If you had to choose between these two options, which would you go with?

Option 1

You can play new games on day 1, but when the game becomes 10 years old, you can never play it again. So for example after this year you can never play games like Mass Effect 1, Super Mario Galaxy, COD4, Bioshock, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune or any other game made in 2007 ever again. No more retro gaming.

Option 2

You can play every game made, but it has to be 10 years old before you can. So every game made up to March 2007 you can play now, but games like Zelda BOTW you cant play until March 3rd 2027. This pretty much also means no online gaming for you.

Option 1. You could still play a lot of games in 10 years.


I would like to say though.... Thank God this isn't a thing.

Just remaster the games every 10 years XD

Option 1.

Option 2 will be very bad for online multiplayer games. And you want to play what everyone is playing currently.

Easy option 1. I've played enough Gothic anyway.

I'm already following option 2 in some ways.

Option 2 sounds great. I'd have an absurd amount of awesome games to play whenever I want for free, and some of those games still have working online communities to this day. Not that I care much about those, but still. xD

I don't mind waiting a huge amount of time to play games, I've done that regulary. Plus I like to revisit certain games, and I wouldn't want that privilege to be taken from me.

Option 2 sounds reasonable, my retro backlog is already big enough as it is.

I'm a patient man. Option 2 all the way for me. I like my old games, and I'm also not that confident in the future of gaming (or rather, how well it aligns with my tastes).

With my backlog I alrleady feel like i'm 10 years behind so option 2 doesn't sound so bad xD