Pirates accidentally preserving gaming history?

[monojono]

Twenty years from now, there will be game enthusiasts, similar to you and me, looking at games of the past. What happens when they reach the PS360 age? Games with full multi-player will be paper weights. The reason people love Halo and CoD will be untouchable. Arcade games won't be able to be touched. Little Davie will miss out of Braid and Splosion Man. That should be a crime.

In the past old games eventually stopped becoming available, but that doesnt necessarily mean current downloadable games will - microsoft, nintendo and sony would be fools not to bring their current stores to their new consoles. There is pretty much no reason for microsoft to stop selling braid and their current arcade games when they can just keep adding to their store.

I agree that eventually multiplayer games will be lost when their companies stop paying for servers, but is piracy actually helping this? Do pirates host multiplayer servers of old games?

 

[Dapz]

double post

 

[Sikachu]

If it's ten pounds for a service of some sort that you've done for them and they haven't paid you for, it's pretty much the same as a loss. If you lose money, the result is is that you don't have money that you should have. If you don't get paid for something you should, the result is that you don't have money that you should have. Granted, there is a difference in how you came to not have said money, but it's essentially six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Finally we're discussing the material that I brought up in the first place.

I agree that to some extent the effect is the same, but that doesn't mean that every word that could produce the same result should apply. If I was taxed ten pounds, it can't be said that I failed to earn ten pounds, or indeed that something cost me ten pounds.

Protection of the legitimate expectation of profit is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable goal in a capitalist society. Without it, the incentive to produce is diminished and thus society at large is harmed. Pirates often argue that they wouldn't have bought the game anyway, so this harm evaporates. For some of them, this is plainly a lie. For others it's true, but they have nevertheless availed themselves of a benefit which they in no way deserve, and as such fall into the category of 'unjust enrichment'. It's wrong, but it can't be said to cost the games company anything - they produced the game already and had no cost in purveying it to the pirate - no cost, just a failure to gain.

I think that honesty on the part of the games companies in this matter would help win many more people to their cause, as analysis like 'it costs the industry millions' (suggesting that money is being taken out of it rather than not being put into it) or 'piracy is theft' turns a lot of people against the side arguing for it. Certainly I used to use the fact that their arguments were wrong to finesse my way into arguing that therefore piracy is okay (a fallacy - just because the other side is wrong doesn't mean I'm right) and it was only when I started really thinking about the effects of piracy and my personal morality that I arrived at actually convincing arguments. Being honest about why it is wrong makes it much, much harder for people to pretend to be justified because there is no refuge in the 'if it was actually wrong, the industry wouldn't need to lie about it'.

 

[Dapz]

If it's ten pounds for a service of some sort that you've done for them and they haven't paid you for, it's pretty much the same as a loss. If you lose money, the result is is that you don't have money that you should have. If you don't get paid for something you should, the result is that you don't have money that you should have. Granted, there is a difference in how you came to not have said money, but it's essentially six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Finally we're discussing the material that I brought up in the first place.

I agree that to some extent the effect is the same, but that doesn't mean that every word that could produce the same result should apply. If I was taxed ten pounds, it can't be said that I failed to earn ten pounds, or indeed that something cost me ten pounds.

Protection of the legitimate expectation of profit is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable goal in a capitalist society. Without it, the incentive to produce is diminished and thus society at large is harmed. Pirates often argue that they wouldn't have bought the game anyway, so this harm evaporates. For some of them, this is plainly a lie. For others it's true, but they have nevertheless availed themselves of a benefit which they in no way deserve, and as such fall into the category of 'unjust enrichment'. It's wrong, but it can't be said to cost the games company anything - they produced the game already and had no cost in purveying it to the pirate - no cost, just a failure to gain.

I think that honesty on the part of the games companies in this matter would help win many more people to their cause, as analysis like 'it costs the industry millions' (suggesting that money is being taken out of it rather than not being put into it) or 'piracy is theft' turns a lot of people against the side arguing for it. Certainly I used to use the fact that their arguments were wrong to finesse my way into arguing that therefore piracy is okay (a fallacy - just because the other side is wrong doesn't mean I'm right) and it was only when I started really thinking about the effects of piracy and my personal morality that I arrived at actually convincing arguments. Being honest about why it is wrong makes it much, much harder for people to pretend to be justified because there is no refuge in the 'if it was actually wrong, the industry wouldn't need to lie about it'.

Fair play. And thanks for the life lessons in your other post. But to return the favour, you might want to your stance on the matter at hand a bit more clear from the start, because I'm quite sure that most people would have assumed from your initial post that you were pro-piracy. Anyway, I trust that this matter is now resolved, we've settled that their is some form is financial detriment to the gaming industry that comes from piracy, which is my main point. And although I'm sure that most people would dismiss the word 'cost' in place of 'fail to earn' as long as the main point is clear, I'm terribly sorry that my phrasing offended you so deeply.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

I think if people let piracy be a lot of costs would go down and people would buy games for the sake of supporting them.Which is a bit sidetracking.

Yes it's true that the internet they are trying so hard to govern in it's anarchy has neatly archived old games,music and television/movies that we'll be charged for previously owning because the carriers simply don't last.

 

[TheLiham]

Wouldn't releasing hard copies of compilations of these downloadable games and DLC solve this problem?

And this is why I prefer hard copies of everything. You can lose data, run out of hard drive space, but you can always find more shelf space

A. Fucking. Men.

I almost hate that games can be released digitally due to how we can all lose our games at any second for ticking off the wrong people on the wrong day. But they can't take away the cases on my shelves!

I fucking love you guys, I hate digital downloads if not just for the experience of having the game in your hand.

 

[Audio]

I wonder how many years old a game has to be before it's "not so bad" to go searching for it?

Perhaps it's better this way, instead of any 'old skool remake's

 

[jpoon]

Completely agree with the OP, pirates just aren't as damaging as these multi-billion dollar corporations whine on about. If anything they are helping customers in the long run.

 

[Sikachu]

Fair play. And thanks for the life lessons in your other post. But to return the favour, you might want to your stance on the matter at hand a bit more clear from the start, because I'm quite sure that most people would have assumed from your initial post that you were pro-piracy. Anyway, I trust that this matter is now resolved, we've settled that their is some form is financial detriment to the gaming industry that comes from piracy, which is my main point. And although I'm sure that most people would dismiss the word 'cost' in place of 'fail to earn' as long as the main point is clear, I'm terribly sorry that my phrasing offended you so deeply.

Are you trying to wind me up? I was at no point offended by your phrasing, rather I thought your phrasing made your point wrong. I was trying to have a conversation with you about that but you and the other person who quoted me actively destroyed the possibility of this because of your assumptions about what was behind my questions rather than just dealing with it on face value.

I also didn't try to give you any life lessons, merely my opinion on why it's important to use the right arguments, and why I thought you weren't doing so. If you don't want to engage in a conversation, don't bother going to a forum.

 

[Fedayk1n]

What could happen is a "www.gog.com" type service for newer consoles,

 

[Antari]

Be wary of writing anything positive about piracy on The Escapist forum - it's an organ for expanding the revenues of the games industry rather than free and rational discourse and you could easily face mod wrath.

For my part I think that there should be a ten year limit on copyright infringement in videogames, and thereafter old games should have their sources opened for the good of the community. I think this is actually true for software in general, as restricting that information for longer doesn't doesn't really provide much in the way of extra incentive to innovate.

Isn't that how copyrighted works go into public domain, a number of years after the copyright owner's death?
of course, difficult to quantify with games, seeing as so many work on them...

Actually its fairly easy to quantify. Copyrights are like a driver's licence and have to be renewed, every 5 to 10 years depending on the copyright's inital period. Now when a copyright goes stale that doesn't make it OPEN SOURCE. Open source would mean any person or company could copy the product and sell it as their own, based on changes they have made. Public Domain just means that no one has the right to claim ownership of the product, therefore anyone can sell it or give it away, without making any changes or claiming ownership.

 

[Xanthious]

The only reason that certain drugs are so prevalent is because their socially acceptable, such as weed. I do not want our subculture to make piracy as socially accepted as that is. So i will argue and shout at people standing up for it.

I got news for ya, piracy is already just as socially acceptable (probably more so) as your analogy to weed. I know a ton of people that would never think to ever smoke a joint but wouldn't bat an eye at watching a pirated movie, or putting a pirated app on their phone, or playing a pirated game.

I work with an older woman who is one of the most "by the book" people you will ever meet but she didn't bat an eye when her grandson told her he'd rather have an R4 cartridge for Christmas this year rather than any specific games for his DS. She thought it was "neat" that he could get his own games now for free. Hell in my office of 50 or so people it's pretty commonplace for the older less tech savvy folks to swap burnt movies they buy from this person or that person between themselves. Or loan out copies of Windows to one another. Or even ask the IT guys if they can "get them" whatever piece of software.

My point, piracy is already a social norm. Piracy has been a social norm since the days of people recording songs off the radio onto cassette tape. Piracy these days is largely a crime in name only. Outside of the occasional story you read online when is the last time you seen anyone really get in trouble for it? How many times a day you think cops pull people over and see burnt CDs in their car? Now out of those times they see burnt CDs or DVDs just laying around a car do you think they bother to do anything about them? I'd say it's as close to never as to make no difference. Now imagine if that was a bag of weed. Do you think the same cops that totally ignore burnt CDs would ignore a bag of weed or a joint? I bet the weed wouldn't be ignored at all.

 

[Yeager942]

Yeah, it is because of Pirates I was able to play Planescape: Torment and other such gems like Sacrifice or XIII.

 

[GraveeKing]

Ya know, Pirating will happen anyway. But maybe 10-15 years or so after a game release they should let pirating me legal for that game. I mean you're not going to make any more serious money anyway. (unless it's WoW but really that game is.... I won't get off topic)
But the point is that old games which deserve credit make more sense to play first, so yeah pirating could be legal after a set amount of time - it makes sense to me.

 

[Eggsnham]

Ya know, Pirating will happen anyway. But maybe 10-15 years or so after a game release they should let pirating me legal for that game. I mean you're not going to make any more serious money anyway. (unless it's WoW but really that game is.... I won't get off topic)
But the point is that old games which deserve credit make more sense to play first, so yeah pirating could be legal after a set amount of time - it makes sense to me.

I agree with this man, and I am also too lazy to write my own reply!

 

[Antari]

snip.

snip.

Its as prevalant in films and music, but games not as much. And i still reserve my scorn for the people who pirate games over those other forms, because those other forms make money in a plethora of other ways where gaming is still just the one.

So your saying gaming doesn't have any other merchandise? No T-shirts or toys to put alongside their game? Funny ... I don't see it that way. And your seeing it as more prevelant in movies and music because they are more accessable to the population, and in general have been around for a little longer.

 

[corsair47]

I wonder how many years old a game has to be before it's "not so bad" to go searching for it?

Perhaps it's better this way, instead of any 'old skool remake's

there isn't a certain number of years, but a company usually stops defending the copyright or stops supporting the game. It then becomes abandonware and you can legally get it for free.

 

[Imbechile]

Pirates accidentally preserving gaming history?

They are in a way. For instance is there anywhere else than Amazon where you can buy copies of System Shock 1+2 or Thief 1+2. You can torrent the easilly, but buying them is hard as hell