Should old games be free?

[Neverhoodian]

No, they shouldn't be free, but they should be a hell of a lot cheaper. Why does a copy of FFVII go for a $150? That's just stupid.

hehe I agree, and.. I still have a copy of that in the shrink wrap

Better keep it that way, it will help pay for your grandkid's college tuition some day.

I don't mind shelling out money for old games as long as it's much less than what new games go far. I like to think that when I spend $5 or $10 for a title off of GOG, it sends a message to the developers (assuming they're still around) that I support their older titles and perhaps wouldn't mind a return in the form of a sequel or reboot.

Of course, I certainly won't complain if a developer decides to give away their old games for free (thanks for my free downloads of Arena and Daggerfall, Bethesda!).

 

[Jaffinnegan]

Its down to if the Dev wants to or not, its there call.

 

[cybran]

Bethesda did this with the games before Morrowind in the elder scrolls series.

I know daggerfall atleast can be downloaded for free at their homepage.

 

[Nitrozzy7]

Everything should be free. But since we're not living in a utopian future I'd say no. Darn cheap yes. Free No. That's cause I don't think it viable for the companies. Owning a copy of a game on every format (current and future) would be truly grate and a grate money saviour.
In simple words; When I buy a copy now I want to be able to play it on PS9 when that comes out without paying extra. And I want it on HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHD.

 

[emeraldrafael]

not free, but lowering the price, sure.

Um.. no. They own it the rights to it. Should have cars that are over 30 years old be free? Should old houses be free? thats just... just no.

thats different, an old game is out of production for a reason: the developer doesnt expect to make money on it any more. a 30 year old car is also out of production, but its being sold second hand, so it could be free if the owner so wished. and houses are sold by real estate companies, who DO expect to make money on it.
and they own the rights, but the games are second hand. the devs dont make any more money.

Hes not talking second hand hes saying old games. like, brand new, still in the package. Like if you just bought Spyro for the PS1 out of the store, brand new, still in the plastic.

And also, no, its not different. Old cars are out of prodcution for a reason too. But if you're still wanting to buy one, new, not second hand (I dont know hwere you got this second hand shit, the OP never said second hand at all, they just said really old games released through the developers), car companies and real estate/banks/whoever at the time is owning the old house will want and expect you to pay.

 

[imanerd000]

if anything, they need to rerelease old games again, like GOG is doing!

 

[Treblaine]

Games can't just be 'made free'. Someone still has to actively distribute them, incurring costs in the process... good luck finding that person.

A 40MB file... can't be that hard to distribute.

Hell, even a 4GB file people find easy to distribute for free through the internetz and they in fact DO! The only thing that needs to change is to make such activity (for certain games) legal. And for many games they already are legal to freely distribute.

 

[Gigano]

Games can't just be 'made free'. Someone still has to actively distribute them, incurring costs in the process... good luck finding that person.

You mean, as in freely digitally distribute them over the internet, i.e. what all kinds of illegal piracy sites already do, only made legal for them to do with games of no commercial value?

...I don't think they're going to abide to a strict "no distribution unless we risk prosecution" mantra.

 

[Atmos Duality]

"Historic protection" would be most appropriate. That is to say, if a game is still on the market, they would have to re-apply for copyright after some arbitrary number of years (I'd place it at a decade personally; given how quickly games move). If the copyright isn't filed, it would be assumed that the owner doesn't have any feasible plans for that title in the future.
(this prevents the usual pussyfooting around with questionably "dead IPs", such as the whole King's Quest debacle. Specifically, that fan-made-King's Quest game that Activision killed off after reversing Sierra's decision to go-head with it. All because Activision acquired all of Sierra's remaining IPs in the buyout).

Note: I would make a distinction between "Individual Game/Title" and "Franchise", though last I recall copyright already does that (and Disney actually had to get a special exception to re-apply for Mickey Mouse since he hit 75 years of age, and would have gone into the Public Domain if that exception wasn't made. Good ol' double-standards eh?)

 

[similar.squirrel]

If the original platform is defunct and the publisher has no intention of re-releasing the product for current machines, then yes.

 

[Donbett1974]

No because Nintendo would have to start making games again and nobody wants that. Hint hint nudge nudge Nintendo love ya but this crap is getting real old.

 

[migo]

When a product no longer has any current or future market position, then the reason to extend protection to it in the first place - to secure that investors, developers, and retailers are being paid - no longer applies.

So yes, if they've lost any real market value, then there's no reason to deny access to them. As GOG have proven, "old game" doesn't necessarily mean "no market" though, so as long as it's actually being sold in retail, copyright protection should remain in place no matter its age.

Copyright protection should never exist in the first place. It's presuming guilt without proof, and only punishes legitimate customers. Copyright Legislation should also revert to something much more reasonable, the way it was at the beginning of the 20th Century.

 

[Manji187]

Some games did not age well + compatibility issues...

Why not remake a game for the new generation? Imagine such classics as Deus Ex and System Shock 2, with better graphics and voice-acting, while retaining the same story and characters. Gameplay could be updated/ modified.

 

[Gigano]

...
Copyright protection should never exist in the first place. It's presuming guilt without proof, and only punishes legitimate customers.

I'm assuming you're referring to DRM limitations here.

Yeah, those are pretty inane, considering that 20+ years have shown them to be patently ineffective against the pirates they're meant to curtail (...barring the PS3 for several years, but there it was part of the console itself, and even that eventually fell), and they can prevent customers from the taking the legitimate back-ups when otherwise entitled to do so by the law.

Copyright Legislation should also revert to something much more reasonable, the way it was at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Well, that might be going a bit far, but a rebalancing between industry and consumer rights is certainly overdue... also for the sake of the industry, which don't seem to get that it's because the law is so heavily slanted in their favour - with no rights to correspond to the obligations - that it's so damn hard to get people to respect it.

When it comes to games with a market position, there is a legitimate need for allowing investors, developers, and retailers to turn a profit off them; otherwise we wouldn't be seeing any games. That protection should be dependant on there being an actual market position for the product on the national market though, it should expire much faster than it does today (maybe 15 years from the last update to the product), it should not prevent back-ups, and the sanctions attached to it/compensations awarded under it should be made proportional.

Considering that the creation of most of the world's copyright legislation is dominated by the US - where the process is again dominated by industry lobbyism - that's not going to happen any time soon though. Despite the fact that anyone familiar with legal sociology could tell them that the current approach is pretty much as dead an end as prohibition was.

 

[Tallim]

I think you should email GOG and ask them how their business model of re-releasing old games is working for them before you decide that they won't make money on it.

GOG are great. I fully support what they do. It's not like they just release the games untouched. They fix them so they work on modern OSs which can be horrendous to deal with. Plus no DRM.

Although i am curious to know how much profit they actually make.