Poll: A Rant About Emulation!

[Vylox]

So you're not making games cheaper, aren't evil and don't need to be stopped?
With people downloading ROMs and using those, demand for any given title is being satisfied before you even get the secondhand market involved. Without the demand created by people who just want an opportunity to play the game and don't care about the collectible value of a game, you'll see depressed prices for secondhand games. Now, collectors will know that they don't own the publishing rights and whomever does can release a digital copy and fill the demand of those who want to own a copy for playing, but they shouldn't have to deal with a loss of value because of people just going out and downloading ROMs.
whoops double quote, lemme snip one

The collectors market, along with all second-hand markets, are something that many game and console publishers want gone. However, that isn't the point. People don't hunt for a lot of collectable titles because those that are interested in collecting them already have them in the first place. Take a look at comics, as an example, there are whole online libraries of old comics, run and hosted by the publishers of those comics, and it in turn has increased the value of the majority of those issues, not decreased their value to a collectors market. Take another game.. oh how about Warsong (Hikari Langrissier) .. it was released for download on the Wii, within 2 months the price f the cartridge jumped from $16 to almost $600. It has since stabilized and the only 2 copies I've seen for sale anywhere in the past 4 months were listed at $90, which btw is 3 times the price to have purchased it new in 1989 when it was 29.99 as a brand new release.

If publishers want my money, they need to provide something I'm interested in buying, if collectors want my money, they need to provide something I'm interested in collecting.

The thing here is that a collectors market is entirely different than a gamers market. The value of those old games will invariably increase, no matter what, over time. But the developers and publishers don't get anything out of that second hand market.. I know Tecmo isn't seeing a dime from sales of Warsong whether by collectors or the Wii online store.

 

[Swishdude]

I can't imagine the collectors market would see a loss in price and cost. Just because it's easier to get certain games doesn't mean the originals lose value.

 

[SecondPrize]

So you're not making games cheaper, aren't evil and don't need to be stopped?
With people downloading ROMs and using those, demand for any given title is being satisfied before you even get the secondhand market involved. Without the demand created by people who just want an opportunity to play the game and don't care about the collectible value of a game, you'll see depressed prices for secondhand games. Now, collectors will know that they don't own the publishing rights and whomever does can release a digital copy and fill the demand of those who want to own a copy for playing, but they shouldn't have to deal with a loss of value because of people just going out and downloading ROMs.
whoops double quote, lemme snip one

The collectors market, along with all second-hand markets, are something that many game and console publishers want gone. However, that isn't the point. People don't hunt for a lot of collectable titles because those that are interested in collecting them already have them in the first place. Take a look at comics, as an example, there are whole online libraries of old comics, run and hosted by the publishers of those comics, and it in turn has increased the value of the majority of those issues, not decreased their value to a collectors market. Take another game.. oh how about Warsong (Hikari Langrissier) .. it was released for download on the Wii, within 2 months the price f the cartridge jumped from $16 to almost $600. It has since stabilized and the only 2 copies I've seen for sale anywhere in the past 4 months were listed at $90, which btw is 3 times the price to have purchased it new in 1989 when it was 29.99 as a brand new release.

If publishers want my money, they need to provide something I'm interested in buying, if collectors want my money, they need to provide something I'm interested in collecting.

The thing here is that a collectors market is entirely different than a gamers market. The value of those old games will invariably increase, no matter what, over time. But the developers and publishers don't get anything out of that second hand market.. I know Tecmo isn't seeing a dime from sales of Warsong whether by collectors or the Wii online store.

What does it matter who's getting the money for the games? It's just an attempt at justifying one's piracy to quibble about where the money goes. If someone wants a legal ROM, they have to first get a copy and then copy that as a ROM. That's how it works.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

It's what we should be able to do instead, it was a follow on from my own train of though not a further response to you.
My point in my initial response, is that nobody loses. You responded by saying collectors lose. To be perfectly honest, I don't think they do. Surely it's the fact that it's a physical copy or the actual hardware that makes it valuable to a collector, or else they'd be emulating anyway. These physical things will get harder and harder to find as they break and get lost so they'll be more valuable, so no, I don't think I'm damaging the collector's market at all.

So you're not making games cheaper, aren't evil and don't need to be stopped?
With people downloading ROMs and using those, demand for any given title is being satisfied before you even get the secondhand market involved. Without the demand created by people who just want an opportunity to play the game and don't care about the collectible value of a game, you'll see depressed prices for secondhand games. Now, collectors will know that they don't own the publishing rights and whomever does can release a digital copy and fill the demand of those who want to own a copy for playing, but they shouldn't have to deal with a loss of value because of people just going out and downloading ROMs.
whoops double quote, lemme snip one

Surely if they're collectors a lower price would be a good thing? I can't think of a single person that ever wanted to pay more for something. I think we have a misunderstanding here.

To me a collector wants to build a collection of old games and hardware. So why on earth would a collector be losing out if they were cheaper. If anything, wouldn't they then be able to buy even more games and consoles for their collection with the money they've saved?

http://ultrararespacehighfive.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/1080vnative-ff12.png

That's why.

Also, not everyone wants distraction when trying to immerse into a story.

Also, Anti-Aliasing is something you can set yourself.

Oh wow, that does make quite the difference! I may need to play with my settings now. Not sure if the results will be quite as pleasing for PSX and N64 games though.

I haven't really been playing story heavy games lately so I'm not really that bothered about immersion, it's just something fun to do while I watch TV on catch-up or listen to a pod-cast or something. When I do play story games I have it in windowed mode with steam or skype open next to it, but I think I'm going to have to try up scaling now and running in fullscreen.

 

[Vylox]

What does it matter who's getting the money for the games? It's just an attempt at justifying one's piracy to quibble about where the money goes. If someone wants a legal ROM, they have to first get a copy and then copy that as a ROM. That's how it works.

Because the entire argument against emulation is that its piracy, and piracy is about money and copyright infringement. Its all about the money. The entire copyright system and laws is about money. Even your argument about the collector's market was about money. The whole gaming industry is about money. So it matters. If there is a game that I want to play, that is legitimately available where the developers and publishers of said game will earn money, then I will buy it from them, as will just about every other person who is for emulation. However, that is not always the case. And purchasing an older title from a collector, which is breech of copyright nd a breech of the standard end user license agreement with most older games, is not providing a profit to those who developed the content we desire. Its putting money into the pockets of people who do not usually have a license agreement with that game developer or publisher to sell or re-sell that content for a profit. GameStop has a license agreement with publishers to buy and sell used and new games, collectors have no such legal right to sell games unless they are selling them to an entity that has a distribution license with said original publisher.

Its about the money, always has been, always will be. The majority of collectors do not have the right to sell you a game, for their own profit, without having a license or agreement for distribution from the publisher of said game. Since those collectors likely do NOT have such a license or agreement, and most don't even have Vendors Licenses (making any sale that they make illegal anyhow) it really does matter WHO is getting paid.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

What does it matter who's getting the money for the games? It's just an attempt at justifying one's piracy to quibble about where the money goes. If someone wants a legal ROM, they have to first get a copy and then copy that as a ROM. That's how it works.

Because the entire argument against emulation is that its piracy, and piracy is about money and copyright infringement.

Emulation isn't piracy and afaik, nobody ever sued the creators of emulators. What I have seen though, is removal of roms to prevent lawsuits.

And purchasing an older title from a collector, which is breech of copyright nd a breech of the standard end user license agreement with most older games, is not providing a profit to those who developed the content we desire.

Why should it provide a profit for the developers? If I sell my copy of Lufia II now, which I bought for $70 as a kid, now resell it for a similar amount, how does this profit either party? I get my money back and lose the game, the other person pays for the game. The developers already got their share when I first got it.

I don't quite see the logic as to why an already purchased game would need to make anyone a profit just because it's passed through many hands.

 

[SecondPrize]

What does it matter who's getting the money for the games? It's just an attempt at justifying one's piracy to quibble about where the money goes. If someone wants a legal ROM, they have to first get a copy and then copy that as a ROM. That's how it works.

Because the entire argument against emulation is that its piracy, and piracy is about money and copyright infringement. Its all about the money. The entire copyright system and laws is about money. Even your argument about the collector's market was about money. The whole gaming industry is about money. So it matters. If there is a game that I want to play, that is legitimately available where the developers and publishers of said game will earn money, then I will buy it from them, as will just about every other person who is for emulation. However, that is not always the case. And purchasing an older title from a collector, which is breech of copyright nd a breech of the standard end user license agreement with most older games, is not providing a profit to those who developed the content we desire. Its putting money into the pockets of people who do not usually have a license agreement with that game developer or publisher to sell or re-sell that content for a profit. GameStop has a license agreement with publishers to buy and sell used and new games, collectors have no such legal right to sell games unless they are selling them to an entity that has a distribution license with said original publisher.

Its about the money, always has been, always will be. The majority of collectors do not have the right to sell you a game, for their own profit, without having a license or agreement for distribution from the publisher of said game. Since those collectors likely do NOT have such a license or agreement, and most don't even have Vendors Licenses (making any sale that they make illegal anyhow) it really does matter WHO is getting paid.

The first sale doctrine allows initial purchasers of copyrighted works to resell them. The secondary game market for old cartridges and disks is legal. In Europe, even digital games can be resold by their owner.

 

[Auron]

A very large percentage of the games is not being made anymore, while some are ported digitally like some classics from snes and Megadrive most of them are basically abandonware. I don't see a logical reason to abandon gaming history to dust other than corporate greed.

 

[Swishdude]

A very large percentage of the games is not being made anymore, while some are ported digitally like some classics from snes and Megadrive most of them are basically abandonware. I don't see a logical reason to abandon gaming history to dust other than corporate greed.

I agree. Even modern games can be produced in small numbers making them really hard to find. Take a look for the Metroid Trilogy for the Wii. It's hard to find because it was a limited release!

 

[Vylox]

@Rudy
Your recovering the money you spent, not garnering a profit that is where the crutch is at. As to buying the game from a collector, it doesn't matter if it profits the publisher or developer at that point, what matters is whether or not the collector or reseller makes a profit, and whether they have the permissions to do so.

@SecondPrize
That doctrine allows for one to re-sell the product in question at a loss, not at a profit. Collectors markets are about profit. The secondary market is legal, as long as the seller(s) have a Vendor Permit, Vendors License, or have entered into an agreement with publishers to sell or re-sell said product. And who is to say that the person your purchased that collectors copy of whatever game is the original or initial purchaser ? There is a reason you have to sign stuff when you sell copyrighted materials to a store or facility such as GameStop, and you do so at a loss from the initial purchase price. Notice that I am very specific about the "for profit" portion. Thanks to this amazing piece of legislature in the United States, called the Digital Millennium Act of 1998 which has provisions about sale and re-sale of copyrighted materials, it outlines guidelines about who can and can not re-sell copyrighted material for a profit.

 

[The_Merchant]

emulation is the only reason Ps1/2 games still work on the ps3

 

[Signa]

I kinda disagree with the end of the video. It depends on a case-by-case scenario, but I don't know if I want game companies trying to sell their old product on newer systems. That's mostly because every attempt I've seen so far is ridiculously overvalued, but I question if half of those games sold are even being sold by the people who made them, or just merely the company that owns the rights to it.

See, in the whole piracy argument, the only good reason to not pirate something is so that the original creators get paid for their work. I don't think that is happening regardless if a game is emulated or bought through any other means. Earthbound is supposedly coming to VC soon, but I have to ask how many of the people that worked on it are actually going to see some cash come their way for it. I doubt anyone less than a CEO will see a dime. All buying Earthbound will do is support people who were rich and powerful enough to buy the rights to become more rich and powerful, and reward them for not being talented enough to entertain us. Emulation may not be the perfect answer to that problem, but it at least means your hard earned money won't be going into their lazy pockets.

 

[Do4600]

All this "grey" area stuff is pretty much the same excuses pirates make anyway, pretty much cheapness and laziness.. If you want to find these games you can, you just still need to pay for them saying its overpriced or hard to find or doesnt support the developer is a pretty poor excuse to what ammounts to piracy. When there are generally a ton on ebay you are just being cheap and lazy.

I agree that piracy is cheapness and laziness and it actually does hurt somebody trying to profit on a body of work, but I really don't see the point in paying $120 for Earthbound. You could say that it's again cheapness and laziness but at this point nobody is being hurt by the piracy, it certainly doesn't hurt the collectors, there will always be people who want the original antique that the content came on, that will never change, so it wont' hurt them.

From a moral point of view with piracy of current software I see that the developer has put effort into a game and they deserve to profit from that game if I enjoy it, but with for instance commodore 64 games, the person that put the effort into the game can no longer receive compensation for my enjoyment of the product, the game is now in the realm of things that are worth money because they are rare, like stamps.

If I actually enjoy the design of a stamp that's worth $97,000 because it's one of only seven remaining from a printing in 1917 should I really have to pay $97,000 to enjoy it? Or couldn't I just blow up a picture of it and hang in on my wall for 27 cents?

You can't do that with video games though. I don't want the original antique kinetoscope from 1894 just give me a $2 dvd that has a good recording of the movie on the kinetoscope. I also don't want the original cartridge, keep it, it's fodder for collectors, I want the digital contents of the cartridge, and there still isn't a way that I can pay for a reproduction of the content on most of those goddamn antique plastic cartridges.

There's no reason somebody should have to pay $140 to buy an original first edition printing of the book Cosmos by Carl Sagan just to read it and no reason why somebody should have to pay $140 to buy a first and only edition of Earthbound just to play it, it's silly, especially when it's already in near infinite quantity online and video game publishers have yet to have any interest in releasing any but a tiny fraction of classic video games. Emulation is literally the only thing that's preserving the history of video gaming right now, it's been over 30 years and the industry is only now beginning to take a brief look back and pull a small handful of games back into the public eye. Until they actually do something proactive with a game like re-release it in a way similar to a books second printing or edition, there is no way the masses can interact with those classics besides shopping for ridiculous "first printings" of video games or emulation.

 

[Glaice]

There are some games that are no longer in production that I could not get via physical means, so I see emulation as a way to play them. If it is not being made, nobody is losing money.

 

[Lady Larunai]

All this "grey" area stuff is pretty much the same excuses pirates make anyway, pretty much cheapness and laziness.. If you want to find these games you can, you just still need to pay for them saying its overpriced or hard to find or doesnt support the developer is a pretty poor excuse to what ammounts to piracy. When there are generally a ton on ebay you are just being cheap and lazy.

I agree that piracy is cheapness and laziness and it actually does hurt somebody trying to profit on a body of work, but I really don't see the point in paying $120 for Earthbound. You could say that it's again cheapness and laziness but at this point nobody is being hurt by the piracy, it certainly doesn't hurt the collectors, there will always be people who want the original antique that the content came on, that will never change, so it wont' hurt them.

From a moral point of view with piracy of current software I see that the developer has put effort into a game and they deserve to profit from that game if I enjoy it, but with for instance commodore 64 games, the person that put the effort into the game can no longer receive compensation for my enjoyment of the product, the game is now in the realm of things that are worth money because they are rare, like stamps.

If I actually enjoy the design of a stamp that's worth $97,000 because it's one of only seven remaining from a printing in 1917 should I really have to pay $97,000 to enjoy it? Or couldn't I just blow up a picture of it and hang in on my wall for 27 cents?

You can't do that with video games though. I don't want the original antique kinetoscope from 1894 just give me a $2 dvd that has a good recording of the movie on the kinetoscope. I also don't want the original cartridge, keep it, it's fodder for collectors, I want the digital contents of the cartridge, and there still isn't a way that I can pay for a reproduction of the content on most of those goddamn antique plastic cartridges.

There's no reason somebody should have to pay $140 to buy an original first edition printing of the book Cosmos by Carl Sagan just to read it and no reason why somebody should have to pay $140 to buy a first and only edition of Earthbound just to play it, it's silly, especially when it's already in near infinite quantity online and video game publishers have yet to have any interest in releasing any but a tiny fraction of classic video games. Emulation is literally the only thing that's preserving the history of video gaming right now, it's been over 30 years and the industry is only now beginning to take a brief look back and pull a small handful of games back into the public eye. Until they actually do something proactive with a game like re-release it in a way similar to a books second printing or edition, there is no way the masses can interact with those classics besides shopping for ridiculous "first printings" of video games or emulation.

I had forgotten about this thread.. Ni No Kuni arrived after a 3 months postage so i havent been checking the forums..

geez is earthbound ever expensive -__-' I just checked ebay, damaged copies for $160+ >.<

art seems to fall into a weird category.. nobody cares if its fake as long as you dont claim it to be anything other than that.. but if they sold the cheap $20 prints of it its probably a bit of an ass move to print out your own.. would paintings fall into public domain?

You are right there is no good reason people should need to pay insane amounts to play any of the old systems, i have nothing against anyone that emulates them (but they are still cheap and lazy ), but its not like im going to call the cops on pretty much every person i know, hell i would have to turn in my mum and dad, they are massive pirates, to the point where they would put half this forum to shame.. they have slowed down since they can borrow dvd's from me now

the current system we have is pretty crap when it comes to games, and it is rather stupid to not release the entire library on wiiware or what not.. maybe hire the people who made the emulator to write on for the wii, or do what that earthbound crew did and offer the free translation

Emulation isn't the only thing preserving the history of gaming.. theres me... and a few other people.. though most probably wont let you into their house and play the nes games they have.. (im working on a solution).. maybe i should build a letterbox system for retro games like the dvd rental place

 

[McKitten]

Actually his statement is almost right. If a company does not reasonably attempt to enforce its copyright, ie sending Cease-and-Desist letters and filing lawsuits, then it loses that copyright.

No, you're confusing copyright and trademark protection. Trademark protection can be lost if you don't defend it because it rests on being unique, and if you don't defend it and it's no longer unique you no longer get legal protection for it. Copyright on the other hand can not be lost ever. Heck, you can't even sell it in all jurisdictions (though in the anglo-american system you can).
Anyway, the only way to lose copyright is if the time limit runs out. Until then, the copyright holder is the one who can give permission to make copies or withhold permission to make copies anyone and from anyone he damn well pleases. That's what "copyright" means, and that's why abandon-ware and the like are on sketchy legal ground. Just because the copyright holders can't be bothered to stop people from copying old stuff doesn't mean they have actually given permission.

Emulation on the other hand is perfectly legal. You buy software, you own software, the purchase contract cannot force you to only use the software on specific systems. Even if the EULA tried to get you to agree to that it wouldn't be valid. Although using an emulator with a copied bios from a console is somewhat of a grey area. Not adressed with any certainty by the law yet, but quite likely illegal.

 

[Dominic Crossman]

My golden role for downloading emulations is - can I still buy this in a way that will financially benefit the people who made the game? If the answer is no then I see no problem with downloading a free version, it's why I haven't ever downloaded an emulated version of say Super Mario Kart onto my pc.

If I can't get a physical copy of game I will emulate.
Only expection is if it is on type online store I.e. psn, xbox live

 

[Edl01]

If it's the only way to play a game then knock yourself out and emulate it. If it can be aquired legally for a reasonable price though then I do think you should buy it.

 

[McKitten]

Emulate doesn't mean pirate. It means playing the game on on a computer with software that simulates the console it'd usually run on. You can buy a game and do that. In fact, you should buy the game if you want to do that and then it's perfectly legal.

 

[Genocidicles]

IF you can only buy the game used or you already own a copy then there is no problem whatsoever with emulation.

If the publishers don't want people playing their old games for free then freaking re-release them.