It is sad that consoles much newer than the PS2 will be very hard to preserve. On the other hand, I feel that the classic video game era ended by the 2010s or so. So maybe there won’t be that much interest in preserving the newer games, partly because they had so much DRM, required online play, and such, such that they’re harder to preserve.
This may seem a little bit arbitrary, but this is not uncommon throughout history. For example, in a normal English literature class, you’re going to be assigned Shakespeare. You will be assigned a bunch of novels from the 19th century, but not very much in between. Yeah, sure, there are a few works, probably, from the 1600s and 1700s, but not many compared to those other ones that I mentioned.
Video games might be the same way, where the games that were made from the NES to around 2010 are the ones that people care about far into the future.
Games from the 2010s are still "new". There are several major game series where the most current entry came from the 2010s. Think Skyrim & GTA5.
Game companies still have the source code an tooling sitting around. With some minor texture brushups, they can release a "remastered" version and get $20 out of people again.
Nintendo games are the odd ones here, because their love of novel gameplay means that a lot of first party games need to run on OG hardware for the full experience. Think Wii, DS/3DS.
Game companies maybe have the source code and tooling around. And can maybe get a remaster. Look at titles like Kingdom Hearts 1.5 HD. Square Enix lost the source to KH 1 despite it only being ~12 years old at release and had to rebuild it. Developers close all the time, they get bought and sold and bought and sold and nobody is entirely sure who owns the rights to X title anymore or where the code is. Then you also have licensing rights for cars, sports leagues, music etc.
You don't care about newer games because you've gotten older. Kids younger than us are forming core memories with today's games, and are depending on those more capable to preserve their childhood memories.
Also, there has been an indie Renaissance since 2010, I could name dozens of games that are already widely regarded classics. Happy to make some recommendations if you are into any particular genres.
> just 20 years ago, all the most popular software shipped with NO tests
Are you getting older? A lot of people anchor their intuition of time and history to a certain year. There are probably still lots of people who think the 1990s is not that long ago even though it’s now over a quarter century since it ended. Maybe you mentally default to 2012 or so, when it might be true that most popular software shipped without automated tests (although manual QA was a lot more extensive in 1992).
But 20 years ago is now 2006, and unit tests were well established as a best practice. Perl had extensive automated tests in the late 1990s that everyone who ever compiled Perl would have noticed, since they were run by default and produced obvious output. Kent Beck’s “Test Driven Development: By Example” was released in 2002, and popularized both the name and practice.
But 20 years ago is now 2006, and unit tests were well established as a best practice.
I agree with the spirit of what you wrote, but my recollection of the timeline is different. The first decade of the 2000s was peak Crazy Agile Advocacy, but IIRC it wasn’t until the 2010s that unit testing really became almost universal practice. Much before that and it was still tangled up with XP, TDD and lots of other things that certainly weren’t universally accepted as good practices (notwithstanding the strident advocacy of a certain group of consultants/authors/speakers/bloggers and their fans).
I remember, back in the mid-2000s, when we had some consultants brought in to talk about different aspects of quality and testing. There were several working groups, each led by one of those external consultants, and one of them was about unit testing. This was in a relatively large software development organisation for the time, a few thousand people, and while some parts of the organisation had some form of automated testing operating by then, it definitely was not the case that the well-known products produced by the organisation all had a unit test suite. Other practices we’d consider routine today, such as peer code reviews, were also in their infancy during that period: some were doing them, many were not, and generally we had much less experience of how to do them effectively than we have today.
As an industry, I don’t think we really matured in how even the most ardent fans of unit testing were writing test suites until the 2010s either. In the 2000s, we still had lots of people mocking the entire universe and then writing unit tests that were 99% testing those mocks because of 100% test coverage requirements, and similar dogmatic nonsense.
By the 2020s, I think there was much more awareness of that automated testing is generally a good idea, but there are different kinds/levels of automated testing and finding a mix that suits each project’s specific needs is important. One of the great benefits from the more recent AI tools, particularly the agentic ones over the past year or so, has been that it has clearly demonstrated both the value of a good automated test strategy and how much of a waste of time vacuous tests are.
I’m guessing that the knowledge of the techniques to support large-scale web search have diffused out of Google - it has been a few decades after all. Not to mention that the distributed system knowledge that used to live only in Google was either published by Google or cloned in other projects, usually made by ex-Googlers. And you can now rent capacity at scales that 20 years ago required Google to build lots of their own data centers.
Also, there is now a use case for paid search APIs - LLMs and agents - that essentially didn’t exist a few years ago. Not sure why Google hasn’t leaned more into this, but probably a combination of Gemini and Ads interests have combined to view their search index as an increasingly valuable asset, when if anything it might be corrupted already by these interests and therefore be less valuable.
Those phrases often imply that they were fired or asked to resign - although the deniability can be useful, which is why they’re so often used. As a recent example, Fidji Simo went on leave from her role at OpenAI several months before leaving. Although I don’t know for sure, I would suppose that she was essentially fired when she went on leave, and the subsequent success of Codex after she went on leave confirmed the decision to fire her. It’s possible that, if Codex hadn’t been a success, she might have been brought back, so putting her on leave was useful for optionality.
People go on leave regularly for health reasons, and Fidji Simo has been quite open about her health. Unless you have evidence of your claim, the official explanation is simplest. That's especially the case here since firing someone on health leave can expose you to lawsuits under labor law in the US and many other countries.
But the fact that she went on leave just as it became clear that Anthropic looked to be hitting escape velocity is suspicious, although not dispositive. When she was hired, her health issues also stopped her from coming into the office, but she still worked from home.
GPT-6 Astra (low reasoning, fast mode) in codex-cli, using a basic harness to send commands to play and reads frames as images. Beats the game in real time
I have a skill that instructs ChatGPT/Codex to verify the rendering using the Mac versions of Microsoft Office. Even without registering, you still can open files read-only, which is enough. Apparently Office refuses to open some Open Office XML documents that LibreOffice is fine with, so that's another reason to use this. After a few times, Codex ended up storing some memories to stop producing broken files in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Tessier-Lavigne
reply