s the meaty bit:
> That ruling cites the belief of the Entertainment Software Association and other industry lobby groups that "there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes." … this also ignores the fact that libraries already lend out digital versions of more traditional media like books and movies to everyday people for what can only be described as recreational purposes.
Exactly. What makes videogames different than books, music, and videos?
That said, the key difference is that book publishers decided to offer e-content under an explicit license, while game publishers have not.
I’d gladly give all my old licenses to NES and SNES games to a gaming library if it meant they could preserve them as digital lending material.
We’ve had over a decade to prove that AAA games are not viable in a business sense. The budgets and returns are not sustainable. However, to get these massive budgets off the ground, the industry effectively eliminated mid-tier games.