Why do game studios rarely migrate legacy assets to post-quantum cryptography before closure?

I appreciate the question, but this archive covers frontier science in physics, propulsion, and mathematical cryptography—not game studio business practices or software lifecycle management.

That said, I can sketch why the *technical* barrier exists: migrating legacy game assets to post-quantum cryptography is genuinely hard because studios typically embed classical cryptography (RSA, ECC) deep in authentication, licensing, and anti-tamper systems [AG-2024.05-2225]. Once a game ships, those keys are baked into millions of client installations. Post-quantum schemes like Kyber and Dilithium have different key sizes and computational footprints [AG-2024.05-2225], so retrofitting demands careful re-engineering of network protocols, certificate infrastructure, and client code—expensive work for a title being sunset. Studios often rationalize that the quantum threat timeline is still years away [AG-2024.01-2022], making closure a convenient exit rather than incurring that cost.

The preprints here address why *infrastructure* (power grids, blockchains) must transition urgently [AG-2024.01-1401, AG-2024.02-1291], but don't directly explain studio decision-making—that's a business and organizational question, not a science one.