Don't show status for official

[cxong]

Official code releases should by definition be playable - hide status and disable status check, similar to for tools; see

• a79974a
• Don't show status for tools #1670

[cxong]

Unlike tools however, official games should show up if the user has filtered for playable - we can add a check that all official games must have status: playable

[kparal]

Official code releases should by definition be playable

Well, that depends on what "playable" means. Does it mean that it needs to produce end-user consumable binaries? Does it mean that the source code needs to be compilable with modern tools? What if game developer publishes source code for 30 years old game, but it's very difficult or impossible to compile, because the compilers, SDKs etc are no longer available/working? The OSGC documentation doesn't say.

I had this doubts when I added https://github.com/2point21/lba1-classic-community to OSGC. I marked it as unplayable, because I had the feeling that it's not immediately usable even for a skilled programmer. Of course that one is marked as remake, because it's the community version of the repo, but there's also https://github.com/2point21/lba1-classic , which would be type: official (currently it's missing on OSGC because I didn't want to add two basically the same repos, but perhaps we should fix that). And for that one, this question would be current - should it really be (automatically) marked as playable?

[cxong]

Does it mean that it needs to produce end-user consumable binaries? Does it mean that the source code needs to be compilable with modern tools?

status wasn't designed to mean such things; it was added because we wanted to include open source clones which had major features missing - e.g. it could not play the complete single player campaign, or maybe it was just a tech demo.

In that sense official games are by definition playable.

I agree that ease of compilation is an important point, but I'm not sure how to draw that line. A lot of official source code releases might require 30 year old compilers, which are hard to get, but in theory if you had one you could compile it, for a very old OS (e.g. MS-DOS). I think we can put this information in the info section for now, and revisit when it becomes a big issue.

[kparal]

OK, that sounds reasonable.

I'd also like to point out my (unanswered) question about open source engines here:
#1701

If those engines were to be marked as type: Official, then it might be confusing to mark those games as playable. Because while the engine is available, it doesn't amount to the whole game (some engines might amount to almost a full game and some just to a fraction of it). It might also be hard to distinguish whether the developer really opensourced the full game and just called it 'game engine', or if it is not the full game source code.

Marking them as type: Tool or something different (unless they really are the full game or we think they are) would sidestep this issue. But it might not be the right solution.

Here's a thought - what about marking official releases playable by default, but still allow the playable status to be overridden if explicitly present? That would help with corner cases like the ones mentioned, they could be re-labeled if needed.