They should sell them all on their current platform then, if they care so much.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
JIMQUISITION: Nintendo, The Industry, And The Attack On Emulators (Bonus: We Happy Few)
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
They should sell them all on their current platform then, if they care so much.
Thanks for the heads up! Looks alright from the video so, coupled with the metacritic score, if the price is right I might take a punt! :)
When a piece of media is unavailable to be purchased and consumed in a reasonably convenient manner via regular legal means without paying out the nose for a used copy, which are in limited supply, the only alternative is, well, piracy. It may not be legally right, but saying "tough shit" sure isn't fair. And "rightsholders" should be shit on as much as possible for, well, not doing something that is basically at this point fairly cheap to do nowadays. You don't beat piracy by trying to play wack-a-mole with it, you simply need to provide a better value proposition than the pirates - just look at how much the NES and SNES Minis are selling despite the arguably limited number of titles on both. Look at iTunes, Spotify and Netflix.
For an NES game, $5 is way too much for what is literally a old rom file, especially if the original developers aren't getting paid anymore. Sure, it would vary via platform, and harder to emulate systems would warrant a higher price due to the effort of getting them working, but systems like the NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. are long-solved problems as far as emulation goes. Honestly, a subscription service would be better suited for emulated titles is better than paying individually, and that sounds like what Nintendo is at least doing on a limited basis with the Switch Online, but as usual, the known selection is anaemic.
I would honestly argue 10-20 years is a better number in terms of balancing the needs of copyright holders and the public domain, the latter's flow has trickled to a crawl due to excessive copyright overreach. But I agree, over 50 years is beyond excessive. Copyight should be a limited-time protection, not a form of welfare for artists (though I'd also advocate a form of Universal Basic Income alongside such changes to make the livelihoods of artists more stable and less beholden to the whims of capitalism), and in the digital age, there is significantly more potential for fan-created works to legally flourish with a rework of copyright, tempered by simple economics preventing people from just flooding the market.
Yes, there are groups actively preserving old games, which is better than the actual "rightsholders" are doing, but the other half is access. Without legal access, nobody other than the very few actively preserving those works can actively appreciate them.
Completely false. Copyright has no such mechanism, only trademarks require active legal defense. It's a common misconception, but a misconception all the same.
Don't share Monalisa pictures, If you really want then buy the original
You know what? I would absolutely pay for that 'Netflix of emulation' idea. It would make a damn sight more sense than bashing NES games over people's heads until they're utterly sick of the platform plan Nintendo is currently doing.
This is not how copyright works or will ever work. Really tired of people still posting that ridiculously uninformed argument to justify shit like taking down fan projects.
I disagree with Jim's comment about the pills at the end there, I think it's pretty clear the developer is talking about pill abuse culture for millions of people who are not clinically depressed, but seek a short-term boost to their mood just because it makes them feel good.
No, but the idea of defending an IP to ensure to doesn't become ubiquitous and thus lose protection IS the more valid reason companies take this action.
And Nintendo have certainly done this in the past, with games like Great Giana Sisters, et al.
you can't lose protection to your IP. IP is copyright. You can't lose it no matter how many fan games exist in the world.
Perhaps you need to come and lecture to my work's legal department then...
You know, I don't get why all of these companies don't come together and do a Hulu type venture. A bunch of IP owners making a bunch of their properties available for a subscription. It seems like a no brainer. You work out the legal stuff and bam - everyone is getting revenue for stuff they weren't monetizing before.
I don't see the problem with the statement unless you equate sadness with clinical depression.
The guy said nothing about depression. Seems he was talking about people who abuse drugs to get away from life's everyday challenges.
And there's clearly a problem of too many people doing that in America.
The guy said nothing about depression. Seems he was talking about people who abuse drugs to get away from life's everyday challenges.
And there's clearly a problem of too many people doing that in America.
It does seem like they need a couple lessons since they seemingly don't know how copyright works, yes.
As someone who thinks game preservation is important and has a lot of ROM's from old consoles and arcades, most of which would be unplayable today without emulators, I think Nintendo and the other game companies should be doing more to make sure old and classic games are not locked away / forgotten / lost.
If these games were still being sold and Nintendo was losing money, fair enough, they shouldn't be free online but the classic games that aren't being sold anymore, should definitely be available for people to play and collect.
If Nintendo and the others don't want to offer a service to allow their classic games to be purchased, that's their own stupid business decision, I certainly won't feel bad about playing classic game ROM's and saving them for future generations to play too.
If these games were still being sold and Nintendo was losing money, fair enough, they shouldn't be free online but the classic games that aren't being sold anymore, should definitely be available for people to play and collect.
If Nintendo and the others don't want to offer a service to allow their classic games to be purchased, that's their own stupid business decision, I certainly won't feel bad about playing classic game ROM's and saving them for future generations to play too.
You mis-read me, my friend. They're an IP company, you might be able to give them some pointers. ;)
Feel free to source your arguments with actual arguments instead of pointing to imaginary people, thanks.
Yeah We Happy Few's whole stance on anti-depressants is incredibly troubling and if nothing else entirely outdated. I'm not personally on anti-depressants myself but my girlfriend has been on and off them in various doses since I met her and they're the only reason she's not dead.
What they're doing is still shitty and incredibly detrimental to games preservation however.
Tbf, they currently sell two products with the express purpose of emulating NES and SNES games. But they can't exactly issue takes downs for just the 30 games they chose to support.
What they're doing is still shitty and incredibly detrimental to games preservation however.
Would be nice if license agreements were actually bound to the game, but in return valid for eternity. This way companies didn't have to renegotiate licenses if they wanted to re-release their games. That'll make at least some games easier available and would avoid that some games have to be removed from digital stores after a while.
You can still re-download and play the game if you already purchased it, nothing illegal about that. Buying it fresh in 2018 is a different story.
I feel like people are projecting their own hangups around the topic of medication onto the game's message and twisting benign comments into something else. It's also clear that most of the people talking about We Happy Few have never played it. That torpedoes sensible discussion of its themes more than anything else.
The game is not about clinical depression. Like, at all. To interpret it as that requires wilful ignorance. It kinda reminds me of that time Jim Sterling didn't understand that the word "Nork" has been US military slang for North Korea since the 50s, when discussing Homefront: The Revolution. (Not to mention publications like Playboy and Killscreen publishing absolutely ludicrous articles accusing the game of being racist and white supremacist and xenophobic and a bunch of other completely nonsensical things.)
But anyway, back on topic -- We Happy Few is about the past. If you made a terrible, terrible mistake, and you were the British government, how far would you go to make the awful collective guilt go away? To dull it. What price happiness? The central theme of WHF is not difficult to grasp. That's why most of the professional reviews have not gone on this bizarre tangent. Because it's not supported by the game.
As for the writer's comment on Facebook while it was a bit glib, people do wear masks on Social Media. Sure, some people wallow in their outrage. But people ultimately wear masks. Do we value sadness? Not necessarily. We value cheerfulness. We value indignant outrage. We don't value people dredging up things we don't want to remember. Go on social media and try telling people on any particular side of the political spectrum that "We've made a terrible mistake. <insert political thing here> was wrong. We were wrong. We have to face that." People don't want to hear it.
Using "Game Preservation" as an argument for ROMs and emulation is not really viable in my perspective. As a consumer - I am i no way entitled to claim access to any form of original content, unless i legally own it under no circumstance of "end user agreement". Digital games serve under the terms you approve of when registrering an account on a digital store front, or registrering an user on a internet connected console.
Here are some qoutes from Microsofts store terms (whole section found here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/terms-of-sale):
I think gamers generally under value the Nintendo Brand therefore it is easy to use the argument that "they would definetly profit from it" - simply because many gamers have a slight tainted relationship to Nintendo in this digital connected ERA. I would guess managing the legacy of Nintendo is no easy task.
Here are some qoutes from Microsofts store terms (whole section found here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/terms-of-sale):
- " Product prices and availability are subject to change at any time and without notice."
- " We may disable access to content associated with your account for any reason. We may also remove or disable games, applications, content, or services on your device in order to protect the Store or potentially affected parties. Some content and applications may be unavailable from time to time or may be offered for a limited time."
- "Except to the extent required by applicable law, we have no obligation to provide a re-download or replacement of any content or application you purchase."
I think gamers generally under value the Nintendo Brand therefore it is easy to use the argument that "they would definetly profit from it" - simply because many gamers have a slight tainted relationship to Nintendo in this digital connected ERA. I would guess managing the legacy of Nintendo is no easy task.
https://kotaku.com/in-defense-of-roms-a-solution-to-dying-games-and-broke-1828340811
I'd make a new thread for this article, but I have a feeling it'd devolve in the same arguments anyway. But it's worth a read.
I'd make a new thread for this article, but I have a feeling it'd devolve in the same arguments anyway. But it's worth a read.