I think the component-based game engine literature mixes-up “combining existing functionality to define game-specific logic” (= reusing functionality) and “automatic communication within unknown game-objects” (= dynamic functionality).

Automatic communication is restricted to the known components and new functionality always has to be game-specific (either hard-coded, or in scripts, or any other data-driven method).

Wenn Sie mit der Funktion des Flash Players auf Ihrem Computer unglücklich sind, versuchen Sie bitte auf die HTML5-Version der Seite umzuschalten, indem Sie auf den "Kippschalter" klicken.

[...] A component model defines specific interaction and composition standards.

[...] In plain English: “In order to allow a new component to be added to an existing environment of components in a game-object and automatically communicate with each other, the communication protocol between the components has to be predefined“.

Die Flash-Version hat den kompletten Funktionsumfang und ist optimiert.

Wir empfehlen allen unseren Nutzern, sich für die Flash-Version des Chats zu entscheiden.

Even with components you define the player game-object specifically at some point: Player = Position Component Visual Component Input Component.

In FRP everything is based upon time, thus time should be abstracted away into “time dependent functions” (behaviors).

Moving Image = translation function draw image function. I’m not going into more detail about FRP for now, you can find more information on my blog or on the internet.

Component-based software engineering can still be applied in this environment on higher level, like the communication between subsystems or game-objects, but not on the level of game-object functionality level!

The argument for component-based game-engines usually starts like this: Game-objects should be represented like objects in reality but as the project progresses however, class hierarchies become more and more complex and thus should be split into small, reusable components.