

So how is that different?
I don’t understand, the arguement is whether or not they should have equated this to the right to repair movement, and then you say you think that’s a bad idea but I don’t understand your justification. Your justification seems to be that people don’t care about software, but my if they do not care about software, then they also do not care about hardware, and therefore your comment is irrelevant.
I literally don’t understand your justification for not equating game preservation to right to repair.
This is a PR issue. For some bizarre reason they decided that game preservation should be independent of the right to repair movement a movement that had fairly significant momentum by the time they started talking about games preservation. So for some insane reason they separated the two concepts in people’s minds and that resulted in nobody caring.
Then they decided to whine about the fact that it was unsuccessful despite the fact that they’d essentially done everything they could to kneecap the movement.